A world where everyone's desires were fulfilled: Is it possible?
[quote= Arthur Schopenhauer] if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? what would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.[/quote]
It seems to me that Schopenhauer forgets that we also wish to not ever feel bored, to live in eternal happiness and to never want to die.
And so, the scenario he describes is not really one where we would instantly achieve all that we wish. And therefore it also doesn't seem like a good argument against paradise (or at least some versions of paradise).
On the order hand, it does seem problematic that some people wish to kill (or the death) of many others, and yet if those other people died they obviously could not be happy since they would be dead.
But if they don't die, then the people who wish for their death would not have their wish granted.
And if so, it would seem that if some people truly desire another's death, that would render the scenario where everyone achieves all that they want and live in eternal happiness, impossible.
Any pessimists out there who'd like to defend Schopenhauer on this point?
It seems to me that Schopenhauer forgets that we also wish to not ever feel bored, to live in eternal happiness and to never want to die.
And so, the scenario he describes is not really one where we would instantly achieve all that we wish. And therefore it also doesn't seem like a good argument against paradise (or at least some versions of paradise).
On the order hand, it does seem problematic that some people wish to kill (or the death) of many others, and yet if those other people died they obviously could not be happy since they would be dead.
But if they don't die, then the people who wish for their death would not have their wish granted.
And if so, it would seem that if some people truly desire another's death, that would render the scenario where everyone achieves all that they want and live in eternal happiness, impossible.
Any pessimists out there who'd like to defend Schopenhauer on this point?
Comments (46)
P.S.: There is a Bollywood film, named "God Tussi great ho" (God you are great), in that film the hero was angry with God because God is not fulfilling people wishes, so God gives him this opportunity to fulfill everyone's dream and then films goes on...(explaining things from different aspect). Film is not great though, but the idea is kinda good.
Quoting theWhiteLight
But Schopenhauer said that all wishes were to be fulfilled in that scenario. Wouldn't you say Jack would also wish to never feel bored? So that wish must also be granted and then he wouldn't have anything to complain about. If he is still bored that would just mean that one of his wishes hasn't been fulfilled.
You're in luck! I am a full-blooded, card-carrying philosophical pessimist :D.
So you do bring up some interesting points. I think from one perspective, you might be right. If life was a paradise, there would be no negative state, including boredom.
However, Schopenhauer's metaphysics is that of Will, which in its mediated form, is felt in the "lack" (it's always negative and never positive). So, that quote really should go with this quote:
[quote=Schopenhauer]Then again, how insatiable a creature is man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire, so that there is no end to the wishes of each individual will. And why is this? The real reason is simply that, taken in itself, Will is the lord of all worlds: everything belongs to it, and therefore no one single thing can ever give it satisfaction, but only the whole, which is endless. For all that, it must rouse our sympathy to think how very little the Will, this lord of the world, really gets when it takes the form of an individual; usually only just enough to keep the body together. This is why man is so very miserable.
Life presents itself chiefly as a task—the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won—of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.
Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.[/quote]
Thus paradise can never be obtained in his worldview. Rather, what he sees as equivalent to paradise would be an end of lacking all together. That would mean metaphysically "being" all existence or having no existence at all. So I think his quote about Jack and Jill can only be seen in light of the context of his metaphysics of a world where we can never NOT lack as a manifestation of Will. Even in what we THINK is paradise (like the Jack and Jill scenario you quoted), we would lack something.. even if it is just the bare restlessness of existence itself (i.e. the state of boredom).
Then people could wish to be happy with whatever they had and to wish for nothing more. The wish would be granted. And they all lived happily ever after.
People can be content. It may not happen when they are 5, 15, 25, or 45, but as one ages (and understands the limitations of wishes) it becomes increasingly possible. Do we ever become totally content? There is no discontent in death, so there is that.
