It is Immoral to be Boring
Variability characterises the things in the universe that are interesting. Stasis, or something approaching it, characterises the things that are not.
Those things within the realm of variability which also contain a destructive quality are at risk of leaving a stasis in their wake, granting destructive variable things the distinction of being net-less interesting than variable things of a creative or harmless nature, but more interesting than a stasis on its own.
For clarity, I will rank the interesting-ness of the degrees and kinds of variability.
1. Creative, variable things
2. Non creative but harmless variable things
3. Actively destructive variable things
4. Static things
Ranking the interesting-ness is important, because my argument’s final premise maintains that interesting things tend to be worth engaging with, and not interesting things tend not to be worth engaging with. At all.
Therefore, the argument's conclusion presents the same ranking from before, with the express assertion that as a phenomenon ascends the ranking, it increases in the extent to which it is worth engaging with, and vice versa, as it descends the ranking.
Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things
(The tricky part with this framework is categorizing the various phenomena of the world into the four categories. This endeavor is probably to be regarded as imprecise at best.)
I will now (for better or worse) bring the baggage of moral language into the argument:
You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with.
Sprinkle on the idea that static things are boring to bring it full circle with the title, and bada-bing bada-boom, you got yourself a way to feel morally obligated to be interesting.
*Bonus consideration (for fun)
Now what if I said, logical argumentation is boring?
Those things within the realm of variability which also contain a destructive quality are at risk of leaving a stasis in their wake, granting destructive variable things the distinction of being net-less interesting than variable things of a creative or harmless nature, but more interesting than a stasis on its own.
For clarity, I will rank the interesting-ness of the degrees and kinds of variability.
1. Creative, variable things
2. Non creative but harmless variable things
3. Actively destructive variable things
4. Static things
Ranking the interesting-ness is important, because my argument’s final premise maintains that interesting things tend to be worth engaging with, and not interesting things tend not to be worth engaging with. At all.
Therefore, the argument's conclusion presents the same ranking from before, with the express assertion that as a phenomenon ascends the ranking, it increases in the extent to which it is worth engaging with, and vice versa, as it descends the ranking.
Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things
(The tricky part with this framework is categorizing the various phenomena of the world into the four categories. This endeavor is probably to be regarded as imprecise at best.)
I will now (for better or worse) bring the baggage of moral language into the argument:
You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with.
Sprinkle on the idea that static things are boring to bring it full circle with the title, and bada-bing bada-boom, you got yourself a way to feel morally obligated to be interesting.
*Bonus consideration (for fun)
Now what if I said, logical argumentation is boring?
Comments (35)
Seems like some begging the question is going on here unless you clarify or rephrase what it means to be "worth" engaging with.
As is, worth implies moral value, so you're essentially saying:
"You morally should engage in things that are of moral value to engage with."
I think just about everyone holds a view like this. But is it not the case that determining which things are not worth engaging with is one of the more complex problems faced by human beings? Even the question what is boring is subjectively determined. I, for instance, am bored by theater, sport, rock 'n' roll, Netflix, religion, weddings, science fiction, politics. Others seem to be invigorated and galvanized by these subjects. What's next?
...
Oh.
Having been influenced by Nietzsche, I want to ask the question as to weather morality itself is worth engaging with, for if morality doesn't do anything good for us, then we shouldn't use it.
So without wanting to take anything for granted, I'm backing up and asking "What is worth engaging with?" or "What will I do with my time?". My answer in this argument is "variable, creative things are worth engaging with" or "I will spend my time with variable, creative things". Now all I have to do is figure out which things are variable/ creative.
The way I see it right now, I'm only adding moral language to increase the emotional intensive to engage with/ refute my claim. It's a whole other bag of worms but I kind of think that people only ever use moral language as a way to incentivise action (for better or worse).
A few examples might be interesting.
I'm still struggling with what you really mean by "worth." I assume you simply mean "has value" and that's subjective. Just like interesting is subjective.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt
Different minds are bored by different things.
I'm sure a range of morally questionable activities are also this.
We humans are immoral because we can't tolerate boredom/stasis.
Curiosity might kill the sapient apes but at least they were interesting.
:100: But boy are we good at it. We even spin it, from the insecurity it really is, to a positive called "curiosity." We aren't curious. We're just tired of having ourselves around. Rather than satisfaction with what is, we try to makes things what they are not.
Theater, sport, netflix, weddings, science fiction, and politics, are all variable things, meaning they change and have multiple aspects which has the potential to make them interesting. Since none of them are actively destructive (I hope) and none of them are completely static, I would argue they are all "worth engaging with" although by no means do you have to.
There is a bit of a playground there where you are free to subjectively enjoy any of the "harmless variable" or "creative variable" things that you like. Maybe there are even times where "destructive variable" things like war are necessary. But I would objectively measure something as creative rather than harmless if it if it propagates even more variable things after it, just like destructive variable things "are at risk of leaving stasis in their wake".
A song is creative and variable if it propagates more variability (someone taps their foot, or dances) and it's harmless and variable if it doesn't (say because it's too quiet, or too modern, and therefore doesn't have enough notes). Death is something that's completely static, and destructive variable things, are those that bring about static things like death.
I do think you raise a good point. It may be hard to actually put things into these categories... and if it all does break down into subjectivity then it isn't useful.
To your second point...
Boredom still contributes to variability, since it provides a novel break from excitement (boredom AND excitement together are more interesting than excitement on its own).
