Hedonism

I was raised with the idea that there’s a reason behind everything that beyond a reason lays another deeper, and universal reason. I say universal because that certain reason doesn’t only apply to some individuals, but to everyone in general. I don’t have an idea what that certain reason is, until I stumbled upon a term I have yet to know – Hedonism. What is it? And what does it have to do with human actions?
Hedonism originated from the Greek word hedonismos or hedone which literally means pleasure. As defined by Catholic Encyclopedia, it is the name given to the group of ethical systems that hold, with various modifications, that feelings of pleasure or happiness are the highest and final aim of conduct; that, consequently those actions which increase the sum of pleasure are thereby constituted right, and, conversely, what increases pain is wrong.
First of all, let us define or state the scope of the word “pleasure”. Pleasure is commonly conceptualized as a positive experience related to happiness, entertainment, enjoyment, ecstasy, and euphoria. The father of Hedonism, Aristippus of Cyrene, defines pleasure as something that is not only limited to sensual gratification but also the higher forms of enjoyment, mental pleasures, domestic love, friendship, and moral contentment. In Philosophy, it is defined as the absence of pain. So, anything that pertains to experiences or feelings that are painless are considered as pleasure. Pain, on the other hand, includes all unpleasant feeling or experience such as aches, throbs, irritations, anxiety, anguish, chagrin, discomfort, despair, grief, depression, guilt and remorse. The latter is the negation of the former.
The basic idea behind the hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that is good for man. It is man’s everyday goal, that is, in every action or activity he does, the reason behind those activities is the realization or achievement of pleasure. It is true that the philosophy suggests that we should pursue our own pleasure, but it doesn’t mean that we should live a life of selfishness; that we should only hinder others from arriving to that same objective.
So when does hedonism become morally ethical?
The fact that the end-product of every man’s activity, as what the thought implies, is the achievement of the doer’s pleasure is already ethical. But, let us not be deceived by the statement’s ambiguity because it is also a fact that one can be happy by the mere reason that some suffer, especially the ones they call enemies.
John Stuart Mill’s and Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy on Utilitarianism states that we should perform whichever action is best for everyone. When this concept is conjoined with the concept of Hedonism, it yields this concept: all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. I could infer that whenever we do things or perform any action, it should result to, not only in the achievement or realization of the doer’s pleasure, but also to the benefit or the realization of the pleasures of the majority. Hedonism, in this manner, becomes morally ethical since ‘selfishness’ is eliminated.
This concept could also be conjoined with Sigmund Freud’s Psychological Egoism. Freud’s philosophy states that man is motivated to pursue what is good for them. Therefore, Psychological Hedonism states that “agents” naturally seek pleasure. Hedonism can also be combined with ethical egoism - the claim that individuals should seek their own good - to make ethical hedonism the claim that we should act so as to produce our own pleasure. We know that Freud is known for his idea that sexual desire is the primary motivational force every human has. And that “sexual desire” is a form of pleasure. Freud’s philosophy, by its very essence, is an example of how hedonism works.
The church also has its own view of Hedonism. The idea behind Christian Hedonism is that humans are created for the sole purpose of enjoying God through knowing, praising and serving Him. The concept entails that pursuing one’s happiness in God is the ultimate in human pleasure; that the highest pleasure is regarded as something which is long term, and not found in indulgence but in a life devoted to God. This form of hedonism is blatant among priests and other church workers who devoted their lives in serving God. But one cannot be a priest or a nun just to serve God. One can achieve the ‘pleasure’ in serving Him just by living a normal life and maintaining a good social relationship.
The concept of hedonism is too broad for this paper to cover. I have just stated some important highlights about this topic. The concept of Hedonism has been defined. If we are to reflect on the activities that we do everyday, we can say that indeed, the concept of hedonism is somehow valid. We study, because we want to land a stable job, and eventually, gain money which will be used to sustain our daily needs. And the sustainment of such needs means fulfillment of pleasure. Because it is a pleasure to feed ourselves, to sleep, to be clean, to bathe. Well, that’s based on my point of view, at least. Because the idea of pleasure or the thing that gives pleasure depends on the person, depending on what makes him happy. Some may find pleasure on material things – jewelry, signature clothes, designer perfume, and the like. Some sees happiness in doing church works – the priests and nuns and pastors --, some in emotional aspects – being loved and cared upon. It only means that the pursuit of happiness depends on each person. This also includes the fact that people differ in terms of what makes them happy, and to what degree of pleasure or happiness they are experiencing. We must not also let ourselves be blinded by this concept. Like any other philosophies, this has also its own weaknesses. But this paper only focuses on how this philosophy is related to man’s actions. It is also important to note that the thought of achieving pleasure as the by-product of every activity is a very motivating aspect. If we’ll think that what we’re doing is something that makes us happy, it invigorates us in a way that we strive harder or do better in our endeavors, which makes it a positive asset to human progress

Life after Death

Is there life after death? Theists believe there is. Atheists, Agnostics and some philosophies say otherwise. Members of non-theistic religions such as Buddhism believe in reincarnation. But is there really is life after death?
Plato, in his Dialogues of Plato, defines death as the separation of soul and body. He believes that true philosophers live for the sake of dying – that is, philosophers must live thinking about the death they deserve and then spends the rest of his life preparing for it for him to obtain the greatest good in the other world after he dies. He also stated that our body is a source of endless trouble, making us impure and thus, increases the need of the soul to be separated for it to be purified. For he also believed that one can only find wisdom in his purity. Based on his thoughts, I can infer that he believes in life after death for he believes in the separation of the soul from the body and that there can be no life without soul. But the problem with his statements is this: Where do the souls go when they get separated from the body?
On the other hand, David Hume doesn’t believe in afterlife. He believed that everything is common between soul and body, that the organs of the one are all of them the organs of the other. Therefore, the existence of the one must be dependent on the other. He believed that nothing in this world is everlasting or perpetual, and that includes the body and soul. Thus, he believed that there’s no life after death. But we know that one thing leads to another. So, if afterlife doesn’t exist, how come the thought of it existed? Was it just imagination? We know that the mind cannot produce an idea without a basis. So where does the idea of afterlife came from?
Immortality means immunity from death. And this is what Soren Kierkegaard believed. He stated in his Concluding Unscientific Postscripts that immortality couldn’t be proved at all. That the fault does not lie in the proofs but in the fact that people will not understand that this question is nonsense. He believed that immortality is subjective. But then again, people differ in beliefs. So, simply put, there’s no absolute or general answer to the question.
*Philosophical Problems, pages 223-232.