A second type of hedonism - less ignoble, but perhaps also less logical - calls men to seek the happiness of others.
Butler is opposing the psychological hedonism 2 of Hobbes.
Eighteenth-century ethics - Hedonism, with a theological background.
It is of the utmost importance that this development of Cyrenaic hedonism should be fully realized.
Developing from this is a new point of practical importance to the hedonism of the Cyrenaics.
Thus, in the end, Aristippus, the founder of ' the purest hedonism in the history of thought, comes very near not only to the Cynics, but to the more cultured hedonism of Epicurus and modern thinkers.
See Hedonism, EPICUxus; histories of philosophy by Zeller, Windelband, tUeberweg; H.
On the other hand attempts have been made to separate hedonism, as the search for a continuous series of physical pleasures, from eudaemonism, a condition of enduring mental satisfaction.
Among modern writers, James Seth (Ethical Princ., 1894) resumes Aristotle's position, and places Eudaemonism as the mean between the Ethics of Sensibility (hedonism) and the Ethics of Rationality, each of which overlooks the complex character of human life.
There is a marked disposition on the part of critics of hedonism to confuse "pleasure" with animal pleasure or "passion," - in other words, with a pleasure phenomenon in which the predominant feature is entire lack of self-control, whereas the word "pleasure" has strictly no such connotation.
Pleasure is strictly nothing more than the state of being pleased, and hedonism the theory that man's chief good consists in acting in such a way as to bring about a continuous succession of such states.
The value of the term Eudaemonism as an antithesis to Hedonism is thus very questionable.
Moreover, hedonism has, especially by its critics, been very much misrepresented owing mainly to two simple misconceptions.
In the first place hedonism may confine itself to the view that, as a matter of observed fact, all men do in practice make pleasure the criterion of action, or it may go further and assert that men ought to seek pleasure as the sole human good.
The earliest and the most extreme type of hedonism is that of the Cyrenaic School as stated by Aristippus, who argued that the only good for man is the sentient pleasure of the moment.
This extreme or "pure" hedonism regarded as a definite philosophic theory practically died with the Cyrenaics, though the same spirit has frequently found expression in ancient and modern, especially poetical, literature.
The confusion already alluded to between "pure" and "rational" hedonism is nowhere more clearly exemplified than in the misconceptions which have arisen as to the doctrine of the Epicureans.
The negative side of Epicurean hedonism was developed to such an extent by some members of the school (see Hegesias) that the ideal life is held to be rather indifference to pain than positive enjoyment.
This pessimistic attitude is far removed from the positive hedonism of Aristippus.
Between the hedonism of the ancients and that of modern philosophers there lies a great gulf.
Practically speaking ancient hedonism advocated the happiness of the individual: the modern hedonism of Hume, Bentham and Mill is based on a wider conception of life.
Thus we pass from Egoistic to Universalistic hedonism, Utilitarianism, Social Ethics, more especially in relation to the still broader theories of evolution.
It may be viewed as a perfect moral state: as pleasure or happiness (see Hedonism; Eudaemonism); as physical perfection; as wealth, and so forth.
The moral philosophy of Epicurus is a qualified hedonism, the heir of the Cyrenaic doctrine that pleasure is the good thing in life.
This relation to a "good" must not, however, be construed as a doctrine of ethics in the narrower sense; nor is its "utilitarianism" to be confused with the hedonism of the British associationists.