Absolute stasis however (something I think is basically interchangeable with death) is, if not immoral, something that I have no interest in engaging with. I think actions are better if they are more similar to life (maintained and characterized by variability) than they are to death (characterized by stasis).
I think death may be a compliment to life, like how boredom is a compliment to excitement, but as a living creature, I see myself as having the responsibility to celebrate life (variability). When I am dead, I will have the responsibility to celebrate death (stasis).
So if you think something is "worth doing", or "interesting" and I don't, that's fine.
I would estimate that you are unlikely to think something is worth doing if it's 100% static. And in honesty, I would disagree with you if you did.
I want to do things that are in the vein of life and music and movement and colour, and I don't want do the things that are in the vein of death and eternal silence and whatnot.
Well, since you've taken morality out of it and you're admitting it's pretty much all subjective... what's the point of this thread? (I'm not trying to be rude, honest question here.)
As of right now, all I can say is: yeah, go ahead and do the things you think are more worthwhile and interesting than others. Have fun!
But I also kind of think that the whole point of life is to have fun... so I'm proposing a scale for measuring value (subjectively or otherwise) along the variability/ stasis dichotomy, which aims to make this bias of mine articulate, with the hopes of spreading said bias to others (moral language being used merely as a tool to communicate).
I guess I'm sort of curious if anyone thinks if there is anything better to try to aim for than filling one's life with creative, and variable things. Maybe there is an even higher end that I'm not thinking of? Or there is something bad about creativity and movement that I am unaware of.
Get up in the morning, perform your ablutions, head for work, return home, go to bed. Lather, rinse, repeat. Sisyphusean algorithm aka the shampoo algorithm.
You mean Finnegan's wake or someone else's?
Damn straight!
If possible, do you think you could elaborate?
Of course it is not immoral to be Boring. You only create boredom. Most people do that most of the time! :grin: Can you blame them for that?
If you would blame people of being boring what would you do if they are angry or sad, which are and create more negative emotions?
Does the variability generated by the fascinating study of war exceed that which would have been generated by all the people who died in it? Maybe if it's a really small war? Or I guess at least as long as there are enough survivors to go on and make poems about it after. Nukes for example might be quite variable but if there is no life on earth left after we use them then I think it's kind of not worth it.
I definitely think there is a place for like, mischief right?
So like you go around stirring things up, making things variable to get people to respond. I would not say that "constructive" things are necessarily the most variable. After all you could probably "construct" something boring if you wanted. I'm kinda thinking that "creativity" or "heroism" is the key? So like you go around taking a risk and making something that is more colorful or surprising than before. Maybe that even means destroying an old structure.
I guess my opinion right now is that there is some potential creative power in being destructive (that's why it's ranked higher than stasis) but destructive actions might be at risk of not being sustainable. You only get to light a firework once. Maybe it should be ranked higher than harmless variable things though? Because harmlessness is kind of like stasis. (But I do not think creativity is harmless)
And all of these are delineated by personal perspectives. Generally there isn’t anything that is ‘boring’ there is simply a preference by individuals and boring people (those who think almost everything is boring). Calling something ‘boring’ is much easier than admitting to ourselves that we’re just plain lazy, stupid or fearful.
Repetition is certainly one factor in what is boring. Some people adore repetition and others loath it.
In terms of this here political environment I think people tend to prefer to be entertained for 5 mins rather than think for 30 mins. This is a sad state of affairs, if true, and I wonder if the youth will be able to pull themselves out of a potential trap - or if they’ll even recognise it as a trap. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment is okay, but entertainment at the detriment of self-reflection and dispensing with difficult freedoms is another.
Firstly, I believe the categories are delineated by (more or less) objective measures. Creative, Variable things have a generative capacity. Destructive, Variable things halt or hinder the variability of other things. Harmless, Variable things have no significant generative or destructive capacity, and completely static things are more or less interchangeable with death, or nothingness, and therefore actually kind of hard to conceive (most, if not all things that exist have some measure of variability).
I think this is usually testable. I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives. Reproductive systems are creative and variable. Bombs are destructive and variable. A ripple in a pond is more or less harmless and variable. A white, permanently unchanging void with nothing in it is static.
You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns.
It's okay if you "prefer" certain variable things over others, in fact, it's essential to maintain the variability of preferences between individuals, which is another dimension that I do not think should be static. However, if someone is consistently avoiding lots of creative and variable things to the point where not very much is going on in their life, this is something that should be overcome no?
Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense. The word "boring" is mostly used for rhetorical effect, and I might have done well to word my argument more precisely.
Quoting SatmBopd
These don't seem to fit together.
Quoting SatmBopd
I'd say so. But I might be completely wrong about the youth today being any different to the youth from the past. The environment they live in is different enough to perhaps make a significant difference - the price for greater freedom.
Not appealing to Nietzsche or his relativism as a whole to support my argument. It's just that the specific concept of "The Last Man" also sort of implies the gist of what I think I'm getting at. I am influenced by Nietzsche, so understanding him might help contextualize my argument.
I also very intentionally specified that the categories are "more or less" objective. I still think that there is some grey area in between them, and I am not trying to lay out a system of irrefutable moral truth, I've just picked my favourite way to act in the world and am trying to see if it is palatable to other people in the form of a logical argument.
But I guess that starts to be a whole other bag of worms about the role and nature of truth, a subject that I admittedly should probably investigate more.