Perhaps there exists a bright-line which dictates that pleasures inevitably result in more pain. Perhaps (worldly) pleasures are simply best avoided.
Then, however, what becomes of life? Does not the sandwich provide pleasure? It is therefore reasonable to conclude that not all pleasure is to be avoided.
How does one differentiate? Can postulation really provide a means for determining if something will provide more pleasure than pain? Is one not almost constantly a poor observer to make that call?
Biology must have this down on some level. Naturally humans seek pleasure over pain. Humans wish to reproduce and generally that which facilitates this desire is pleasurable.
So, then, does one simply follow biology? Urges? Wants? What if one happens to have enough information to know that the most likely result will be more pain than pleasure? Should one follow urges which are rationalized to be short-lived in pleasure yet long-lived in pain?
Questions into a void, I cast.
Tags: desires, eastern philosophy, nihilism, pain, Philosophy, pleasure, urges, wants
