jueves, 10 de octubre de 2013
miércoles, 9 de octubre de 2013
Hedonismo Gastronómico
Pleasure as a Right
“Pleasure is a human right because it is physiological; we cannot fail to feel pleasure when we eat.” Thus claims Carlo Petrini on page 50 of his Slow Food Nation (2007), while arguing for the importance of the hedonistic dimension of eating. Petrini’s position, which is exemplar ofgastronomic hedonism, stands in direct opposition to gastronomic purism. Let’s see why that’s the case.
Hedonism
“Pleasure is a human right because it is physiological; we cannot fail to feel pleasure when we eat.” Thus claims Carlo Petrini on page 50 of his Slow Food Nation (2007), while arguing for the importance of the hedonistic dimension of eating. Petrini’s position, which is exemplar ofgastronomic hedonism, stands in direct opposition to gastronomic purism. Let’s see why that’s the case.
Hedonism
Hedonism has a bad reputation in most quarters and, with some reflection, it is even hard to understand why that is the case. After all, what is hedonism? It’s just the principle of conduct according to which the motivation for action is pleasure. Don’t you think that pleasure, rather than sheer duty, is often part of your reasons for undertaking an action? If you are hesitant on how you would answer this question, try and see if you don’t actually catch yourself in some hedonistic behavior.
Hedonism should not be confused with egoism, according to which the motivation for action ispersonal pleasure. While personal pleasure may motivate some actions, it need not be at the root of any action; or, at least, so one could think, although several Utilitarianists would have objected to it.
Hedonism should not be confused with egoism, according to which the motivation for action ispersonal pleasure. While personal pleasure may motivate some actions, it need not be at the root of any action; or, at least, so one could think, although several Utilitarianists would have objected to it.
Gastronomic Hedonism
From hedonism we can define its gastronomic declination: gastronomic hedonism is the principle of conduct according to which the motivations for nourishment are the pleasures derived from eating. Sensory pleasures to the front of the line, although they may not be the sole kind of relevant pleasures (Epicurus had already taught about this long ago). As Petrini remarks, indeed, the pleasure we get from eating is first and foremost tied to our physiology.
We can devise also an egoistic variant of gastronomic hedonism, according to which the motivations for nourishment are the personal pleasures derived from eating.
From hedonism we can define its gastronomic declination: gastronomic hedonism is the principle of conduct according to which the motivations for nourishment are the pleasures derived from eating. Sensory pleasures to the front of the line, although they may not be the sole kind of relevant pleasures (Epicurus had already taught about this long ago). As Petrini remarks, indeed, the pleasure we get from eating is first and foremost tied to our physiology.
We can devise also an egoistic variant of gastronomic hedonism, according to which the motivations for nourishment are the personal pleasures derived from eating.
The Challenge of Gastronomic Hedonism
Gastronomic hedonism is by all means the most widespread underlying philosophical attitude we take towards food. What motivates our eating is pleasure. Or, well, first and foremost there is hunger; but, hunger can be satisfied with a bent towards pleasure.
The fact that it is widespread, however, does not render gastronomic hedonism more ethically legitimate. Prejudice and error are most common too. Indeed, philosophers such as Platohave condemned gastronomic hedonism: if your goal is to gain insight into the most profound human affairs, you shall not rejoice in the pleasures for the senses; those cannot but be a distraction from more the highest form of truth.
As Descartes showed in the second of his Meditations on First Philosophy, we do come to understand what a piece of wax is not through the senses: those teach us that wax is cold, hard, and round; but then you place it next to the fire and, although the wax remains the same, it appears to the senses completely different – warm, soft, and flat. Only the intellect is capable of grasping that the wax can stay the same throughout change, and only the intellect is capable of grasping the infinite possible changes that a single piece of wax could undergo.
Food is no different under these respects: if you were to try and guess the calories of a food by its taste, you would be fooled all the times; if you were to use your senses to understand whether a food is poisonous, you would be long dead. There is no reliable knowledge that can be achieved through the sensual pleasures of food.
