Comment by danboarder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danboarder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I like to think of the pursuit of pleasure as having a critical time dimension for determining if that pleasure is 'bad' or 'good'. Think of this as short-term pleasure (bad or dishonerable) vs long-term pleasure (good or honorable).

This is in contrast to the article which makes the good/bad distinction from a more Stoic perspective: "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much". And as the article goes on to explain, this idea gained traction with Christians through the ideas of Kant and others, who thought the pursuit of pleasure in doing good was not noble in itself. But this is countered by more recent 20th century writers like C.S. Lewis and more recently John Piper who make a point that the pursuit of joy in doing good is noble (see Christian Hedonism: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/christian-hedonism )

But back to the time dimension of seeking what is pleasurable in the short vs. long-term. I've come to the realisation that most good things are the result of pursuing what is pleasurable in the long-term. Short-term vs long-term thinking. Think one-night stand vs lifelong marriage. Or the pleasure of enjoying junk food snacks in the short-term, vs self-discipline to savor desserts only after a meal. Or an example more from the realm of the mind, think watching sitcoms or playing video games vs finding pleasure in the discipline of self-study to pursue a long-term productive project. I see some of these ideas expressed in culture today through fasting apps and similar tools to help people control short-term pleasure impulses and instead pursue better long-term goals that are more beneficial.

Edit - I would just add that I see this more in terms of an economic calculation - people do what is in their best interest, and if you factor in a long-term approach to pleasure, it can help explain the benefits of choosing altruistic behavior over a short-term decision to do something that only pleases oneself. What is best for others usually turns out to be best for oneself in the long-term. A lot of cultural ideas like 'what comes around goes around' or karma, etc all stem from this concept.

This doesn't seem like much of a realization where you've concluded to just restate the usual batch of Christian puritan morals and sins about sex.

To be fair, I don't think they did. Nothing they wrote precludes polyamory and lots of sex, I think what they say is if you are gonna get sex, better try to be really good at it.

I think bigger problem with their perspective is that it is very egotistic. For example, the pleasure of playing a video-game really well (a long-term goal) is more important than a pleasure of spending an ad hoc evening with a loved one (a short-term one).

I suspect most humans have evolved to not only be happy about reciprocal altruism, but to give unconditionally. Because if you are just happy with reciprocity, then the resulting equilibrium can be cooperation or lack of it, both are possible. If we are (as social creatures) rewarded for both reciprocity and giving unconditionally (or perhaps, seeing reciprocity realized for others), the equilibrium is more cooperative.

The ad hoc evening with a loved one is a long term one in order to keep the relationship healthy.

In this case one evening may be short but the relationship itself is what is long term.

It seems materially different to me because he doesn't appeal to any deity or authority as an unquestionable article of faith. Nor does he actually say anything about morality or sin or insist that not obeying these tenants will lead to some eternal torment. Instead what the op argues is that if you accept the postulate that long term gain is better than short term gain then you arrive at a certain set of conclusions about what is "good".

Instead of advocating for Christian moralism, it explains many aspects of Christian moralism using a secular first principal. Of course the religious practices that happen to correspond with long term gains outcompeted the others. The religions which told you to maximize hedonism and minimize work died out.

He takes it a step further. Religion is silent on junk food, sitcoms, video games, and any other modern "vice". The principal of long term vs short term gain can be applied equally well to modern times. The fact that many people independently feel like certain activities are bad habits, without any religious framework or persuasive argument telling them these habits are bad, seems to suggest that short term gain at long term expense is a root cause of the feeling of "vice". In other words, the feeling of "vice" is just a utility function baked into our neural network.

What the OP has written is infinitely more interesting than an arbitrary list of 10 sins with no explanation of why one should obey.

@XorNot I see it more from an economic perspective. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations popularized the idea of self-interest as being the "invisible hand" that motivates people in society to make economic (and other) decisions.

I think self-interest is just another way to explain pleasure, or what pleases a person. Essentially these are all used interchangeably: Pleasure, Joy, Self-interest.

I wouldn't simplify the concept of preferring long-term vs. short-term self interest as being a restatement of puritan morality. I think there is a fundamental realization to be had that a person can then apply to investing, relationships, health... many areas of life.

( Re self-interest, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus ).

Have you read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments? It applies the same kind of thinking found in Wealth of Nations (deriving systemic social principles from individual human motivations) to the moral sphere. He first introduced the phrase "invisible hand" in this, earlier book.

https://www.adamsmith.org/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments

Yes! Thank you for the reminder. Years ago I did read it in grad school studying economics, and this conversation has me looking for it, I plan to read it again. As a side note, I found the work of Joseph Schumpeter also incredibly insightful, he coined the term 'creative destruction'.

Christianity precedes the Puritans by about 1500 years. “Usual batch” doesn’t comunicate a whole lot.

> And as the article goes on to explain, this idea gained traction with Christians through the ideas of Kant and others, who thought the pursuit of pleasure in doing good was not noble in itself.

You need to go back a little more, Socrates and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) were also concerned about the vices of pleasure.

FWIW, I get long-term satisfaction from playing a couple of video games that I've become deeply knowledgeable and skillful in. I have a community of friends in each and the process of improving and having a good match is the fun part, rather than the simple act of playing itself. Think of it like becoming really good at chess for the deep games.

I've picked up Fallout 4 again, and have managed to complete it at Survival difficulty, without dying once. I really enjoyed that new challenge.

I think about about it more pragmatically.

Not "pleasures of the body vs pleasures of the mind" or "long term pleasures vs short term pleasures"

but "healthy pleasures vs unhealthy pleasures"

Alcohol is a bodily short term pleasure I'd consider bad, because it's not a healthy pleasure and will shorten my life.

One-night stands are also a bodily short term pleasure, but I'd consider it good, because I think sex is a healthy pleasure and will probably lengthen my life.

> "The pleasures of the mind are good; the pleasures of the body, not so much"

Applied to modern terms: twitter and gaming is good, dancing is not.

The classical definition of "pleasures of the body" is "sensible pleasures." That is, pleasures that require the involvement of the senses. So, by that definition, gaming and twitter would be bodily pleasures since you cannot have them unless you optically engage theses things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com