Price says:

An object, such as fame, knowledge, or the welfare of a friend, is desired, not because we foresee that when obtained it will give us pleasure; but vice versa; obtaining it gives us pleasure because we previously desired it or had an affection carrying us to it and resting in it….It cannot be conceived, that obtaining what we do not desire, should be the cause of pleasure to us; or that what we are perfectly indifferent to... should… be the means of any kind of gratification.

How does one charitably understand this? I don't desire something because it gives me pleasure, but instead, I get pleasure because I desire it? What is Price talking about here? Surely I can get pleasure from shit that I have no desire for, right? Any historians or ethicists have any clue on how to parse this?