Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"... avoiding pleasure is no longer enough to protect you"

I think that can not reasonably be interpreted but to suggest that avoiding pleasure is a way of protection. That is, that we need protection from pleasure.

However, I would be interested to know how do you think that Paul was saying exactly that which you quoted?

P.S. I must say that the behaviour of individuals in this community is very interesting and perhaps predictable. I have seen time and again before a comment being upvoted until someone makes a contrary comment, at which point, the original comment begins being downvoted. It is strange and perhaps makes me naively think that people's opinion can be so very easily entirely changed let alone influenced, even "intelligent" individual's opinion.



Ok, here I go:

We don't need additional protection from pleasure, because guilt is our built in protection:

> When you spend time having fun, you know you're being self-indulgent.

He also thinks that we need protection from non-pleasure:

> The most dangerous way to lose time is not to spend it having fun, but to spend it doing fake work.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: