|
Post by spiritsurge on Jul 16, 2009 1:24:59 GMT -5
Let's say one day you woke up and there was some sort of super powerful, mystical being at your bedside. The being says that he must transform your life. He can either (A) make you eternally happy by transforming you into a pig and giving you a perpetual mud-bath. Or (B) you can choose to keep your current form, but he'd instead give you all the knowledge available in our universe yet simultaneously make you eternally miserable. If you had to choose one, which option would you choose?
|
|
furbob
Full Member
Can I has?
Posts: 247
|
Post by furbob on Jul 16, 2009 1:44:30 GMT -5
I'd be the happy pig! Sounds a lot better than living with eternal misery, I'd end up hanging myself or just become some depressed philosopher if so.
not knowing anything + happiness > knowing everything + misery
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 16, 2009 6:45:46 GMT -5
Brings back memories of Philosophy 101. Your question isn't a semi-philosophical question, it's a completely philosophical question. Or should I say, a famous philosopher and founder of Western Philosophy had something to say about it. Socrates said (as recalled by Plato) that " an unexamined life isn't worth living". He said this right before he was condemned to death for disparaging the gods and corrupting the youth. To his pupils, it was a miserable end, but he did not regret it. He chose truth over life with its miseries and its joys because "worth" and happiness is discovered through self knowledge, reason, and virtue. This is in contrast to the sophist who used reason relativistically to deceive and manipulate--because the sophist were of a profession and not a philosophy. They were rhetoricians who used their skills for power. Much like advertisers and PR firms. They are not interested in the truth, but in the trade of influence. The tension is evident in the English definitions of sophistry (lie) and sophistication (status). But there are other underlying questions beneath the main gist of your question: 1) Are you asking me to die? I'm not being asked to choose an association. I'm being asked to become something else... in completely separate realities. If you asked someone to become a chair or virtuoso, they'd likely chose the thing that is most like themselves. To become a chair is equivalent to death. To become a virtuoso is equivalent to effort. How much identity do you lose becoming a pig versus an all knowing individual? I know a pig that loves mud. If you took me away and gave him my name, that still wouldn't be me. 2) What is knowledge--if not a power over misery and happiness? The pig exists in a reality where it only knows (as much a pig can know) pleasure/happiness--no predators, no sickness, no hunger, no suffering. But the all-knowing (omniscient) man is condemned to the conditions of suffering. How are you all-knowing when the pig knows of happiness? That is to say, you're being offered knowledge about everything except happiness. Is this offer really knowledge or is it disguised ignorance? 3) Do I have a choice after this? If mud baths make me miserable and knowledge makes me happy, will my selection change that? Or will I choose to be miserable because of what I know? Will I be happy with mud (forever) because my memories will recount nothing better? Or will my mind be tricked? Socrates chose truth from relativism, to live honestly--not survive deceitfully. The two options you give sound like a choice between sobriety and suicide. From the amount that I've written, I choose knowledge--though it gives me a headache. I've also got a scientific explanation, but I've run out of aspirins.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 16, 2009 8:48:17 GMT -5
What Palaver said. Perhaps a better way to put it would be a choice between being subjected to constant physical pain without being to take any painkillers (equivalent to constant misery for most people) or having a pampered existence after being partially lobotomized or given alzheimer's (i.e. retaining some personality or sense of self but being deprived of some of your mental faculties including some of your memories, 50 IQ points, etc.). You would have to define the parameters more specifically, but I think it gets to the same question without engendering the paradoxes elucidated by Palaver (are you really you if you're a pig, and can you be all-knowing and not know happiness).
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Jul 16, 2009 11:02:23 GMT -5
Hah. You guys sure take the long way around to saying "B"!
;D
B for me, too. Already miserable, so why not get some knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 16, 2009 11:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Hank on Jul 16, 2009 12:56:10 GMT -5
How miserable are we're talking here? Is it a, "damn, I got caught in the rain without an umbrella", or a deep in Dante's Inferno kinda misery?
