Talk:Paradox of hedonism

message: I don't see why the ethics category should not be used here.  Am I correct in thinking that that's the topic of a minor edit war that's going on in this article? Michael Hardy 21:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: The criticism section currently says that the paradox has no systematic place in empirical sciences. Maybe the neuroscientific perspective is lacking from the article? There is a simple explanation for this phenomenon: the brain seeks homoeostasis.
Pleasure serves as a reward within the framework of what is ultimately a survival mechanism, and for such a reward to work it needs to be in short supply, and so it tapers off soon. The upshot is that to stay pleased, you need to ration the consumption of any one pleasurable thing, and instead switch between different sources of pleasure after just a bit of consumption.
Un-/happiness is a higher-order state of being that draws on pleasure but is not directly connected. It appears to have a set point that you never deviate much from — no matter how good or bad life is, your un-/happiness soon dials back to your default level. Since any happiness is short-lived, there is little point in expending oneself to attain the highest possible happiness. Conversely, since any unhappiness is equally short-lived, there need be no fear of plans panning out worse than expected. You are never going to be much better or much worse off. The rational conclusion to draw is that what is valuable to chase is not happiness but simply experiences.
Your Brain: The Missing Manual by Matthew MacDonald has a chapter with a simple and cogent explanation of all of this.
—Aristotle (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about neuroscience? 

message: Can anybody explain the picture?  Even most one panel cartoons have some sort of caption.
Root4(one) 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Side Picture Explanation. 

message: I think that Hobbes should be quoted here. Hobbes makes a strong argument that man is naturally greedy, and will always look for egotistical desire fulfillment if given the opportunity to. (Hobbes' Leviathan). Hobbes' man in the state of nature will not stop at anything to achieve this desire fulfillment, except if other desires are being restricted. Ask a man if he is happy (as Locke says, quoted above) and man stops being happy because he realizes that there is more out there to pursue. That is greed.Farazars 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody's going to keep you from quoting (or even paraphrasing) Hobbes.  Given the current quality of the article, anything from a notable person or reliable source would probably help.  Root4(one) 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Explanations section 

message: I find this paragraph interesting, but it also seems awkwardly written, based on a limited paradigm, and quite irrelevant.  Before I consider deleting it, I want to see if there is some explanation as to its place in this article.  I understand the meaning, but I think that, unfortunately, it serves only to confuse or at least distract the reader.  MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it was deleted when I looked at it today; I deleted the remainder (which was only the first sentence) because it was unreferenced and didn't make any sense. -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph of [[Paradox of hedonism#Example|Example]] 

message: Before my last edit, the first sentence of this article read "The paradox of hedonism, also called the pleasure paradox, is the idea in the study of ethics which points out that pleasure and happiness are strange phenomena that do not obey normal principles." This introduction accepts that the paradox of hedonism is a true paradox that shows that pleasure and happiness somehow transcend logic, which isn't NPOV, considering that the Suggested Explanations section points out that the paradox doesn't arise if you don't equate happiness and pleasure. 
The opening sentence now reads, "The paradox of hedonism, also called the pleasure paradox, is a thought experiment in the study of ethics which explores the nature of pleasure and happiness." This introduces the concept without taking a stance on it.
This article needs more work to be NPOV, though. At the moment, it quite clearly advocates the idea that pleasure cannot be acquired directly, which is hardly even a generally accepted point of view. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Sentence, NPOV issues 

message: I suggest that Nietzsche and Adler quotations be removed; even if they deal with the issue of happiness, they have nothing to do with the paradox of hedonism.
Frankl´s view is on topic, and thus should be kept, but is regrettable, because it pressuposes one can´t be happy by one´s own. One of the most important things I learned from my therapist is that one should be happy by one´s own before being able to be happy with someone else. I have read something very close to this somewhere in Wikipedia. If only I could remember where...
Other than that, this article is of great value. I think everyone should read it.
Binho Gomes (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche and Adler 

message: I've taken out the quote:
* Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in Either/Or:
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.Søren Kierkegaard. Either/Or. Diapsalmata
as I'm pretty sure it is mythical. (Much admired though it is on the internet! It seems to originate in Britannica 1911. 
The nearest he seems to come to it is to write;
‘Most men rush after pleasure so fast that they rush right past it.’
page 29, Kierkegaards Writings: Either/Or Part 1
by Søren Kierkegaard, Howard V. Hong
The context however indicates that the sense is distorted in the popular version - Kierkegaard is cynical, not mellow about happiness - he even uses the metaphor of a dwarf guarding a princess in a castle!
Gemtpm (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kierkegaard 

message: The example doesn't make any sense to me.
If Paul likes collecting stamps, then by definition he is deriving pleasure directly from doing so. If he collects stamps but does not enjoy it, by definition that's not going to make him happy.  This happens regardless of what his motivation was in starting stamp collecting.  Maybe he heard other people enjoy doing it, so tried it, and either liked it or didn't.  Maybe he was intrinsically attracted to stamps and so started collecting them for pleasure. It's just a matter of personal preference.  Am I misunderstanding?  Maybe this whole concept is just bogus. -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an oversimplification, which ignores far more complex behavior. An example would be, "Paul enjoys stamps, but feels fulfillment when completing a particular series or monetary value", with fulfillment equating to happiness.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example