[javert]

Here is the meaning of life.

There is only one inherent value to consciousness, and it is pleasure.

What is the evidence for this claim? It is directly perecptible. To see the proof of this, all you have to do is look.

Everything else you value should be for the sake of this ultimate value. (Because there is no other ultimate value for them to be for the sake of.)

Now, this isn't an endorsement of hedonism, which I take to mean "doing whatever feels good." Rather, you should pursue pleasure systematically.

First, it must be sustainable over the long term (your lifespan). Second, it must account for the various kinds of emotions (e.g. serenity, self-esteem, etc.). Third, it must account for the fact that these emotions are effects that have specific causes.

[baddox]

I think "pleasure" is the wrong word to use here, because it conceals that what you're really saying is a tautology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that people should pursue the things that they desire. Words like "pleasure" or "happiness" might imply leaving out things like uncomfortable or painful exercise and diet in pursuit of future happiness from improved health or appearance, or sacrificing something of value for a friend or charity.

"Utility" might be a better word than "pleasure" or "happiness."

[javert]

I'm saying that people should pursue pleasure, not whatever they happen to desire.

To concretize, pleasure breaks down into two categories: physical pleasure and emotional pleasure. The former includes being full instead of hungry, etc. The latter includes happiness, joy, serenity, etc.

So you need to realize that attaining certain kinds of desires lead to maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, and adjust your desires accordingly.

If you just pursue whatever you happen to desire without reference to any further standard, which is hedonism, you will not maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

For instance, I may not feel like exercising or going on a diet, but if I realize that those things will maximize my pleasure, then I now have the ability to desire to do them, because they are a value to me.

When you suggest "utility" as a better word, you are begging the question. Utility for what? To whom? Why would one kind of thing constitute utility, and not something else?

The answer is that there is only one kind of ultimate, inherent utility for a conscious being: pleasure. Everything else that has utility has utility for the sake of pleasure.

Let me know if you have any thoughts and want to continue the conversation.

[baddox]

It's a false dichotomy unless you can actually provide an objective dichotomy against the two types of pleasures you mention. I derive pleasure from saving my money, because I know that earns me some financial security and allows me to buy bigger and cooler things in the future. I derive pleasure from exercise that is physically uncomfortable, because I know there are future benefits.

"Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria without regard for future ion sequences. In a way, you're right that it's begging the question. Saying "people should do what gives them utility" is basically saying "people should make the decisions they prefer," or "people should do what they think they should do."

[javert]

> "Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has the connotation of immediate physical euphoria

Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. I'm just stating it in more fundamental terms than you are, and getting right to the point. Talking about it, intsead, as "utility" is just making it more absract and muddying the waters.

And it doesn't matter what connotation you think pleasure has---I have stated the definition I am using, and it's not the connotation you want to associate with it. If you have a better term than "pleasure," let me know, but "utility" is not it. "Joy" would work. "Happiness" would work. Presuming a certain definition of those things which essentially equates to a generalized form of long-term emotional pleasure.

[baddox]

> Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure.

"Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually carries the connotation of immediate sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does not. But I don't understand your criticism of the word "utility."

[javert]

I'm not defining pleasure to mean "getting what one desires," hence it is non synonomous with the definition you are using for "utility." Pleasure is a particular sensation.

For instance. If you get something you desire, you may feel pleasure, or you may not. Or maybe you'll feel pleasure for a little while, but not as long as you expected to.

Going in the reverse direction, if you feel pleasure, you may have gotten something you desired, but you may not have---e.g. a massage may feel good even if you didn't expect it to beforehand.

When I talk about "pleasure" I do mean something that you experience in the moment---just like "hot" and "cold." You feel it at a particular time, or not. But that does not exclude a long-term experience of pleasure, such as a general state of emotional happiness. In fact, the latter is what I am more interested in.

Some people associate the word "pleasure" with a necessarily temporary and immediate experience, but that is merely a connotation, it is not the definition of the word.

[NaNaN]

In front of me, there are three great mountains: 1. The pleasure as you described. 2. Determinism. 3. Nihilism. I don't know why pleasure is valuable to consciousness. To determinism, if we are free to think, we can just observe our life without real pains or real gains. To nihilism, I just don't know everything, including nihilism.

I just wonder why I should jump to a conclusion. For my intuition?

[cousin_it]

Is the pleasure of others meaningful to you, or only to them?

[javert]

Other people's pleasure is not inherently valuable to me, just neutral. However, I do value other people's pleasure when it increases my pleasure.

It is pretty obvious why this applies to loved ones and friends, but it actually extends to all of society. A happier society is a better place to live, with more productivity, more to be inspired by (and not discouraged by), etc.

[cousin_it]

OK. Is the pleasure of you at a different time valuable to you at the current time?