Hedonism
* the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

* TED talks have lead me to believe in happiness in the abstract opposed to happiness in the concrete.

Also this Schopenhauer quote was of influence:
Money is human happiness in the abstract; he, then, who is no longer capable of enjoying human happiness in the concrete devotes himself utterly to money.

Question: * Is it not true one lends itself to the other?

* Therefore putting forth hedonism as a confident philosophy reconciles the two?

I think I remember BTM and Vdzzz having this conversation. I not sure what was what at the time...

* The problem then becomes the abstract nature of the abstract, human nature requires a concrete "scoreboard" so to speak. Is this a unclimbable obstacle we must accept?

I accept the fact that people can take pleasure in the act of competition.
I accept the fact that competition leads to innovation.

Is it a necessary evil?
Or not evil at all?

Oops! Or is this an unnecessary evil?

This one is genuine, usually/probably silly... But genuine.

In as the first response.

Subjective instead of abstract and objective instead of concrete and you might be onto something.

Money does buy chicken sandwiches, you know. And chicken sandwiches are pleasant.

Money shouldn't be demonised. How we go about acquiring it and the sacrifices we make for is often should be. Moreover, when we do get the money, a lot of us don't know how to spend it. I'm curious as to what TED talk you watched. I can think of one that's the direct antithesis. Hedonism plays a huge role in my life philosophy.

Assuming tranquility is a precondition for bliss, a competition that is based in fear, like a competition for survival, is a type of competition which works counter to bliss. Fear is not evil, but a yearning for tranquil bliss calls for seeking past it.

Golf analogy

Pleasure is fleeting. How many times have you done something for pleasure or gotten something you wanted only to become bored/disinterested with it shortly after. Why keep chasing pleasure when it never has any long term sustainability?

Equinimaty is fleeting.

I hereby volunteer to receive an obscene amount of money and will report back in a few years if it bought me happiness.

hedonism is just a superficial interpretation of epicureanism. not much of a philosophy

Paging Chez, Paging Chez................Please pick up the white curtsey phone.

Hedonism is largely true as a descriptive account of the basis of most of our decisions.

Where it becomes a a little less explanatory is when we consider higher-order volition. A first-order volition would be something like wanting to drink alcohol today. A second-order volition in this case would be to quit drinking alcohol altogether. In the instance where the second-order volition wins-out, some philosophers refer to as - an exercise in free-will; but that's not particularly relevant here.

What matters here is that people who are highly adept at fulfilling second-order volitions may be drawn more to goals that do not provide immediate or short-term reward, but rather, are enriching for them over the long-term. This often requires a fair deal of self-sacrifice, which is antithetical to hedonism. This is why I, for example, value new experience - whether good or bad - above that of happiness. New experience adds to your life and future in a way that the pursuit of bliss can't. As long as you're willing to accept the consequences of such a choice of course... and hold yourself accountable for its results.

To wrap up, hedonism's over-emphasis on happiness, at least from my perspective, is blinding to some truly beautiful things about life; although it likely explains a lot of human decision-making when compared to other more systematic and pedantic philosophies.

IMO we're encouraged to do this more and more and resultantly alienate ourselves from the present moment. The problem with doing this is that we sacrifice the present moment for a later goody. But when we achieve this goody, we fail to simply enjoy it as planned - instead we're once again living in the future, sacrificing that goody in order to move forward. The problem is that this second-order way of life entraps us in this perpetual state of sacrifice for a goody that will never be enjoyed.

They dont need to be mutually exclusive or entrapping, although some may become entrapped. In fact, you can balance the two a lot better when you're well-trained in higher-order functioning. Continual self-sacrifice is not sustainable. Neither is the contrary.

Planning for the future is a present activity.

Among the elements which take that from a present mind state are ones which are sublime. Like worry, for example. Relaxing worry is relatable to achieving some bliss.