Gastronomic hedonism is by all means the most widespread underlying philosophical attitude we take towards food. What motivates our eating is pleasure. Or, well, first and foremost there is hunger; but, hunger can be satisfied with a bent towards pleasure.
The fact that it is widespread, however, does not render gastronomic hedonism more ethically legitimate. Prejudice and error are most common too. Indeed, philosophers such as Platohave condemned gastronomic hedonism: if your goal is to gain insight into the most profound human affairs, you shall not rejoice in the pleasures for the senses; those cannot but be a distraction from more the highest form of truth.
As Descartes showed in the second of his Meditations on First Philosophy, we do come to understand what a piece of wax is not through the senses: those teach us that wax is cold, hard, and round; but then you place it next to the fire and, although the wax remains the same, it appears to the senses completely different – warm, soft, and flat. Only the intellect is capable of grasping that the wax can stay the same throughout change, and only the intellect is capable of grasping the infinite possible changes that a single piece of wax could undergo.
Food is no different under these respects: if you were to try and guess the calories of a food by its taste, you would be fooled all the times; if you were to use your senses to understand whether a food is poisonous, you would be long dead. There is no reliable knowledge that can be achieved through the sensual pleasures of food.
Pleasure Comeback?
An yet, aren’t aesthetic experiences capable of converting us to better ethical standards or even to the quest for truth? In the movie Babette’s Feast, Babette uplifts the lost ethical standards of a small religious community by preparing a memorable dinner. In the same way that visual art or music have been seen as capable of redeeming the evil we find in the world, couldn’t food be the art of the twenty-first century?
An yet, aren’t aesthetic experiences capable of converting us to better ethical standards or even to the quest for truth? In the movie Babette’s Feast, Babette uplifts the lost ethical standards of a small religious community by preparing a memorable dinner. In the same way that visual art or music have been seen as capable of redeeming the evil we find in the world, couldn’t food be the art of the twenty-first century?
Artículo tomado de:
http://philosophy.about.com/od/Philosophy-Now/a/Gastronomic-Hedonism.htm
¿El hedonismo se reduce al ámbito filosófico?
Preguntas que orientan nuestra búsqueda para localizar un texto en la web
- ¿Es posible una postura hedonista fuera del ámbito de la filosofía?
- ¿Es posible una postura hedonista fuera del ámbito de la filosofía?
- ¿El hedonismo fuera de la postura filosófica puede volverse un hedonismo vulgar?
- ¿Podemos relacionar al hedonismo con actividades tan cotidianas como comer, dormir, conversar, etc?
- ¿Es en las cosas mas simples en donde encontramos placer?
viernes, 4 de octubre de 2013
What Is Animal Liberation? Excerpts From Philosopher Peter Singer's Groundbreaking Work
“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women's rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft published herVindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before long, an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft's arguments by showing that they could be carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? …
When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with different moral capacities, different intellectual abilities, different amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, different abilities to communicate effectively, and different capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. …
The existence of individual variations that cut across the lines of race or sex, however, provides us with no defense at all against a more sophisticated opponent of equality, one who proposes that, say, the interests of all those with IQ scores below 100 be given less consideration than the interests of those with ratings over 100. Perhaps those scoring below the mark would, in this society, be made the slaves of those scoring higher. Would a hierarchical society of this sort really be so much better than one based on race or sex? I think not. But if we tie the moral principle of equality to the factual equality of the different races or sexes, taken as a whole, our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us with any basis for objecting to this kind of inegalitarianism. …
Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of a scientific investigation. … There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: It is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by means of the formula: “Each to count for one and none for more than one.” In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. …
It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America would require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave them with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element—the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be—must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.