I voted pig. That is assuming as a pig I'd enjoy mudbaths like a guy would enjoy boning hot chicks for eternity, or something nearly equivalent. If I were the pig I think I'd just be happy (for eternity, right?) and never contemplate the mysteries of the universe. I wouldn't even know what I'm missing. If you ask me, it sounds pretty close to Heaven minus any omniscience.
|
|
|
Post by moralhazard on Jul 17, 2009 7:26:59 GMT -5
Close my eyes and go back to sleep. And wonder what combination of food/whatever has brought on this hallucination.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 17, 2009 7:41:47 GMT -5
Better to be happy than sad, regardless of anything else. If all the knowledge in the universe doesn't fulfill you (which it, in this scenario, won't because fulfillment is comparable to happiness and misery is the result of failing to achieve these), what's the point/why would anyone choose it? If it was something you wanted, and you got it, how could you be miserable? Misery is not getting what you want. So, assuming it won't enhance your life (because you're destined to be miserable), why choose it? Whether you're a pig or the most knowledgeable person in the world doesn't matter/change anything. We may foolishly think that it would be awesome to know everything, but any/all awesomeness is ruled out by eternal misery. Basically, it's just asking whether you'd rather be happy or miserable. To be happy is to get what you want, so this question rules itself out. The only sensible answer is to be a pig because if you say you prefer to live miserably and then get that, you can't be miserable because you got what you wanted. Or, if you do choose it, though you don't want it... doesn't make sense either. There's no benefit from being miserable. All we do in life is aimed at achieving something desirable to us. Being miserable means we can't get what we want. If you wanted to be miserable, and then are... well, it would be impossible to be completely miserable 'cause you got something you wanted. In conclusion:
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 17, 2009 18:58:38 GMT -5
If all the knowledge in the universe doesn't fulfill you (which it, in this scenario, won't because fulfillment is comparable to happiness and misery is the result of failing to achieve these), what's the point/why would anyone choose it? There are cultural and religious biases in portraying the relationship between happiness and knowledge. In Eastern philosophy, knowledge is often presented as being inseparable from happiness. And reincarnation is a means by which the soul finds higher levels of happiness (Hinduism) or liberation (Buddhism). Buddha used the parable of reincarnation to convince his followers not to behave like animals, to pursue a happiness worthy of their humanity. "To know and yet think we do not know is the highest attainment; not to know and yet think we do know is a disease. It is simply by being pained at the thought of having this disease that we are preserved from it. " --Toa Te Ching, The Disease of KnowingIn Western religion, we have the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Both Good and Evil--which in the story of Adam and Eve only does evil. The shame of being a naked animal is treated as a "knowledge". And within Christianity there were the Gnostics who sought salvation through knowledge. Even in utilitarian ethical philosophy which advocates the maximization of pleasure (high or low), there are contradictions. "Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory, is want of mental cultivation." -- John Stuart Mill, Defense of Hedonism
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." -- also John Stuart Mill
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Jul 17, 2009 20:04:54 GMT -5
I'll rather know everything in the universe and be miserable than be an oblivious, happy fool because I'll eventually get use to all the misery. Lack of awareness of the flaws of the world or being overly optimistic is a terrible way to live life because eventually your stupidity will get the best of you.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 18, 2009 0:56:49 GMT -5
There are cultural and religious biases in portraying the relationship between happiness and knowledge. In Eastern philosophy, knowledge is often presented as being inseparable from happiness. And reincarnation is a means by which the soul finds higher levels of happiness (Hinduism) or liberation (Buddhism). Buddha used the parable of reincarnation to convince his followers not to behave like animals, to pursue a happiness worthy of their humanity. Of course, but the knowledge option in this case states that we will be eternally miserable. Therefore, the happiness knowledge has the potential to bring us in our regular, everyday lives is irrelevant. But anyway: "Buddha used the parable of reincarnation to convince his followers not to behave like animals, to pursue a happiness worthy of their humanity." Happiness is what he suggests you aim for. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." -- also John Stuart Mill ^ Eh, just one man's opinion. Seeing the other side of the story won't make you any less miserable. And if you're a pig, you're unlikely to get in a situation like that. I'll rather know everything in the universe and be miserable than be an oblivious, happy fool because I'll eventually get use to all the misery. I don't think you could because it says you're eternally miserable. I don't think you could build a tolerance for it because I'm sure the badness would intensify accordingly, to make sure you were always in a miserable state. Lack of awareness of the flaws of the world or being overly optimistic is a terrible way to live life because eventually your stupidity will get the best of you. What's the best of us? What's point of aiming toward it if it's not going to change our misery?
