8 ms·

What do you define as hedonism and its philosophical roots/components?

cheeseomlit 3y ago
Epicureanism perhaps? The hedonist mindset is certainly not novel to the 20th century as that poster seems to imply- Though I largely agree with their characterization of it, as its popularity seems to accompany periods of societal decline- Though whether it is a cause or a symptom is hard to say
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I would find it hard to draw a line from classical Epicureanism towards social decline or simply map some hedonistic periods of the 20th century onto it.
  - cheeseomlit 3y ago
    The line would be overly broad and blurry, to be sure. But I think Voltaire's maxim has some sense to it- "History is only the pattern of silken slippers descending the stairs to the thunder of hobnailed boots climbing upward from below." The rise and fall of great societies frequently parallel this general difference in temperament- The prosperous fruits of stoic labor create a lavish environment for their successors, in which they languish in indolence and allow the foundations built by their ancestors to crumble for want of diligence and prudence.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      The problem is, that it is so much in the interest of those in power and with means to promote "stoic labor".
      - rayiner 3y ago
        Maybe, but it’s also in the interest of ordinary people. Look what that attitude did for countries like Singapore, Korea, and Japan. It’s easy to rile people up for redistribution. It’s much harder to create a culture oriented towards building.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        I am not talking about redistribution or riling people up, but I don't see building and some forms of hedonism as fundamentally incompatible.
rayiner 3y ago
I think if you’re talking about social change that happens at scale, people are not necessarily following a specific coherent philosophy. But hedonistic values were widely adopted in various contexts in the mid-20th century. For example the sexual revolution and free love movement of the 1960s: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19053382 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19053382. These attitudes are also prevalent in terms of messages given to young people regarding vocation (“follow your bliss,” etc.)
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  What is the net social negative then? How do we know, given that counterfactuals are not readily available. What philosophy (in a broader sense) should people follow? Do we want forever a society where people need to do "shitty jobs", for example, to satisfy some philosophical need for "suffering"?
  - rayiner 3y ago
    You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Singapore, would they be able to turn it into the modern and wealthy city it is today?
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like? You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.
      - rayiner 3y ago

Epicureanism perhaps? The hedonist mindset is certainly not novel to the 20th century as that poster seems to imply- Though I largely agree with their characterization of it, as its popularity seems to accompany periods of societal decline- Though whether it is a cause or a symptom is hard to say

RandomLensman 3y ago
I would find it hard to draw a line from classical Epicureanism towards social decline or simply map some hedonistic periods of the 20th century onto it.
- cheeseomlit 3y ago
  The line would be overly broad and blurry, to be sure. But I think Voltaire's maxim has some sense to it- "History is only the pattern of silken slippers descending the stairs to the thunder of hobnailed boots climbing upward from below." The rise and fall of great societies frequently parallel this general difference in temperament- The prosperous fruits of stoic labor create a lavish environment for their successors, in which they languish in indolence and allow the foundations built by their ancestors to crumble for want of diligence and prudence.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The problem is, that it is so much in the interest of those in power and with means to promote "stoic labor".
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Maybe, but it’s also in the interest of ordinary people. Look what that attitude did for countries like Singapore, Korea, and Japan. It’s easy to rile people up for redistribution. It’s much harder to create a culture oriented towards building.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        I am not talking about redistribution or riling people up, but I don't see building and some forms of hedonism as fundamentally incompatible.

rayiner 3y ago

I think if you’re talking about social change that happens at scale, people are not necessarily following a specific coherent philosophy. But hedonistic values were widely adopted in various contexts in the mid-20th century. For example the sexual revolution and free love movement of the 1960s: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19053382 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19053382. These attitudes are also prevalent in terms of messages given to young people regarding vocation (“follow your bliss,” etc.)

RandomLensman 3y ago
What is the net social negative then? How do we know, given that counterfactuals are not readily available. What philosophy (in a broader sense) should people follow? Do we want forever a society where people need to do "shitty jobs", for example, to satisfy some philosophical need for "suffering"?
- rayiner 3y ago
  You’re right, we don’t have any easy counterfactual. But we can draw inferences from observations and conduct thought experiments. If we dropped some people from San Francisco off in the hostile desert of Utah, would they be able to create thriving cities like the Mormons did? If we dropped them off in the frigid plains of Illinois, would they be able to create Chicago? If you dropped them off in the mudflats of Singapore, would they be able to turn it into the modern and wealthy city it is today?
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Not sure why building cities in the Utah desert matters today. The question is much broader, I think: without some of the 1960s hedonism, would we have had some of effects of counterculture that manifested in tech? Would we have had more wars like Vietnam? How would society look like? You can, of course, say you want a different society - but that is a different take, really.
    - rayiner 3y ago