Thomas Jefferson, who was responsible for writing the principle of the equality of men into the American Declaration of Independence, saw this point. It led him to oppose slavery even though he was unable to free himself fully from his slaveholding background. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book that emphasized the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they have limited intellectual capacities: “Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I myself have entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that they are on a par with ourselves … but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others.”
Similarly, when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in the United States, a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention: “They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? [“Intellect,” whispered someone nearby.] That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?”
It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that the attitude that we may call “speciesism,” by analogy with racism, must also be condemned. Speciesism—the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term—is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. It should be obvious that the fundamental objections to racism and sexism made by Thomas Jefferson and Sojourner Truth apply equally to speciesism. If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?
Many philosophers and other writers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle; but not many of them have recognized that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own. Jeremy Bentham was one of the few who did realize this. In a forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being treated in the way we now treat animals, Bentham wrote:
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
In this passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. … If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that [his or her] suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being. …
Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.
Most human beings are speciesists. … [O]rdinary human beings—not a few exceptionally cruel or heartless humans, but the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species.…
Even if we were to prevent the infliction of suffering on animals only when it is quite certain that the interests of humans will not be affected to anything like the extent that animals are affected, we would be forced to make radical changes in our treatment of animals that would involve our diet, the farming methods we use, experimental procedures in many fields of science, our approach to wildlife and to hunting, trapping and the wearing of furs, and areas of entertainment like circuses, rodeos, and zoos. As a result, a vast amount of suffering would be avoided.
When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with different moral capacities, different intellectual abilities, different amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, different abilities to communicate effectively, and different capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. …
The existence of individual variations that cut across the lines of race or sex, however, provides us with no defense at all against a more sophisticated opponent of equality, one who proposes that, say, the interests of all those with IQ scores below 100 be given less consideration than the interests of those with ratings over 100. Perhaps those scoring below the mark would, in this society, be made the slaves of those scoring higher. Would a hierarchical society of this sort really be so much better than one based on race or sex? I think not. But if we tie the moral principle of equality to the factual equality of the different races or sexes, taken as a whole, our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us with any basis for objecting to this kind of inegalitarianism. …
Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of a scientific investigation. … There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: It is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by means of the formula: “Each to count for one and none for more than one.” In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. …
It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess. Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do: concern for the well-being of children growing up in America would require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs may require no more than that we leave them with other pigs in a place where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic element—the taking into account of the interests of the being, whatever those interests may be—must, according to the principle of equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or feminine, human or nonhuman.
Thomas Jefferson, who was responsible for writing the principle of the equality of men into the American Declaration of Independence, saw this point. It led him to oppose slavery even though he was unable to free himself fully from his slaveholding background. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book that emphasized the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they have limited intellectual capacities: “Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I myself have entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that they are on a par with ourselves … but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others.”
Similarly, when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in the United States, a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention: “They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? [“Intellect,” whispered someone nearby.] That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?”
It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that the attitude that we may call “speciesism,” by analogy with racism, must also be condemned. Speciesism—the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term—is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. It should be obvious that the fundamental objections to racism and sexism made by Thomas Jefferson and Sojourner Truth apply equally to speciesism. If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?
Many philosophers and other writers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle; but not many of them have recognized that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own. Jeremy Bentham was one of the few who did realize this. In a forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being treated in the way we now treat animals, Bentham wrote:
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
In this passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. … If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that [his or her] suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being. …
Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.
Most human beings are speciesists. … [O]rdinary human beings—not a few exceptionally cruel or heartless humans, but the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species.…
Even if we were to prevent the infliction of suffering on animals only when it is quite certain that the interests of humans will not be affected to anything like the extent that animals are affected, we would be forced to make radical changes in our treatment of animals that would involve our diet, the farming methods we use, experimental procedures in many fields of science, our approach to wildlife and to hunting, trapping and the wearing of furs, and areas of entertainment like circuses, rodeos, and zoos. As a result, a vast amount of suffering would be avoided.
Puede sufrir?
