Why are we told to avoid pleasurable things? (mostly)

One of the many questions posed by Shelby as end of the year thought provokers caught my eye and I figured I would respond to it.

Shelby asks why we are told to avoid pleasurable things, but I ask where and when were you or anybody told this?

I have been taught from the youngest age to seek out things that make me happy, things that give me pleasure, things that give me pain of some sort, I was told to avoid.
I feel that there are many human being that follow this theory of life. In fact the theory is even bolstered by Freud's publicized theory.

The pleasure principle is a psychoanalytic concept, originated by Sigmund Freud. The pleasure principle states that people seek pleasure and avoid pain, i.e., people seek to satisfy biological and psychological needs.An individual's id follows the pleasure principle and rules early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification, because of the exigencies and obstacles of reality. In Freud's words, “an ego thus educated has become reasonable; it no longer lets itself be governed by the pleasure principle, but obeys the reality principle, which also at bottom seeks to obtain pleasure, but pleasure which is assured through taking account of reality, even though it is pleasure postponed and diminished”.

My question is: Where are there examples of people being taught to avoid pleasurable things or activities?

The Gestalt Effect

The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves. In psychology, gestaltism is often opposed to structuralism and Wundt. The phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is often used when explaining Gestalt theory.

The investigations developed at the beginning of the 20th century, based on traditional scientific methodology, divided the object of study into a set of elements that could be analyzed separately with the objective of reducing the complexity of this object. Contrary to this methodology, the school of Gestalt practiced a series of theoretical and methodological principles that attempted to redefine the approach to psychological research.
The theoretical principles are the following:
--Principle of Totality - The conscious experience must be considered globally (by taking into account all the physical and mental aspects of the individual simultaneously) because the nature of the mind demands that each component be considered as part of a system of dynamic relationships.
--Principle of psychophysical isomorphism - A correlation exists between conscious experience and cerebral activity.
Based on the principles above the following methodological principles are defined:
--Phenomenon Experimental Analysis - In relation to the Totality Principle any psychological research should take as a starting point phenomena and not be solely focused on sensory qualities.
--Biotic Experiment - The School of Gestalt established a need to conduct real experiments which sharply contrasted with and opposed classic laboratory experiments. This signified experimenting in natural situations, developed in real conditions, in which it would be possible to reproduce, with higher fidelity, what would be habitual for a subject.

I read a separate article on the Gestalt Effect in relation to seeing faces in the clouds or in an irregular grain of wood, etc. and I do not fully understand the effect yet, and I'm not exactly sure where this post is going, but I am fairly certain of the relativity it possesses in correlation to the course material so I'm curious how R.C. and Gestalt react with one another.

The ineffectiveness of Radical Constructivism

Have you ever been in an argument with your mother about the way life works and she obviously (hopefully) knows more about it than you do, and she eventually says that single thing that you don't really know anything about, and you are struggling to argue with the fact because you simply cannot refute it based on the fact that you don't know enough. Are a discussion with a doctor in which you say "I've heard this about that medication..." and the response is something along the lines of "Yes,but you need to have this condition and it only happens to a few people." You can't argue with this information because you don't know enough to disprove what has been said;to argue with what has been said. A similar phenomenon comes into play when discussing the theory of Radical Constructivism. Not the details of the discussion,but the outcome of the opponent; he/she is left feeling helpless because the theory is, admittedly by R.C.'s irrefutable. The idea that a Radical Constructivist does not care whether or not he/she is right and is only concerned with whether or not ideas fit with particular individuals makes the theory itself lack 'substance of argument.' (This term is developed by my family and myself). Substance of argument in itself refers to an arguments ability to be seen in more than one scenario and is disproved, or able to be disproved. There is no proof in R.C. just words. No statements are made other than that truth is relative. Radical Constructivism does not get the thinker anywhere in reality. I disagree with R.C. not as a whole, but the problem is R.C.'s don't even care.

Is there an effective argument to a person who does not care about right or wrong?

Absolute truth and the relativeness of it

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

It is safe to assume that there are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

Joel's Truth Equation

In class today(4/26) we discussed the equations to find truth for the view of realism and constructivism. The realists truth was based on how claims corresponded with how the world actually is. While the constructivists truth was based on how claims fit with their own personal experience. I am definitely and admittedly more inclined to subscribe to the realists point of view, but not yet ready to completely disregard the constructivists truth equation. While I believe a balance between the two would be the optimal solution, along with a few other characteristics, I have developed a, perhaps rough, truth equation of my own.

T= C -->Q --> R --> C --> Correspondence --> World

The T represents the truth or supposed truth (i.e. the world is round) The first C represents a claim about this truth. Then my though process is to question this claim hence the next arrow is represented with a Q. After questioning the previous claim and perhaps discovering something new or different or false about it the claim is reformed into a more accurate legitimate claim, thus the stages R (reformation) and the second C (claim). After this slightly different process I would then assess how the claim corresponds to how the world is in order to justify its truth value.

After pondering for a while about how I think, I asked myself if there is anything this cannot be applied to, in other words is there anything I don't think about, or is there any point that one does not think?

Difference between Conceptualizing and Experiencing

The difference between the two terms seems to be baffling at first, but upon further research and examination of the lexical definitions and various articles in which the terms are used I believe I have a decent differentiating characteristic.

To experience something is to accumulate knowledge or skills by directly participating in events or activities. When you experience a concert or a piece of artwork you have developed skills in order to perhaps discuss the nature of the artist. When you experience an apple you understand the dimensions of the apple you are viewing or have previously viewed you understand the colors, the tastes, etc. When you conceptualize something you invent it. To conceptualize an artwork means to create it. The viewer of artwork is the "experiencer" and the creator of the artwork is the conceptualizer. When you conceptualize an apple you create its colors, tastes and dimensions. So the difference is found in the position of the person discussing whether or not he/she experiences or conceptualizes. The question is whether you view or create.

My question is can you conceptualize an experience, or can experiences only be experiences to an individual?

Argument against Nihilism

Depends on what sort of Nihilist you are!

If you say "life has no inherent meaning or purpose", I would say "sure, but so what?". It doesn't change the basic dynamics of what makes life *work*, which is the true basis of morality.

If you say "life has no inherent meaning, and therefore there's no basis for morality", I would say you're wrong: that's making the meaninglessness of life MEAN something, yes? That's screwed up: life doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't MEAN anything that it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you get to shoot your neighbor or steal his Rolex. That's giving meaning to the meaninglessness.

If you say "life has no meaning, and therefore I'm depressed", I'd say "you've missed the personal responsibility aspect of this theory". Life has no *inherent* meaning, that doesn't mean there's no meaning to MY life. It means that without the subject, in a purely objective perspective, there's no meaning. But put subjects in, and then you have got something.

Life is rich and abundant with meaning: Anybody who is depressed or justifying selfishness and crime because of life's lack of inherent meaning isn't doing philosophy, they're just malfunctioning.

What legitimate arguments are there for Nihilism? How do they (nihilists) make sense of other philosophical theories if at all?