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 18, 2009 2:16:35 GMT -5
There are cultural and religious biases in portraying the relationship between happiness and knowledge. Of course, but the knowledge option in this case states that we will be eternally miserable. That is why the choices read like contradictions depending on your perspective. I've already gone through the consequences of answering such a question. Most people will only comprehend--and be sold on--the happiness vs misery portion of the offer. They know that much. But they forget that this misery and happiness is disassociated from what they, being human beings, know as misery and happiness. What is the happiness of a pig? Have you tried it enough to want it? You've decided as a pig before becoming one? Might even a pig upon experiencing our misery prefer it to their happiness? This might sound terrible, but pain, suffering, and misery are not enough to cause some people to give up on their humanity. They are greedy enough to want more than simple pleasure or happiness. Given an eternity, everyone will eventually come to regret their choices--knowledge, misery, happiness, or otherwise. We cry when we are happy. We laugh when we are scared. We want what we know will make us miserable. That is the human condition. It is the best part of us, the only part of us that makes us who we are.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 18, 2009 4:17:35 GMT -5
But they forget that this misery and happiness is disassociated from what they, being human beings, know as misery and happiness. Fair enough, though, because they will no longer be human beings. Though it may not be happiness as we currently know it, we are being guaranteed happiness relevant to the form we'd take. What is the happiness of a pig? Have you tried it enough to want it? You've decided as a pig before becoming one? Might even a pig upon experiencing our misery prefer it to their happiness? I imagine that happiness is happiness or, in other words, the happiness of a pig is no less than the happiness of a human. Sure, the means of attaining happiness are likely to be different, but the happiness itself is not. As a human, there’s no point ‘trying it’ to see if we’d want it because we would perceive the activity (or whatever) differently as a pig, which is what we would be. Yes, it’s possible a pig may prefer a human’s misery to their own happiness, however, humans feel their misery as misery – not the way a pig would, so that’s irrelevant, as in: there’s be no benefit having something that’s bad for you, even if it’s good for another. This might sound terrible, but pain, suffering, and misery are not enough to cause some people to give up on their humanity. They are greedy enough to want more than simple pleasure or happiness. Given an eternity, everyone will eventually come to regret their choices--knowledge, misery, happiness, or otherwise. What do you define as pleasure and happiness? I would argue that people want experiences of pain, suffering, etc. because at the end, they are happy/satisfied with what they have experienced. Everything is driven by the hope of a good feeling. Even wrists are slit for some form of relief/pleasure. The means of attaining happiness vary to no end.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 18, 2009 6:58:07 GMT -5
What do you define as pleasure and happiness? I would argue that people want experiences of pain, suffering, etc. because at the end, they are happy/satisfied with what they have experienced. I was going to respond to your entire post, but then it took a strange turn at the end with the above statement. Are you a masochist? Because...for that kind of person...you have a strange aversion to misery. Human misery must not sting hard enough for you. Looking for the extra barbs in the life of a pig? I've never thought of happiness as an extra helping of misery--but to each his own. Masochistic pig vs Socrates in Hades Do you want to enjoy it? Or do you want to philosophize about it? Anywho, I separate pleasure/pain from happiness/misery from want/aversion. I believe that other animals experience pleasure but not happiness. When I ask an animal if they're happy, they just stare at me. When I ask a human if they're happy, their eyes gloss over. Clearly that difference in unresponsiveness to a question that has no bearing on the present situation separates man from animal. And to a person setting out on an eternal life: Write me back when you reach the happy ending.
|
|