lets discuss hedonism

What's to discuss? You either agree pleasure is a good or you don't.

>>1187694
Splitting (also called black and white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).

>>1187717
Oops. I mean this:
Many individuals with developmental disability think in "concrete" or "black and white" terms. This may particularly apply to those with autism or who are affected by fetal exposure to alcohol. “Black and white” thinkers like rules. They like rules that are always the same way.

They don't handle "gray areas."

>>1187717
>>1187735
Yes, yes. Nice jab at me for daring to bump your fucking dying thread that did nothing to spur discussion. There's very little discuss with hedonism.

>>1187291
I think ethical hedonism is a very valid way to live your life. It's more or less what humans strive for once they don't have to fear for their immediate survival. Maximizing the good feelings for yourself and most importantly, not at the expense of others (whether it's your duty to provide pleasure to others to maximize net happiness is debatable) is essentially what most religions stress is the ideal, so it must be a human intrinsic. It sounds cliche but drugs and sex are probably the best ways to do this, but you have to use non-destructive drugs (e.g. weed, and pretty much only weed) and have sex that both parties enjoy. Food indulgence and whatnot is perfectly acceptable too. Don't get fat, but eat richly, as you like. Be lazy as you can without being a detriment to yourself or others. Hedonism is sort of just the philosophy of chill.

There's not something wrong with pleasure. I do not think however a lifestyle devoted to it is such a good thing. Need to think of a good argument why however...

>>1187291
>lets