"un caballo que ha alcanzado la madurez o un perro es, más allá de cualquier comparación, un animal más sociable y razonable que un recién nacido de un día, de una semana o incluso de un mes. Supongamos, sin embargo, que no sea así. La pregunta no es ¿pueden razonar? sino ¿pueden sufrir?"
Peter SingerEjercicio para abordar el texto
a- Utilizando skanning
1- Enumera cuales son las corrientes de la filosofía que adhieren al hedonismo.
2- Resalta los nombres de filósofos que aparecen.
3- Subraya las ciudades, localidades o países que aparecen en el texto.
b- Utilizando Skimming
1- ¿Cuál es la tesis centra del hedonismo?
2- ¿Cual es la época en que se ubica cada corriente?
3-¿Como define Onfray al hedonismo?
a-1
- The cyrenaic school
- Epicureanism
- Mohism
- Utilitarianism
- Criticisms
b-1
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minuspain)
b-2
- The cyrenaic school 4th centuru BCE
- Epicureanism around 307 BC
- Mohism 5th century BCE
- Utilitarianism The 18th and 19th-century
- Criticisms the contemporary
b-3
Como "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else"
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minuspain)
b-2
- The cyrenaic school 4th centuru BCE
- Epicureanism around 307 BC
- Mohism 5th century BCE
- Utilitarianism The 18th and 19th-century
- Criticisms the contemporary
b-3
Como "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else"
Hedonism
Hedonism
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minuspain).
Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person's pleasure should far surpass their amount of pain. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by a student of Socrates, Aristippus of Cyrene. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.
Etymology
The name derives from the Greek word for "delight" (ἡδονισμός hēdonismos from ἡδονή hēdon "pleasure", cognate with English sweet + suffix -ισμός -ismos "ism").
Sumerian civilization
In the original Old Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was written soon after the invention of writing, Siduri gave the following advice "Fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let days be full of joy. Dance and make music day and night [...] These things alone are the concern of men", which may represent the first recorded advocacy of a hedonistic philosophy.
Ancient Egypt
Scenes of a harper entertaining guests at a feast was common in ancient Egyptian tombs (see Harper's Songs), and sometimes contained hedonistic elements, calling guests to submit to pleasure because they cannot be sure that they will be rewarded for good with a blissful afterlife. The following is a song attributed to the reign of one of the Intef kings before or after the 12th dynasty, and the text was used in the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties.
Let thy desire flourish,
In order to let thy heart forget the beatifications for thee.
Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live.
Put myrrh upon thy head and clothing of fine linen upon thee,
Being anointed with genuine marvels of the god's property.
Set an increase to thy good things;
Let not thy heart flag.
Follow thy desire and thy good.
Fulfill thy needs upon earth, after the command of thy heart,
Until there come for thee that day of mourning.
Cārvāka
Cārvāka was an Indian hedonist school of thought that arose approximately 600 BCE, and died out in the 14th century CE. The Cārvākas maintained that the Hindu scriptures are false, that the priests are liars, and that there is no afterlife, and that pleasure should be the aim of living. Unlike other Indian schools of philosophy, the Cārvākas argued that there is nothing wrong with sensual indulgence. They held a naturalistic worldview.
Classic schools of antiquity
Democritus seems to be the earliest philosopher on record to have categorically embraced a hedonistic philosophy; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful"
The Cyrenaic school
The Cyrenaics were an ultra-hedonist Greek school of philosophy founded in the 4th century BCE, supposedly by Aristippus of Cyrene, although many of the principles of the school are believed to have been formalized by his grandson of the same name, Aristippus the Younger. The school was so called after Cyrene, the birthplace of Aristippus. It was one of the earliest Socratic schools. The Cyrenaics taught that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, which meant not just the absence of pain, but positively enjoyable sensations. Of these, momentary pleasures, especially physical ones, are stronger than those of anticipation or memory. They did, however, recognize the value of social obligation, and that pleasure could be gained from altruism. Theodorus the Atheist was a latter exponent of hedonism who was a disciple of younger Aristippus, while becoming well known for exposing atheism. The school died out within a century, and was replaced byEpicureanism.