For most people (everywhere) the desires are for more materiel, because materiel is concrete, easily conceptualized, and (maybe) available. Better "art" (more moving, thrilling, unforgettable, riveting, meaningful, satisfying, complex... novels, poems, sculpture, music, painting, etc.) are more difficult to conceptualize, therefore more difficult to wish for.
We don't have to worry about it too much, because most people are about as close to paradise as they are ever going to get, and it isn't all that great.
So, question: do philosophical optimists wish for more, or are they content with what they have? I'd say the latter.
I mean, I'm fine with lacking that. Is there a reason why we should not lack anything? In that paradise we also lack pain and despair, but it doesn't seem like that's bad in the least.
Perfect point. Also the nature is humans is being so selfish. They will never been fulfilled because humans don’t know how we can be fulfilled. That’s why we call it “desires” because it is something in our stimulus perception of selfishness.
Probably some people barely can afford food each month but they desire a Play Station or a brand new mobile. It is selfish. When they would get those then they would want a new house, etc...
It is impossible for the human’s desires to be fulfilled.
One idea is the law of attraction, developed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and a number of others, which suggests that we can draw the circumstances which we desire to us. A lot of people do find this helpful and I have experimented with it. I find it works to some extent. However, I do still get a lot of unpleasant experiences and this is supposed to be about aspects of the subconscious which oppose our conscious wishes and desires.
However, I don't think this is meant to be about wishing harm to others, which is another issue altogether. I would think that the person may be best to consider why they wish for that. It may point to something deeper.We could also ask if we got everything we wished for would not develop any wisdom? So, it may be worth reaching for the heights in what we wish for, but with some awareness that it may not even be desirable to fulfill all of our desires.
I understand that many people (myself included) wish to believe that “all sin is due to ignorance”, as philosophers like Spinoza thought, and that if bad people were wiser they would abstain from evil actions.
But it's not obvious to me whether that's always true or not, since it is after all possible for the person who wishes for another's death to say: “Because I genuinely want that to happen, and I would feel so good if X, who I hate so much, dissappeared”, and even after examining all the arguments against his wish he may still not see anything wrong with his thoughts and desires.
On personal ethical matters, the final and ultimate basis of one's beliefs seems to be either some feeling, or some belief that is by no means self-evident, such as belief in God's divine punishment in the afterlife.
But people who have different feelings or different beliefs towards the same thing probably won't be persuaded by any “wisdom”. And there is at present no way of proving that they are wrong or that the ones who disagree with them are right.
However, it seems to me that we do not wish those things for their own sake, rather we wish them beacuse we realize that if they happened that would cause us to feel some good sensation (pleasure, happiness, joy, peace of mind, tranquility, etc.) in our brains/minds, whether it's an immediate or a future “good sensation”.
In that case, we only need to feel those sensations directly: the man who wishes for the other person's death actually wishes to feel the sensation produced by that other person's death. If so, it can be given to him without killing the other person, and the same could be done to all other contradictory desires among people, and in fact to all desires in general.
True, like I responded to another user the only way out of such a situation seems to be this: The man who wishes for everyone's desires not to be fulfilled actually is saying something like: It would feel so good if I could ruin everyone else's desires.
And in that case, the wish that is to be granted is just the sensation he would feel if that happened, without the need for it to actually happen.
And so, the others could still have their desires fulfilled.
I think that there are so many perspectives, especially the subjective. I think that it can be that some fulfilment of desires leads to a happier and higher level of functioning. If I get Jill I may be much more positive to be around than if I am unhappy Jack, moping in a corner.
Also, at face value the desire to kill someone may appear to be based on a sensation, but it may not be that simple. It could be that the desire is based upon the way that person is having in their life. However, we may be talking about a certain desire arising and it does not mean that the person would actively try to fulfill that desire. Many people may experience such a desire but realise that it would be a problem to act upon it.
Then all desires can be considered the same, seeming. Otherwise, it turns out that there are "right" desires and "false"?
