The modern age has seen the rise of Hedonism from an esoteric and formal school of thought, championed by a minority of Cyreniacs, to society’s greatest drive and, supposing the term may be aptly used regarding society, philosophy. Hedonism is simply the modern way of life. It seems that a day in which Bacchus shall replace Jove at the head of the Pantheon is all but destined to arrive.
The desire for pleasure, if truth be told, is perhaps as prominent as it has ever been. It is the lack of restraint that is newly abundant, for who would deny that modern society revolves around, cherishes even, instant gratification? That notion has become no less than society’s Zeitgeist.
On Pride
Of all things, I wish to open the discussion on Hedonism with the definition of Pride. Pride, that first and heaviest of sins, placed at the bottom of Purgatory, is the very root from which all other evils sprout – it is so characteristic of mankind that for Dante it is synonymous with ‘man’.
And yet, does pride really deserve such a weak definition, suitable to slavish moralists? I am not referring to the boastfulness of Niobe or of Arachne, but to the kind of pride exemplified in Julien Sorel and in he who said that ‘the valiant never taste of death but once’. According to Merriam-Webster, it is ‘delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship’.
Personally, I prefer a blunter and uncompromising definition, which hits closer to the mark: ‘delight in proofs of superiority’. I assume that this definition would boil the blood of many readers, who would claim that all humans are born equal; I hold that no greater untruth is so persistently fixed upon the tongues of haughty moralists.
Many a times I have heard the claim that none are better than others, that all humans are equal, but differ in taste and circumstances: it is but an excuse. Let us forever differentiate equality of rights from equality of persons. Equality of rights is, and shall remain, substantial. Any equality beyond that is illusory at best.
Such a paradigm tolerates mediocrity by allowing the low to rank themselves with the high. It is also an excellent catalyst for Hedonism, for if excellence is nonexistent and equality is given gratis, what remains to life but pleasure?
But would anybody truly rank a judge alongside a culprit? A leading scientist alongside a common laborer? It is as iniquitous as to equally weigh Hector and Sinon, Solomon and Rehoboam, or Orpheus and Marsyas. ‘Hyperion to a satyr’, quoth Hamlet.
So trees of the same species may bring forth
Fruit that is better or worse; so men are born
Different in native talent and native worth.
Society perpetually judges and ranks its individuals, and is better for doing so. Criticism is the basis of improvement, and those who claim ‘not to judge others’ profess but an untruth, for they rank others and themselves according to numerous criteria, and should at least cease to deny it. People judge one another according to appearances, wages, grades, and, in short, everything.
Having traversed the muddy waters of equality, one must reach the point: judgement and inequality of persons are inseparably linked with pride. Every person takes pride in various traits or actions. If one values, say, musical genius, that person is bound to feel pride in one’s musical ability, and will, by the same metre, judge musically talented people positively and those whose abilities are meagre poorly. For the sake of clarification, I do not suggest that for that person musical ability is ultima ratio mundi, but simply that it is one of his many criteria for judgement.
Admiration, therefore, can be defined as the recognition of another’s superiority in a certain field. The value we attribute to each trait determines our appreciation of those in which it is manifested.
Shame is, of course, the coin’s other face. An excellent example, in my opinion, is obesity. Most would feel ashamed of an obese body, and rightly so, for it is a proof of negligence and of weak will. Obesity is also unsightly, whereas beauty is highly esteemed in society. The obese realise that such a characteristic subtracts from their worth, according to social judgment, and therefore feel ashamed.
Thus, pride and shame become a compass to transcendence. Such a rule of measurement encourages self-betterment, for by identifying desired traits and merits one may strive towards acquiring those traits. Pride, then, is the sine qua non of self-improvement; it is mankind’s greatest fuel.
There are those who claim to be unashamed of their obesity, thereby usually receiving the general applause of society. Such is not courage, but a form of escapism. Is it truly laudable to discard personal and social preferences? This argument, however, raises yet another question:
Which are the desired criteria for criticism? The answer is almost entirely subjective, for one judges according to one’s values. The traits that you admire and take pride in become a personal tool for measurement, regardless of exterior expectations. Independence in setting values is a sign of strong character.
The subject calls to question the value and integrity of national pride. Why should one be proud of one’s heritage if that heritage has nothing to do with personal achievements? How can one strive for self-betterment regarding something as passive as origin? Nationality is therefore, in my opinion, little else but plain brainwash, and the same goes for sexual orientation – it deserves neither pride nor shame.
Finally, I have laid the claim before that individuality is life’s greatest goal. Individuality is precisely the ability to set personal goals and achieve them. It is only through pride in oneself, and through a clear and defined set of preferences, that one becomes truly individual.
between satisfaction and pleasure
Our greatest question yet remains: which is to be sought, Pleasure and Happiness or Satisfaction and Pride? Perhaps no distinction is due, and all four can be achieved simultaneously?
It is first necessary to examine the nature of Hedonism. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure in the hope of achieving happiness. But what is pleasure? Modern Hedonism, its worst form, posits pleasure as the gratification of every whim and desire.
The followers of such a creed are doomed to failure from the beginning. “Nothing is sufficient for the person who finds sufficiency too little.” The supposed formula, of exchanging temporal reliefs and monetary trophies for happiness, is non-existent. Libertines and sensualists are condemned to live forever in ‘the pursuit of happiness’; their efforts are as void as the Danaides’.
