Can hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure) lead to happiness?

caramel

caramel

Member
In this study in Science Daily, researchers say that hedonism can lead to happiness.

"Relaxing on the sofa or savoring a delicious meal: Enjoying short-term pleasurable activities that don't lead to long-term goals contributes at least as much to a happy life as self-control, according to new research. The researchers therefore argue for a greater appreciation of hedonism in psychology.

We all set ourselves long-term goals from time to time, such as finally getting into shape, eating less sugar or learning a foreign language. Research has devoted much time to finding out how we can reach these goals more effectively. The prevailing view is that self-control helps us prioritize long-term goals over momentary pleasure and that if you are good at self-control, this will usually result in a happier and more successful life.

"It's time for a rethink," says Katharina Bernecker, researcher in motivational psychology at the University of Zurich. "Of course self-control is important, but research on self-regulation should pay just as much attention to hedonism, or short-term pleasure." That's because Bernecker's new research shows that people's capacity to experience pleasure or enjoyment contributes at least as much to a happy and satisfied life as successful self-control."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200727114739.htm

It seems to be the prevailing thought that self-control leading to the attainment of long-term goals leads to happiness. But often, people aren't happy with those goals when they attain them.. Could the appreciation of the moment in the form of short-term pleasures lead to happiness?
 

I've kind of thought of this: People with unlimited money and resources. What do they enjoy. I'll bet there are some who live below their means. But for many I think, when you can have all you want, you are never satisfied.
 

StillLearning said:
Author says a luxury becomes a necessity very quickly. Then as Sapiens we are constantly looking for more. Never satisfied.
Click to expand...
There's a name for this. It's called the hedonic treadmill. It's just human nature, and a necessary part of human nature. Humans become acclimated to whatever circumstance they're in. If the circumstance is very luxurious, people become accustomed to the luxury. Conversely, if the circumstances change and things become sparse, people adapt to that too.

I mentioned this to someone. He took it as his mantra, not wanting to add any luxuries to his life for fear that he'd become accustomed to them and need more. He became proud of his lack of indulgences. From what I could tell, it didn't make him very happy.

I don't think the converse is necessarily true. The race to the poorest person doesn't seem to bring happiness either.

I think there's something about the "looking for more", how it's done and for what reason it's done. If it's to fill up a need like an addiction, that can be neverending. But there are people who have a little or a lot who are content with what they have.

Hedonic treadmill - Wikipedia
 
This reminds me of a Hexagram in the I-Ching "Nourishment". The lines progress from a cracked well that hold no water, so nourishment is impossible. Each line, the well is taken care of better. If I am not mistaken one line talks of overindulgence and how it is harmful. The main idea being to be mindful of what we choose to keep ourselves healthy/nourished.
 
caramel said:
There's a name for this. It's called the hedonic treadmill. It's just human nature, and a necessary part of human nature. Humans become acclimated to whatever circumstance they're in. If the circumstance is very luxurious, people become accustomed to the luxury. Conversely, if the circumstances change and things become sparse, people adapt to that too.

I mentioned this to someone. He took it as his mantra, not wanting to add any luxuries to his life for fear that he'd become accustomed to them and need more. He became proud of his lack of indulgences. From what I could tell, it didn't make him very happy.

I don't think the converse is necessarily true. The race to the poorest person doesn't seem to bring happiness either.

I think there's something about the "looking for more", how it's done and for what reason it's done. If it's to fill up a need like an addiction, that can be neverending. But there are
Click to expand...
 
Victor said:
This ancient question is more than 2300 years old. Epicureans said yes. most philosophers since
Said in the short run yes. Long run. No definitely
Click to expand...
Interesting. After reading this, I looked up Epicureanism and that led me to Stoicism as a contrast. Many people have stereotyped them.

The Epicureans and Stoics had similarities.

"Both philosophies were founded in Athens around 300 B.C as the lives of both Zeno and Epicurus, the founders of the two schools, overlapped. They both counseled that we should avoid excessive pleasure and desires. And to settle an important point early on, Epicureanism did not advocate for excessive self-indulgence the way we may think they did. (Just as the Stoics were not unfeeling and reject emotions.)"

The differences were not as stark as some portrayed them to be.

"For Epicureans, virtue was a means to an end, that is, pleasure, whereas for Stoics it was their guiding principle and the foundation of their way of life."

Epicureanism and Stoicism: Lessons, Similarities and Differences
 
caramel said:
There's a name for this. It's called the hedonic treadmill. It's just human nature, and a necessary part of human nature. Humans become acclimated to whatever circumstance they're in. If the circumstance is very luxurious, people become accustomed to the luxury. Conversely, if the circumstances change and things become sparse, people adapt to that too.

I mentioned this to someone. He took it as his mantra, not wanting to add any luxuries to his life for fear that he'd become accustomed to them and need more. He became proud of his lack of indulgences. From what I could tell, it didn't make him very happy.

I don't think the converse is necessarily true. The race to the poorest person doesn't seem to bring happiness either.

I think there's something about the "looking for more", how it's done and for what reason it's done. If it's to fill up a need like an addiction, that can be neverending. But there are people who have a little or a lot who are content with what they have.

Hedonic treadmill - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
:) To seek pleasure brings pain and frustration. To seek goodness brings pleasure.
 
gruntlabor said:
Yes, the pursuit of pleasure leads to addiction. Addiction leads to hopeless entrapment.
Click to expand...
I hate to agree but I believe this wholeheartedly. Some pleasures can become addictive and when that happens it’s not as pleasurable. I’d say it depends on the pleasures you’re personally seeking and the potential consequences they can involve or inflict
 
There's nothing wrong with enjoying activities you find pleasurable, as long as they don't come at the expense of your well-being or that of others.
Find activities you like that also contributes to something larger than yourself, like helping others, learning new skills, or creating something can be pleasurable. I guess being addicted to good things is ok. :)
 
If someone can live a solitary life, one that has no effect on others, then perhaps the answer to the thread's question is yes.

However, few of us meet that criteria. Therefore, we can't just about satisfying ourselves without concern for the goals, ambitions, and the feelings of others.

That said, as one moves toward the end of life, we can more readily recognize the folly of much we once held dear, and "fun". Life, as it turns out, requires sacrifice, compromise, and self-reflection. It's all a matter of perspective, and that perspective changes over time.
 
caramel said:
Interesting. After reading this, I looked up Epicureanism and that led me to Stoicism as a contrast. Many people have stereotyped them.

The Epicureans and Stoics had similarities.

"Both philosophies were founded in Athens around 300 B.C as the lives of both Zeno and Epicurus, the founders of the two schools, overlapped. They both counseled that we should avoid excessive pleasure and desires. And to settle an important point early on, Epicureanism did not advocate for excessive self-indulgence the way we may think they did. (Just as the Stoics were not unfeeling and reject emotions.)"

The differences were not as stark as some portrayed them to be.

"For Epicureans, virtue was a means to an end, that is, pleasure, whereas for Stoics it was their guiding principle and the foundation of their way of life."

Epicureanism and Stoicism: Lessons, Similarities and Differences
Click to expand...
Yeah. Today epicurean means gourmet eating but not originally. A good fish platter was an ancient delight not all could have. Modest pleasure without getting drunk. Interesting that much self-help today is straight from stoicism influence. Seneca and Epictetus easy reading applies now
 
well the greeks are a happy crowd but have lost all their young folk for fields afar ; have good beaches ; fishing and food but in huge debt to the common masrket fund - wherever that is ? - perhaps their glorious days are over??
 


Back
Top