Why are some men's favorite time of day just sitting around by a fire and telling stories, perhaps playing games either in or kept score by simple marks in the sand, just socializing with others, while for some, doing so would be a chore they'd pay to get out of.
The hedonic treadmill, perhaps? Probably. Perhaps we're all just chasing shiny objects at the end of the day, in an effort to feel more alive and human in an inhumane world. Perhaps, it is the shiny objects that chase us, gradually robbing us of our humanity. Does a man drink a can of beer until it's empty? Or does the beer drink the man until he's empty? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. Before too late.
So I think other posters have stated it too, but Schopenhauer's main metaphysics is that of dissatisfaction and unrest. Thus, he was giving a sort of false paradise. What we think is paradise, is actually laying bare the patent unrest that characterizes existence. The boredom and then the self-inflicted injuries that he predicts would ensue would start the suffering cycle all over again.
They are the same in the sense that they are merely something that occurs in one's mind, that fact itself is neither right nor wrong.
What may be right or wrong is a judgement concerning that desire, or justifying an action with that desire.
True, it could be that they are simply accustomed to that life style and were taught since their early life that it was good or normal to do or think such things.
Though even in that case one could argue they may still act looking (indirectly) for a good sensation, since they could find it painful or annoying to act contrary to the habits they acquired from their early infancy, and since they think there's nothing bad with those actions or desires, they may act according to them since they think they will feel better than if they don't (unconsciously most of the time).
I am really talking about conflict over desire, although I am aware that the passage from Schopenhauer is talking about boredom. However, I do believe that the difficulty of desire may be about conflict in achieving them. Of course, life is different in our time. What that means is that our satisfaction of desires may be done differently. We may watch television, use the internet and probably have a different repertoire of working with desires.
You speak of sensation and I am not sure that desires are purely physical, because they involve the emotions. The emotions arise physically but they are bound up with conscious wishes, so are idea related. In the case I spoke of a person who feels oppressed by another and experience a desire to kill that person it may be based on an idea of the impact this has. It may be experienced as a sensation but even as an intrusive thought. It is at that level that we may experience conflict because we don't just have sensations but thoughts about them.
Getting back to the idea of boredom, we could ask if that is an actual sensation, experienced bodily, because it could be experienced more as an absence. So, really, Shopenhauer's Jack may just be left with a void of craving if he did not have to work to win Jill's love. So, it seems that the presence of craving is seen as worth having as opposed to boredom. The question is whether boredom is really the worst possible scenario. What is boredom exactly? Is it simply a sensation?
@Amalac
But I am not convinced that all life is miserable. That is Schopenhauer's subjective perspective. Personally, I find that it has extreme lows and highs, and some inbetween times. But it does come down to personal experience and interpretation.
I guess I was just trying to give the best quote to highlight the OP's questions. He likens a sort of unrest/motionless/Platonic realm as a sort of "the" actual realm of paradise of sorts.. It is a negation of all lack, a perpetual stillness likened to nothingness.. and similar to Buddhist ideals, etc.
Thus the OP asking why Jack and Jill scenario is not good enough for a paradise, I think that whole quote kind of gets at Schop's major point. It gives it more context.
Okay, that's fine, because the discussion did begin with Schopenhauer, and I probably was stretching the question in other directions.
From the Psychology of Being:
"So far as the person himself is concerned, all he knows is that he is desperate for love, and thinks he will be forever happy and content if he gets it. He does not know in advance that he will strive on after this gratification has come, and that gratification of one basic need opens consciousness to domination by another, "higher" need. So far as he is concerned, the absolute, ultimate value, synonymous with life itself, is whichever need in the hierarchy he is dominated by during a particular period. These basic needs or basic values therefore be treated both as ends and as steps toward a single end-goal. It is true that there is a single, ultimate value or end of life and also it is just as true that we have a hierarchical and developmental system of values, complexly interrelated.