The Cyrenaics were known for their skeptical theory of knowledge. They reduced logic to a basic doctrine concerning the criterion of truth. They thought that we can know with certainty our immediate sense-experiences (for instance, that I am having a sweet sensation now) but can know nothing about the nature of the objects that cause these sensations (for instance, that the honey is sweet). They also denied that we can have knowledge of what the experiences of other people are like. All knowledge is immediate sensation. These sensations are motions which are purely subjective, and are painful, indifferent or pleasant, according as they are violent, tranquil or gentle. Further they are entirely individual, and can in no way be described as constituting absolute objective knowledge. Feeling, therefore, is the only possible criterion of knowledge and of conduct. Our ways of being affected are alone knowable. Thus the sole aim for everyone should be pleasure.Cyrenaicism deduces a single, universal aim for all people which is pleasure. Furthermore, all feeling is momentary and homogeneous. It follows that past and future pleasure have no real existence for us, and that among present pleasures there is no distinction of kind. Socrates had spoken of the higher pleasures of the intellect; the Cyrenaics denied the validity of this distinction and said that bodily pleasures, being more simple and more intense, were preferable. Momentary pleasure, preferably of a physical kind, is the only good for humans. However some actions which give immediate pleasure can create more than their equivalent of pain. The wise person should be in control of pleasures rather than be enslaved to them, otherwise pain will result, and this requires judgement to evaluate the different pleasures of life. Regard should be paid to law and custom, because even though these things have no intrinsic value on their own, violating them will lead to unpleasant penalties being imposed by others. Likewise, friendship and justice are useful because of the pleasure they provide. Thus the Cyrenaics believed in the hedonistic value of social obligation and altruistic behaviour.
Epicureanism
Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus and Leucippus. His materialism led him to a general stance against superstition or the idea of divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest, sustainable "pleasure" in the form of a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) and absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.
In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived but had a unique version of the Golden Rule.
It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing "neither to harm nor be harmed", and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.
Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent of Stoicism. Epicurus and his followers shunned politics. After the death of Epicurus, his school was headed by Hermarchus; later many Epicurean societies flourished in the Late Hellenistic era and during the Roman era (such as those in Antiochia, Alexandria, Rhodes and Ercolano). The poet Lucretius is its most known Roman proponent. By the end of the Roman Empire, having undergone Christian attack and repression, Epicureanism had all but died out, and would be resurrected in the 17th century by the atomist Pierre Gassendi, who adapted it to the Christian doctrine.
Some writings by Epicurus have survived. Some scholars consider the epic poem On the Nature of Things by Lucretius to present in one unified work the core arguments and theories of Epicureanism. Many of the papyrus scrolls unearthed at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum are Epicurean texts. At least some are thought to have belonged to the Epicurean Philodemus.
Mohism
Mohism was a philosophical school of thought founded by Mozi in the 5th century BCE. It paralleled the utilitarianism later developed by English thinkers. AsConfucianism became the preferred philosophy of later Chinese dynasties, starting from the Emperor Wu of Han, Mohism and other non-Confucian philosophical schools of thought were suppressed.
Christian hedonism
Christian hedonism
Christian hedonism is a controversial Christian doctrine current in some evangelical circles, particularly those of the Reformed tradition. Christian Hedonism may describe the theology of Jonathan Edwards. In the 17th century the atomist Pierre Gassendi, adapted Epicureanism to the Christian doctrine.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism addresses problems with moral motivation neglected by Kantianism by giving a central role to happiness. It is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society. It is thus one form of consequentialism meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The 18th and 19th-century British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill defended the ethical theory of utilitarianism, according to which we should perform whichever action maximizes the aggregate good. Conjoining hedonism, as a view as to what is good for people, to utilitarianism has the result that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest total amount of happiness (Hedonic Calculus). Though consistent in their pursuit of happiness, Bentham and Mill’s versions of hedonism differ. There are two somewhat basic schools of thought on hedonism:
- One school, grouped around Jeremy Bentham, defends a quantitative approach. Bentham believed that the value of a pleasure could be quantitatively understood. Essentially, he believed the value of pleasure to be its intensity multiplied by its duration - so it was not just the number of pleasures, but their intensity and how long they lasted that must be taken into account.