Consider, for a while, whether you would be satisfied with experiencing pleasure if the memory of it would later have been lost? What is the worth of a memory of something pleasurable? Pleasure is but temporary; its longevity through memory is delusional. Consider once more the aforesaid conclusion in contrast with the contemporary mania for photography. The documentation of joy, in an attempt to prolong it, is a fallacy. In the words of Cicero:
Just as if a man who was sweltering, struggling to endure the summer heat’s intensity, wanted to remember that he had once immersed himself in the cool streams at my home in Arpinum. I fail to see how present ills can be assuaged by past pleasures.
Although Hedonism did originate, thus sadly deformed, by the hand of Aristippus, to disprove it we must face its more sophisticated form, as it was professed by Epicurus. Pleasure, in the Epicurean sense, is ataraxia: freedom from pain in the body or the mind. This somewhat Buddhist philosophy is far more suitable than sensualism, in my opinion, yet it still misses the mark.
Let us not overestimate the worth of pleasure and comfort; one must treat pain as an impetus to improvement. I refer not to the meaningless, self-inflicted pain of zealous Christians, but to the pain that accompanies progress. In the words of Nietzsche:
What with all their might they would like to strive after is the universal green pasture happiness of the herd, with security, safety, comfort and an easier life for all; their two most oft-recited doctrines and ditties are ‘equality of rights’ and ‘sympathy for all that suffers’ – and suffering itself they take for something that has to be abolished. We, who are the opposite of this, and have opened our eyes and our conscience to the question where and how the plant ‘man’ has hitherto grown up most vigorously, we think that this has always happened under the opposite conditions.
Only by consistently coping with hardships and ‘suffering’ one can progress and develop. Even Epicurus agrees that “not all pains are uniformly to be rejected”. In a similar sense, not all pleasures are to be accepted.
Some pleasures are to be temporarily resisted, and some – permanently. I too wish for certain pleasures, but a wish alone does not suffice; one must also calculate the price, and not in a monetary sense. In most cases, the results of pleasure are stupefaction and anesthesia of the will to self-betterment. Anecdotally, another means to self-improvement is correct economic behaviour, a subject that deserves its own discussion.
Life’s worth is not, as hedonists would say, weighed by the sum of our experiences, but rather by our personal achievements. Even the most invigorating and enjoyable of experiences eventually passes. The personal capacity for self-denial and restraint transcends beyond temporary joy, and allows the development of pride-worthy traits.
Not by pursuing pleasure does one enrich Clotho’s thread, whose brightest hue is reserved to to the great. And greatness, the laurel that so rarely embellishes crowns, is achievable! Attaining greatness is but a matter of decision and determination, of ‘suffering the slings and arrows’. Listen not when Mephistopheles whispers:
Why, on the whole, thou’rt – what thou art. Set wings of million curls upon thy head, to raise thee, wear shoes an ell in height, – the truth betrays thee, and thou remainest – what thou art.
It is indisputable that a choice must be made. Hedonism, ex vi termini, denies self-progression by prioritising the pursuit of happiness – to attain the satisfaction inherent within personal accomplishments one must aim for a different port, catch a different wind.
I acknowledge the psychological worth and the need of a certain measure of pleasure, and I do not demand an uncompromising sacrifice for the sake of self-betterment. However, one’s value is measured only according to one’s richness of character and sophistication – according to one’s progress, so to speak.
Dear reader, know that the course of pleasure and the course of progress lay perpendicularly: the route of navigation between the axes depends upon you alone. At the very least, one must recognise one’s main course – lest you be reprimanded by the Cheshire Cat.
To serve my cause, allow me to cite the example of Titus Manlius Torquatus. Livy discusses him briefly within the writings on the war of the Romans and the Latins. According to Livy, both armies were so equal in size, organization, ability, and stubbornness that victory demanded exceptional leadership. That war was of immense importance, for the very freedom and survival of the Romans were at stake. Machiavelli considers it the Romans’ greatest trial.
In order to successfully decide the battle of Vesuvius, the consuls Decius and Torquatus agreed upon two terms. First, should one of them recognize a breach of the lines he would charge into that breach, in person, to tip the scale of the battle – an act of sacrifice. Second, no soldier would be allowed to leave his post to seek personal glory through single combat.
During the battle, both of the agreed upon terms were challenged. Decius, realizing that his flank was giving way, sacrificed himself and thus denied the enemy’s advancement. Elsewhere a Roman soldier decided to disobey the order against single combat: none other than Torquatus’ son.
And Torquatus, the remaining consul, who for loyalty to kin held a knife to a tribune’s throat in the days of his youth, decreed the martial execution of his own son. Do you imagine that Torquatus’ was a cold, unloving act? That such judgement demanded less than Torquatus’ sacrifice of his own happiness?
And yet, doubly was Torquatus’ sacrifice acclaimed beyond Decius’ throughout the streets of Rome. For Rome and its consul valued principle above sentiment, pride and greatness above happiness – despite the steep price that was entailed.
Never would a hedonist have made, or appreciated, such a sacrifice. Alas! Hedonism, you have robbed humanity of greatness. It is no coincidence that an age so infatuated with pleasure is so bereft of people of quality and character. “Such men as live in these degenerate days” – Homer, how you would have lamented today!
I beseech you, modern people, change your ways! Reevaluate the worth of pleasure and happiness, and seek, instead, satisfaction, progress and individuality. Use pride as your compass to individuality and virtue. Denounce comfort for the sake of greatness.
And so we have reached the end of our discussion. Those of sharp observation might call to question my evaluation of self-improvement and pride in the face of nihilism. Let them be remembered that “the noblest of battles are always fought in vain!”