This also helps to solve the apparent paradox of contrast between Being and Becoming... ."
AH Maslow
Maslow seems to be the antithesis of Schopenhauer here.. Maslow is buying into the scheme of becoming, in Hegelian fashion (someone Schopenhauer despised, though one of many). Schopenhauer's ideal is Platonic rest or being.
However, I can see the relevance of Maslow's ideas, because he is suggesting that when one need is met this becomes a basis for moving on to the next one up in the hierarchy. Also, it would be easy to compare the whole idea of desires with needs, because both could be seen as arising from the essence of human nature, even though the actual idealised goal of the two thinkers is vastly different.
Yes, but just pointing out that this wouldn't be the salvation-worldview of Schop. Maslow is essentially saying that "there is somewhere to go, and someone to be, and something to do". Schopenhauer is saying that this is the illusion. Stop. Rest. Stillness. Stasis.
Maslow's ideal is something akin to a famous social activist or scientist. Schopenhauer's is the Buddha.
If he is bored because his life is too easy, all he has to do is to wish that he were not bored (if in fact any and all of his desires are to be fulfilled in that “possible world” Schopenhauer describes).
Quoting Jack Cummins
But see, you yourself say that it could be experienced as an absence. Whatever is experienced is a sensation, and all sensations are produced by the brain (such is the view suggested by the empirical evidence, anyway), and therefore in that sense boredom is bodily too.
Unless you are a mind-body dualist. But even in that case, even if the experience were not “bodily”, that is still something you experience and that we would call “bad” (not as bad as pain of course, but still bad) is it not?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think it's obviously not the worst possible scenario. I'd much rather feel bored than feel a horrible pain in my stomach, for example.
I think that your view of Maslow is a bit wrong because he is not just a social activist or scientist. He places great emphasis on peak experiences. Even though the Buddha stressed the overcoming of desire as a goal, he did also stress enlightenment.
Yes, but his ideal for this was generally as a socially-conscious person..But I get what you're saying.. Either way, one represents actively embracing the world, one is denying it. No mountain climbing adventures for Schopenhauer. Sit, deny the will, don't eat much.. escape.
Sure. In that context, needs, can be synonymous with the [Schop's] metaphysical will. The will to be.
The definition of a human being is an interesting conflation between a verb and a noun. In that sense being is to live an ordinary life of doing, or striving. Perhaps the trick is to desire what one already has. For instance, one might go to the gym and exercise because they desire to keep their body fit. It's like scrubbing one's teeth, it's a habit for life. The habit is based on the desire to maintain what one already has... .
I completely agree with your perspective on boredom. It seems far more preferable to suffering. I don't get bored very often but from talking to some people who do, it does seem that it can be an absence of meaning which can border on to nihilism.
Hey Schop1!
I got to run to an appointment, let me get back to you cause those are some intriguing thoughts....
Hello! Cool.
That's why I don't drive!
Schop1 !
In our humanist framework, is this correct:
Being and Existentialism:
Existentialism (earliest form in the west/Ecclesiastes): let be/a time for all seasons
Taoism: let be
Existential psychology: transient states of absolute Being
Platonism/Platonic rest: unchanging, absolute... ?
Is there an unresolved dichotomy between being and becoming?
I'm not sure about unresolved, but it seems like the ideal state for Plato/Buddha/Schopenhauer seems to be one of changeless stasis of sorts. In Plato's conception, the world is corrupted by time and space in a way. It is corrupted by the materiality of the world somehow. It's hard to see in Plato qua Plato how he resolves the world of being with the world of becoming. The world of becoming "participates" with being and the Forms, but how that is, is a bit vague. Schopenhauer does a much better of job of fleshing out this idea in terms of some form of salvation through asceticism.. there is some nirvana one can perceive according to Schop by denying one's will which would be akin to negating Will as one's own will is what is one and the same with the illusion of time/space/causality and thus there is a way to get beyond it for the rare saint-like person that he describes in Book 4 I believe of WWR.
Ok, using some sense of logic, not that logic can explain certain/all phenomena of Being, perhaps we can analogize to, say, the mysteries associated with relativity and the speed of light.
In your scenario, if the speed of light (at full speed), time stops (eternity), then in theory we have a sense of some sort of Platonic realm of being, somewhere in the universe. Existential psychology has taught us that human's can experience these so-called transient states of absolute Being where there is a feeling of ultimate purpose, peace, and/or completeness (time-stopping euphoric feelings), in their everydayness of doing, striving, and so forth. Too, I happen to agree with many theoretical physicists in thinking that an anthropic universe (PAP) contains conscious information which provides for such transient states of Being. To that end, it's seems as though it's all there for the taking to enjoy. It's kind of like knowing what questions to ask; answers are received based upon how we think. Kind of like the law attraction. The cosmic computer.
That may lead to many other questions of course, one of which is the pragmatism or practice of arriving at these transient states of Being.... . Transient states of oneness, wholeness, and so forth, to where we realize that which we were born to do.
The common takeaway there is that Being is synonymous with doing, an action verb. We were meant to be here and accomplish things through ourselves and other's. And if life is truly about relationship's, it seems that it is incumbent on us to pursue same. And in a humanistic way, through that process, perhaps we can experience your Platonic realm of Being (albeit they are fleeting...).
Take music for example, or even the discovery of some novel invention or idea (all from our own consciousness/existence). It seems we have the volition capable of such perceptions, such feelings... .
I'm not much for this kind of speculation, but have ever read about Philipp Mainlander's philosophy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder
Thank you. I read thru that, and found this:
[i]Schopenhauer contrasted Kant's transcendental critical philosophy with Leibniz's dogmatic philosophy.
With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method [of dogmatic philosophy]. It makes its problem just those eternal truths (principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason) that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending the objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the eternal truths, on which all the previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.[/i]
In your interpretation, does this tie to some sort of eternal phenomena? Is the eternal phenomena consciousness itself? Is the metaphysical Will similar? What does Schop say about this?
Not sure if you know Schop's conception, but to him, existence is two-sided. There is the world as Will and as Representation. Will is considered the "thing-in-itself" unmediated by time/space/causality. It is undifferentiated, and the only thing that can be said of it, is that it is akin to a principle of "striving". The phenomenal world of Representation is the Will (but in some sort of "illusory" state) mediated by time/space/causality and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason. This is the subjective animal that we find ourselves in, moving about on the "stage" of the "world" perceived "out there" due to our constructs of the Representation. We are still at heart "will" and thus strive in this mediated fashion, and thus are dissatisfied and never "whole". Rather we are lacking, are impinged upon by harms, and only find "holes" (including other people who are frustrating and are different kind of 'holes :D). Anyways, how does one "escape" from the tyranny of Will, being that it is the source of being? Well, he has an idea that the ascetic character-type can somehow deny the Will so much as to achieve a state of some sort of equanimity. That is to say, the person can gain "salvation" through a Will-less state. I don't really know what this looks like, other than that the subjective/objective distinction has been annihilated but the person somehow is alive.
Just to note, this is not my philosophy per se, but Schop's.
Do people really know what they want?
I mean... I feel the need to separate out two things here.
One: the quote the topic is based around. Well... this is obviously a hypothetical, right? Because who is granting these wishes? I don’t even know where to begin...
(Aside, but shouldn’t we be starting with the fact that the quote doesn’t seem to care about what “Jill” wants? I... feel like I’m just too different from people here if no one else is cringing at that as much as I am...)
So okay. Blatant human rights issues aside, let’s say we are just talking about physical objects, and that there is some god granting wishes (are atheists allowed here? Because... hi...)
So, I say, “Hmmm... I want the Mona Lisa.”
Poof. God sends me the Mona Lisa.
