A Rhetorical Analysis Of 'The Introduction To The Hedonism Handbook'
A Rhetorical Analysis of The Introduction to The Hedonism Handbook In the introduction to The Hedonism Handbook, the author Michael Flocker, tries to convey that the assumption: “If you avoid all things pleasurable, you will live a long and happy life,” is a fallacy- that the reasons for this assumption are wrong. He states that working every day, steering clear of anything that many be construed as something pleasurable, is something that this generation has adopted as being ‘happy.’ However, his argument that it is okay to seek pleasure and that we as a society have deemed it as wrong is not as sound as he tries to argue. We do not all feel happiness just from seeking pleasure. This may be effective in some instances, but people are not
…show more content…
one tracked, human beings cannot all be categorized into one train car, we are different, we all feel pleasure in different ways, and feel pleasure by doing different things. Just like train tracks, people veer in other directions, going different places, separating into more tracks. The author’s audience is more diverse than he determines them to be, and this point is the main reason his argument is not as successful as he envisions.
When asked on a Proust Questionnaire what virtue he thought was most over-rated, Flocker answered with a single word: chastity. And when asked what phrase was most overused in his vocabulary, his answer was: “Let’s have one more.” Regarding this statement, and looking over his argument, you can see that his ethos, his credibility in his argument only extends to what he derives pleasurable: sex, cigarettes, and having a good time without caring about the approval of others. This is his main argument in the introduction to his book: that it is okay to let loose and not care what people think, to be able to have a cigarette or do something that you find pleasurable, like sex, just so you can reach true happiness. At the basic fundamental level, according to the author, if you do not utilize this thinking and put it to use, you are not actually happy. His credibility may shine true for those who love to let loose every so often, and often ‘have one more,’ but the ethos in his argument only extends to those who follow that line of thinking. There are those who are happy putting in hard work without letting loose, and Flocker does not apply these people into his argument. Hard work, virtue, sacrifice and self-discipline makes an unhappy martyr, and those hedonists who employ their practice every day in the end they will only succeed in pissing off those martyrs even further. This is a summarized passage that Flocker employs in his argument that people, who are non-hedonists, are not happy and seeing those who have achieved “true happiness” will make them even angrier. In contrast, if you look at a Buddhist monk, who dedicates his life to strict discipline, virtue, and sacrifice in order to achieve what the religion of Buddhism refers to as ‘true happiness,’ is actually very happy and content. They are celibate, have strict rules for everything from dining to dressing, and their first Noble Truth (a teaching) is that realistically, life is full of pain and suffering, getting old, and ultimately deaths, however suffering can be avoided, and this can lead you to true happiness. If you take these teachings into account, you do not need to experience pleasurable things everyday like Flocker insists should happen in order to simply be happy. It is entirely possible to practice self-discipline and celibacy in order to have and enjoy a good life. It is possible for a good life to be achieved by hard-work and dedication to something in your life, whether it be religion, work, or everyday living. In contrast to his unsuccessful work, he does have good use of logos in a small paragraph about halfway through his introduction. He states that in times of great pressure and stress, people tend to search out means of relief, but when they are not used to seeking out immediate forms of pleasure, they tip the balance and over-excess. Depriving one’s self of ‘pleasure’ and ‘bliss,’ then going out and over indulging is bad, and can be more harmful than anything else. Pacing yourself is the key to happiness, Flocker says. However, his audience is supposedly all people who never seek out pleasure, who always go to work nine-to-five, come home, do housework, then do it all again the next day. In reading this introduction, one can assume that the author means to say that if you do not practice even a small part of a hedonist lifestyle, a lifestyle in which pleasure and happiness are the ultimate goals in life, you are this person who is not happy. Everyone who is reading his writing is grasping at any straw for happiness because they work every day, live in this endless cycle day in and day out, and fear of what could happen if they do something out of the normal and self-indulge. An argument being presented and in discussion is that society is afraid to do things that are pleasurable to be happy, because they are too busy working hard, and afraid of what their peers might think about them and the ramifications of their thoughts, to be happy.
Hedonists enjoy life, are about the only ones that actually have a good life, and are not just working to try and have a good life, hidden behind competition, manipulation, all while trying to fit into a ‘perfect’ way of life. However, the author’s argument relies heavily on his audience being these people that follow these “societal rules” outlined by him in the first two paragraphs. He is trying to convince this “Western world” that happiness cannot be achieved by being hard-working and disciplined and not willing to let loose. The assumption that all people are unhappy in the way they work their life, from not smoking, to planning kids’ play dates, is far-reaching. Buddhist monks dedicate their whole life to exactly what hedonists are concerned of, but do it because it makes them happy, and in the end, believe that true happiness will be attained. Theodore Rubin once quoted, “Happiness does not come from doing easy work but from the afterglow of satisfaction that comes after the achievement of a difficult task that demanded our best.” In contrast to Flocker’s belief, happiness can be attained by working hard and earning something that you dedicated time to do, and a good life can be achieved by building a family and making sure they have what they need. Nor is every person in the Western world trying to fit into these society rules, afraid to find pleasure and actually be happy, while having a good
life.
