Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

h310s t1_j9kj3vv wrote

Robert Nozick's Experience Machine thought experiment seems to be a good rebuttal to Epicureanism.

1

NoGoodDrifter t1_j9kupfe wrote

Unless you just bite the bullet and say, “Hell yeah! Hook me up to the machine!” These sorts of hypotheticals rely on intuitive response and emotion. When those factors line up contrary to the desired conclusion, then the hypothetical loses its power as an argumentative device.

1

ilolvu t1_j9r5rko wrote

There are ways to argue against Nozick's machine, especially from an Epicurean viewpoint.

The main one would be that the machine does not in fact produce pleasure. An Epicurean would not accept the proposition that "electrochemical stimulation of a certain part of your brain" is the same thing as "eating a good meal". In essence, a pleasure has a distinct cause (and effect) because we are living, biological beings. There are no good short-cuts to pleasure. Only very very bad ones.

A more funny one is that the experience machine is just a magic trick... and like all magic tricks it's fake. "Beware the man behind the curtain!" winkwinknudgenudge

1

h310s t1_j9s5ing wrote

>An Epicurean would not accept the proposition that "electrochemical stimulation of a certain part of your brain" is the same thing as "eating a good meal". In essence, a pleasure has a distinct cause (and effect) because we are living, biological beings.

I've never seen this written as part of the definition of Epicurean pleasure. This article is how I've usually heard it described.

1

ilolvu t1_j9syagi wrote

>I've never seen this written as part of the definition of Epicurean pleasure.

I'm not trying to write the definition, just my understanding of what Epicureanism is about.

>This article is how I've usually heard it described.

I don't think that the author of that article would accept Nozick's machine either.

1