But... at any given moment, out of the billions of people on Earth, a lot of them are probably also wishing for the Mona Lisa.
So... if they all get it, what does that mean?
Did God just duplicate the Mona Lisa so there are now hundreds of them?
Did God go back in time and make Leonardo paint 100? (is it considered “back” when it’s God doing the time-travelling? Is it even travel, or is God every-when at once?)
If so, then every copy is different. (And what does the sitter think of having 100 of her portrait painted because God said that people 500 years later will want them?)
Do people get to choose what copy they get?
Do art historians get to analyze all of the copies? What if they *desire* to do so?
Do people remember the world-line where there was only one Mona Lisa? (Actually, there really are several similar paintings created by Leonardo et al., but for the sake of example) Or if the painting was duplicated without time-travel, how is that explained to the historical record?
What if a lot of people *desire* it to go back to being just one Mona Lisa in the Louvre?
What if some of the wishers *desired* to be the *only* owner of *the* Mona Lisa?
Is this a majority-rules thing? Is it one-person-one-vote, or does the person who wishes hardest get their wish? Does your status on God’s naughty-nice list come into play?
What happens to the monetary value of it? What about people who don’t care about art history at all, and just wanted the Mona Lisa as an arbitrary famous thing of high value?
(If everyone could just wish for more money... the inflation that would cause. Could they then wish away the inflation?)
I think that beneath everything someone would *say* they desire, there’s some underlying need that can be met some other, less obvious but more meaningful way.
Like, if someone wants to harm another person, what they really want is to heal the pain in themselves that they blame the other person for causing. Hurting the other person isn’t going to heal you.
So maybe the god/genie in this scenario should just sit down with the person and help them figure out what they actually want. Like an angelic therapist. One who would actually listen and not just quote self-help books at you. Now *that* would actually be worth wishing for.
I mean... I feel like maybe the angle of “but there are so many different people in the world all wishing conflicting things” wasn’t the point here... but I feel like it needed to be said.
But I think my point is, “what will bring you true happiness” does not equal “every whim and fancy” or “the thing you’ve written down as your #1 goal for 10 years” or anything else that you would necessarily know to ask for at face value.
Someone mentioned the idea that a person who spends their whole life in Plato’s cave watching shadow puppets and never realizing they’re missing anything *would call themself happy*. But is that true happiness? I don’t think it is. Or, if it is, then there are things, like wisdom, that are more important than happiness. As for the counter-example of the urban person who craves status symbols, see previous paragraph.
Aside from all that, I do agree that the process of getting to/creating the place where you want to be is an important part of the equation.
Everyone wants to feel happy right? (Except perhaps some suicidal people). We often disagree as to the means to achieve that end, but not as regards the end.
Quoting Lavender
Yes, obviously
Quoting Lavender
That's correct, some wishes may contradict other wishes, as other users pointed out. To this I gave the reply, however, that we don't wish those things for their own sake, but rather for the good sensation that springs from obtaining them. So, to those who wish the Mona Lisa it can be granted, by some hypotetical God, the good sensation they would feel when they, and only they, obtained the Mona Lisa, without actually giving the Mona Lisa to them, and thus grant the wish in that way.
In that case though, the thing they would actually desire would be to feel the best way they possibly can: the greatest sensation possible, and would then have no need for any other desires.
Quoting Lavender
Or they just feel good when hurting others or taking revenge. It's an unpleasant possibility, but it's a possibility nonetheless.
Quoting Lavender
The question is: Who feels better/ who is happier? The one who is living in a happy ignorance or the one who tries to achieve happiness through wisdom? The answer to this question seems to me to be far from obvious.
That seems off topic at any rate, though it deserves a whole thread of its own in my opinion.
Quoting Lavender
What would be the point of being wise if that made you feel miserable or not as happy as being ignorant? None, in my opinion, so it's inconceivable to me why some people value wisdom more than happiness.
That is not to say that wisdom and happiness are
necessarily opposite poles, that is another question, but I don't see the point of becoming wiser if that made one suffer or feel sad.
Drugs, then?
I don’t think that’s the answer, because...
I think it’s comparable to having a good, nutritious meal with varied, complex flavors, vs. a cheaply made, simple, artificially-flavored candy full of empty calories and sugar.
Also, think about sitting on the couch all day watching some shallow, guilty-pleasure TV — involves light pleasure and no pain — vs going out for a run, breathing fresh air, feeling a sense of accomplishment that you’re doing better every time you go out, and then finally getting to get home and sit on that couch — more pleasurable as a contrast — and watching some really deep and compelling film — something still pleasurable, just on a deeper level. I’m not talking about an “eat your vegetables” sort of thing (bad metaphor, since I really like vegetables, but...)
Also, if happiness were the only thing that mattered, what would you say to a world where everyone just floats in tanks and gets fed drugs that give them pleasurable dreams, but they never actually go and do anything? Would you find that satisfying?
And there’s also the question of, that person on that island building sand castles doesn’t know the outside world, but what if the outside world needs their help?
I’m not even just talking about a person who leaves a rich country to go out and help the starving children somewhere in a war zone, without any material comforts or clean water, seeing atrocities every day, and being horrified, but feeling like their life is more meaningful than it would have been if they’d stayed where they were.
I mean... there are so many problems in the world, big and small, personal, local, global, that... even if it were possible to completely ignore all of them, would that really be more satisfying than trying to solve them?
Since I have never tried any drugs before, I can't say much with regards to whether the sensation they give is really that great (I hugely doubt it), but some people may feel better doing other things, rather than doing drugs. That is a subjective matter.
Not to mention some drugs have harmful effects, and so one may avoid them if one values also the absence of pain as another ingredient of happiness.
Quoting Lavender
I don't quite see how it's comparable.
But anyway, some of those people who feel better eating junk food rather than vegetables, also take into account the fact that if they ate just that, they would probably get sick and suffer more often, and probably die younger as well, and if they die they can't enjoy more junk food anymore.
So it could be said that happiness, or a good sensation, involves also taking future consequences into account, so as to also avoid suffering.
The ideal would be to obtain the greatest balance between good and bad sensations, as Bentham pointed out.
Quoting Lavender
That's why one should also take into account future pleasures and pains before making a decision. Some people value sitting in the couch more than others, that's once again a subjective matter of how much one values the total balance of sensations in each scenario.
And of course, most people don't bother to do that rational calculation, but merely act by custom and habit.
Quoting Lavender
If that drug they are taking gives them the greatest possible sensation, and I wasn't taking those drugs, then it may not be satisfaying for me to watch them do it. But all I need to do is to take that magical drug for that dissatisfaction to vanish entirely. At that point, it wouldn't matter to me in the least whether or not an outside observer felt unsatisfied by contemplating that, he can just join for his discomfort to dissappear anyway.
If that drug didn't give the greatest possible sensation, then I would have to test it temporarily and compare it to things like the sensation I get from artistic contemplation and creation, eating good food, sex, love, etc.
If that drug were superior to all that, then it would be absurd, in my opinion, not to take it.
Quoting Lavender
Good point (though we seem to be moving away from the thread somewhat), in my case I'd say contemplating the unhappiness of others makes me feel bad too, and contemplating the scenario where I help them to avoid suffering and feel better makes me feel great, and so I would help them in order to feel better myself.
Quoting Lavender
What would be the point of solving those problems if it didn't make you as happy as you would have been if you'd instead ignored them, and devoted yourself to something else (like art for example)? Again, it seems to me that there would be no point.
The value placed in solving all those problems, some problems or none whatsoever is a subjective matter.
Maybe some would feel better if we tried to solve them, while others would not. Maybe all of us would ultimately feel better if we tried to solve them, maybe not.