Works Cited
"Michael Flocker." Michael Flocker. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .
White, Brian. "A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction." A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction. Van S. Dhammika, 1993. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .
Flocker, Michael. "The Introduction." Introduction. The Hedonism Handbook: Mastering the Lost Arts of Leisure and Pleasure. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2004. N. pag. Print.
one tracked, human beings cannot all be categorized into one train car, we are different, we all feel pleasure in different ways, and feel pleasure by doing different things. Just like train tracks, people veer in other directions, going different places, separating into more tracks. The author’s audience is more diverse than he determines them to be, and this point is the main reason his argument is not as successful as he envisions.
When asked on a Proust Questionnaire what virtue he thought was most over-rated, Flocker answered with a single word: chastity. And when asked what phrase was most overused in his vocabulary, his answer was: “Let’s have one more.” Regarding this statement, and looking over his argument, you can see that his ethos, his credibility in his argument only extends to what he derives pleasurable: sex, cigarettes, and having a good time without caring about the approval of others. This is his main argument in the introduction to his book: that it is okay to let loose and not care what people think, to be able to have a cigarette or do something that you find pleasurable, like sex, just so you can reach true happiness. At the basic fundamental level, according to the author, if you do not utilize this thinking and put it to use, you are not actually happy. His credibility may shine true for those who love to let loose every so often, and often ‘have one more,’ but the ethos in his argument only extends to those who follow that line of thinking. There are those who are happy putting in hard work without letting loose, and Flocker does not apply these people into his argument. Hard work, virtue, sacrifice and self-discipline makes an unhappy martyr, and those hedonists who employ their practice every day in the end they will only succeed in pissing off those martyrs even further. This is a summarized passage that Flocker employs in his argument that people, who are non-hedonists, are not happy and seeing those who have achieved “true happiness” will make them even angrier. In contrast, if you look at a Buddhist monk, who dedicates his life to strict discipline, virtue, and sacrifice in order to achieve what the religion of Buddhism refers to as ‘true happiness,’ is actually very happy and content. They are celibate, have strict rules for everything from dining to dressing, and their first Noble Truth (a teaching) is that realistically, life is full of pain and suffering, getting old, and ultimately deaths, however suffering can be avoided, and this can lead you to true happiness. If you take these teachings into account, you do not need to experience pleasurable things everyday like Flocker insists should happen in order to simply be happy. It is entirely possible to practice self-discipline and celibacy in order to have and enjoy a good life. It is possible for a good life to be achieved by hard-work and dedication to something in your life, whether it be religion, work, or everyday living. In contrast to his unsuccessful work, he does have good use of logos in a small paragraph about halfway through his introduction. He states that in times of great pressure and stress, people tend to search out means of relief, but when they are not used to seeking out immediate forms of pleasure, they tip the balance and over-excess. Depriving one’s self of ‘pleasure’ and ‘bliss,’ then going out and over indulging is bad, and can be more harmful than anything else. Pacing yourself is the key to happiness, Flocker says. However, his audience is supposedly all people who never seek out pleasure, who always go to work nine-to-five, come home, do housework, then do it all again the next day. In reading this introduction, one can assume that the author means to say that if you do not practice even a small part of a hedonist lifestyle, a lifestyle in which pleasure and happiness are the ultimate goals in life, you are this person who is not happy. Everyone who is reading his writing is grasping at any straw for happiness because they work every day, live in this endless cycle day in and day out, and fear of what could happen if they do something out of the normal and self-indulge. An argument being presented and in discussion is that society is afraid to do things that are pleasurable to be happy, because they are too busy working hard, and afraid of what their peers might think about them and the ramifications of their thoughts, to be happy.
Hedonists enjoy life, are about the only ones that actually have a good life, and are not just working to try and have a good life, hidden behind competition, manipulation, all while trying to fit into a ‘perfect’ way of life. However, the author’s argument relies heavily on his audience being these people that follow these “societal rules” outlined by him in the first two paragraphs. He is trying to convince this “Western world” that happiness cannot be achieved by being hard-working and disciplined and not willing to let loose. The assumption that all people are unhappy in the way they work their life, from not smoking, to planning kids’ play dates, is far-reaching. Buddhist monks dedicate their whole life to exactly what hedonists are concerned of, but do it because it makes them happy, and in the end, believe that true happiness will be attained. Theodore Rubin once quoted, “Happiness does not come from doing easy work but from the afterglow of satisfaction that comes after the achievement of a difficult task that demanded our best.” In contrast to Flocker’s belief, happiness can be attained by working hard and earning something that you dedicated time to do, and a good life can be achieved by building a family and making sure they have what they need. Nor is every person in the Western world trying to fit into these society rules, afraid to find pleasure and actually be happy, while having a good
life.
Works Cited
"Michael Flocker." Michael Flocker. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .
White, Brian. "A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction." A Basic Buddhism Guide: 5 Minute Introduction. Van S. Dhammika, 1993. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .
Flocker, Michael. "The Introduction." Introduction. The Hedonism Handbook: Mastering the Lost Arts of Leisure and Pleasure. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2004. N. pag. Print.