No, not really. Or, at least, not obviously. I can see making an argument that most LW users implicitly adopt a hedonistic model when thinking about stuff-people-value, even if they would explicitly reject such a model. I’m not sure that’s true, but I’m not sure it’s false either; certainly I find myself doing that sometimes when I don’t pay attention. I don’t think that’s sufficient justification to declare hedonism a local consensus, but I suppose one could probably make that argument as well.
That seems entirely wrong. In fact, I think “eudaimonic hedonism” is just a contradiction in terms. Normally eudaimonic well-being is contrasted with hedonistic well-being.
ETA: Maybe you were thinking, “Eudaimonist utlitiarianism is still a form of utilitarianism”?
I meant what I said. Eudaimonic hedonism is still a form of hedonism. Eudaimonia is simply redefined happiness.
It is contrasted with “traditional” hedonism in common usage, but the relationship is quite clear. Eudaimonia is not a rejection of traditional hedonism but a modification.
Hedonism and eudaimonia can both be considered types of ‘happiness’ - thus we talk about “hedonic well-being” and “eudaimonic well-being”, and we can construe both as ways of talking about ‘happiness’. But it’s a misconstrual of eudaimonia to think it reduces to pleasure, and a misuse of ‘hedonism’ to refer to goals other than pleasure.
Eudaimonia is essentially epicurian hedonism, as contrasted with cyrenaic.
I think we’re better to follow Aristotle than Epicurus in defining eudaimonia. It’s at least the primary way the word is used now. Being a good human is just not a sort of pleasure.
pleasure is the “measure of utility”. That is; utility is pleasure; pleasure is utility.
Eudaimonic pleasure—happiness—is of a nature that wireheading would not qualify as valid happiness/pleasure. It would be like ‘empty calories’; tasty but unfulfilling.
So no, I do not not mean that ‘pleasure is the “measure of utility”’ is the mainstream consensus view on LessWrong. I do mean that, and I believe it to be so. “Hedons” and “utilons” are used interchangeably here.
So you do not mean that LWers hold that pleasure (by which I mean the standard definition) is the measure of utility, and that these people would wirehead and are therefore wrong.
What? Really?
(I’m thinking of this and this.)
No, not really.
Or, at least, not obviously.
I can see making an argument that most LW users implicitly adopt a hedonistic model when thinking about stuff-people-value, even if they would explicitly reject such a model. I’m not sure that’s true, but I’m not sure it’s false either; certainly I find myself doing that sometimes when I don’t pay attention. I don’t think that’s sufficient justification to declare hedonism a local consensus, but I suppose one could probably make that argument as well.
Eudaimonic hedonism is still a form of hedonism.
(EDIT: Specifically it’s epicurian as compared to cyrenaic.)
That seems entirely wrong. In fact, I think “eudaimonic hedonism” is just a contradiction in terms. Normally eudaimonic well-being is contrasted with hedonistic well-being.
ETA: Maybe you were thinking, “Eudaimonist utlitiarianism is still a form of utilitarianism”?
I meant what I said. Eudaimonic hedonism is still a form of hedonism. Eudaimonia is simply redefined happiness.
It is contrasted with “traditional” hedonism in common usage, but the relationship is quite clear. Eudaimonia is not a rejection of traditional hedonism but a modification.
Definitely just mincing words here, but...
Hedonism and eudaimonia can both be considered types of ‘happiness’ - thus we talk about “hedonic well-being” and “eudaimonic well-being”, and we can construe both as ways of talking about ‘happiness’. But it’s a misconstrual of eudaimonia to think it reduces to pleasure, and a misuse of ‘hedonism’ to refer to goals other than pleasure.
This is simply not true. Eudaimonia is essentially epicurian hedonism, as contrasted with cyrenaic.
Looking only at the wiki page, epicurian moral thought doesn’t look like what I remember from reading Aristotle’s Ethics. But it’s been a while.
I think we’re better to follow Aristotle than Epicurus in defining eudaimonia. It’s at least the primary way the word is used now. Being a good human is just not a sort of pleasure.
I see. Then you do not mean that
is the consensus view here at LW. Since after all, the consensus view here is that wireheading is a bad idea.
Eudaimonic pleasure—happiness—is of a nature that wireheading would not qualify as valid happiness/pleasure. It would be like ‘empty calories’; tasty but unfulfilling.
So no, I do not not mean that ‘pleasure is the “measure of utility”’ is the mainstream consensus view on LessWrong. I do mean that, and I believe it to be so. “Hedons” and “utilons” are used interchangeably here.
So you do not mean that LWers hold that pleasure (by which I mean the standard definition) is the measure of utility, and that these people would wirehead and are therefore wrong.