- Other proponents, like John Stuart Mill, argue a qualitative approach. Mill believed that there can be different levels of pleasure - higher quality pleasure is better than lower quality pleasure. Mill also argues that simpler beings (he often refers to pigs) have an easier access to the simpler pleasures; since they do not see other aspects of life, they can simply indulge in their lower pleasures. The more elaborate beings tend to spend more thought on other matters and hence lessen the time for simple pleasure. It is therefore more difficult for them to indulge in such "simple pleasures" in the same manner.
Contemporary approaches
A modern proponent of hedonism with an ethical touch is the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö.
Michel Onfray
A dedicated contemporary hedonist philosopher and on the history of hedonistic thought is the French Michel Onfray. He defines hedonism "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else. "Onfray's philosophical project is to define an ethical hedonism, a joyous utilitarianism, and a generalized aesthetic of sensual materialism that explores how to use the brain's and the body's capacities to their fullest extent -- while restoring philosophy to a useful role in art, politics, and everyday life and decisions.
Onfray's works "have explored the philosophical resonances and components of (and challenges to) science, painting, gastronomy, sex and sensuality, bioethics, wine, and writing. His most ambitious project is his projected six-volume Counter-history of Philosophy, of which three have been published. For him "In opposition to the ascetic ideal advocated by the dominant school of thought, hedonism suggests identifying the highest good with your own pleasure and that of others; the one must never be indulged at the expense of sacrificing the other. Obtaining this balance – my pleasure at the same time as the pleasure of others – presumes that we approach the subject from different angles – political, ethical, aesthetic, erotic, bioethical, pedagogical, historiographical…."
For this he has "written books on each of these facets of the same world view. His philosophy aims "for "micro-revolutions, " or revolutions of the individual and small groups of like-minded people who live by his hedonistic, libertarian values.
Abolitionism
The Abolitionist Society is a transhumanist group calling for the abolition of suffering in all sentient life through the use of advanced biotechnology. Their core philosophy is negative utilitarianism.
Criticisms
As a type of ethical naturalism, hedonism is rejected by those who subscribes to what G.E. Moore called the naturalistic fallacy.
There is a critical point where the value of hedonistic properties is affected by actual age and the depreciation schedule turns upward.
It is argued that if social constructionism is going to come to grips with morality and agency it must abandon explanations that invoke the necessary causation of metaphysical abstractions such as hedonism.
Hedonism lies at the core of many social constructionist accounts of human interaction, and to illustrate how it precludes an adequate understanding of agency, morality, and intimacy.
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was a critic of Hedonism and Utilitarianism. He posited a theory of morality which saw the "Will to power" as the main driving force in humans. In Beyond Good and Evil, he states: "Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible" (BGE:225). Nietzsche critiques hedonist conceptions of happiness in his parable of the Last man, "the most despicable men" who say "they have invented happiness...and they blink." Though Nietzsche's human exemplar could be said to experience 'joy' (Freude), he does not make that an end in itself. The reason Nietzsche sees this as contemptible is because he sees suffering as necessary for cultivating human excellence, for example in The Gay Science, where he writes: "Only great pain is the ultimate liberator of the spirit" (GS pref:3).
TOMADO DE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
¿Hedonismo?
Al escribir la palabra Hedonismo en el buscador de google surgen imágenes como estas, pero ¿ Por qué lo representan?
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)