(March 4, 2026 at 5:46 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: What do people think of my stipulative definition of defining a pleasure as an experience worth having for its own sake?
I am happy for people to accept or reject that definition, because I think that someone could reject it and we still might not disagree substantively.
So then, what is the nature of pleasure?
I think there have been two main definitions of pleasure over the years.
The first is the one you give: pleasure is gained from an activity that has no goal beyond itself. For example, we listen to music because it gives us pleasure, not because we expect payment or some other additional benefit.
(This is from Aristotle, and Kant uses the same idea in regard to art. For Kant, art is art if we look at it for its own sake, not for some further benefit.)
The other definition is that pleasure is a by-product when we achieve other goals. That is, if you are living well, doing what is good for you and those around you, you get pleasure from this. You don't try to be good because you want the pleasure -- you want to be good because it's good to be good -- but the pleasure is a happy side effect.
I'd say that in my own life I feel both of these, though I'm no expert.
I also keep in mind what Kurt Vonnegut said about a happy day, which is not quite what you're asking, but related: "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt."
