|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 18, 2009 8:30:06 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. In that line, I meant, not so much that they were necessarily happy to have experienced suffering specifically, but to have had a range of experiences - like how you were saying people wanted to have experiences other than just happiness. Overall, though, I mean to say that happiness/pleasure is subjective. Do you want to enjoy it? Or do you want to philosophize about it? Enjoy…? 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. Is it possible that the animal may not understand what you are saying? Perhaps you’d get the same reaction from a human who doesn’t speak the same language. A creature’s inability to articulate feelings/experiences doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t have any.
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Jul 18, 2009 8:59:23 GMT -5
btw why is this question only 'semi-philosophical'? What would be a fully philosophical question?
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 18, 2009 11:41:42 GMT -5
In that line, I meant, not so much that they were necessarily happy to have experienced suffering specifically, but to have had a range of experiences - like how you were saying people wanted to have experiences other than just happiness. Overall, though, I mean to say that happiness/pleasure is subjective. So I guess it has come to a close. Now you understand why a person might not always choose happiness and wouldn't be wrong for doing so. Those types shouldn't trouble you anymore. To me eternal happiness sounds like nursing home or a comfortable position to die in. I'd like to avoid it for as long as possible. Animals certainly do feel. They feel pain and pleasure. That is as real as a nerve ending. But happiness is something they cannot experience because very few animals are self aware--some apes and dolphins pass the mirror test. Even if they were able to become self aware, they may not be equipped with the same cognitive abilities that allow humans to evaluate happiness.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 18, 2009 11:53:24 GMT -5
So I guess it has come to a close. Now you understand why a person might not always choose happiness and wouldn't be wrong for doing so. Those types shouldn't trouble you anymore. To me eternal happiness sounds like nursing home or a comfortable position to die in. I'd like to avoid it for as long as possible. I wouldn't say it's come to a close. I think you misunderstood me... I say that people choose things such as misery, in the name of eventual happiness (i.e. some people cannot be happy until they've experienced misery (amongst other things)) - so, they're still doing it for happiness. If you're eternally miserable, there's no pleasure/happiness/satisfaction involved at any stage, whatsoever. Animals certainly do feel. They feel pain and pleasure. That is as real as a nerve ending. But happiness is something they cannot experience because very few animals are self aware--some apes and dolphins pass the mirror test. Even if they were able to become self aware, they may not be equipped with the same cognitive abilities that allow humans to evaluate happiness. Well, what's your definition of happiness? My dictionary says "feeling or showing pleasure or contentment".
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 18, 2009 12:40:56 GMT -5
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands.
Does that mean that handless, hoofed animals need not apply? And if they need not apply, are they lacking in the "happy" or in the "know it"? Wouldn't it be possible to be unhappy, as a human being, and yet still experience intense pleasure?
Great questions. But if happiness is defined in a tautological way as that which you would choose (in much the same way "utility" is often used in everyday discussions and even in economic theory) the question does not have a substantial content, right? Can I really choose to be unhappy, if humans (and animals) always make decisions that make us happiest? If we can choose to be unhappy, why can't we accept other aspects of being besides "happiness" as equally valuable or relevant?
|
|
|
Post by ahliang on Jul 18, 2009 12:59:48 GMT -5
^ i completely get what you mean Jade. eventually you can t know happiness if you haven t gone through any sort of pain whatsoever since you would have no baseline for comparison of what makes one happy and what makes one miserable.
ultimately you need to go through some kind of distress to realise what happiness is.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 18, 2009 13:38:47 GMT -5
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands. Are you talking about the scholarship basketball player again?
|
|
|
Post by spiritsurge on Jul 18, 2009 19:23:34 GMT -5
btw why is this question only 'semi-philosophical'? What would be a fully philosophical question? oh yeah sure. don't really know why i put the 'semi' in the title.
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 18, 2009 21:12:04 GMT -5
I think this question asserts a fallacy as it implies that misery and happiness (and the knowledge thereof) are not included in the realm of all forms of knowledge, this being propositional knowledge, procedural knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance, however one can not be deemed 'all knowing' without the: - knowledge and understanding of happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding of what causes happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding on how to act to cause happiness and/or misery
It is because of this contradiction I have chosen knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 18, 2009 22:26:00 GMT -5
^Yes, I also picked apart the question afterwards. But on the surface he was asking the reader to make a value judgment or trade-off--which I made on the basis of personal philosophy. Other elements which pose their own contradictions is the existence of such a powerful being and the fact that we're dealing with infinity (eternal life). You could have fun with those if you wanted. If you're eternally miserable, there's no pleasure/happiness/satisfaction involved at any stage, whatsoever. So you define eternal misery as a total absence of pleasure? Is that evident in what you see in the miserable lives of today? The miserable seem to be poor or rich, old or young, sick or healthy, alone or in good company. I'm probably repeating myself, but misery can come from things which cause us pleasure. Anywho, you seem to understand that happiness or pleasure isn't an all inclusive package. But then you come around to asserting that humans should always choose happiness or pleasure at the cost of becoming an animal--which to me is a case for insanity. I can understand the case for insanity, but it is the hardest one to make while still having your wits about you. Well, what's your definition of happiness? My dictionary says "feeling or showing pleasure or contentment". Yes, they are both used interchangeably in common language. In the instant, pleasure can be equated to happiness. But pleasure can't be sustained indefinitely--else we fry our receptors and lose the feeling. Happiness however can have a passive role and can take on other dimensions. I can be happy over a period of time. Or I can be happy about a thing which might exist in the distant future--causing me no immediate pleasure. Or I can make an accounting of happiness by accessing (selectively) my memories and making self aware comparisons to other people who we think are happy. We even feel happiness when others are happy. And sometimes when we're really happy, we cry--what would be a clear sign of pain and discontentment in other animals. So in humans, happiness is not such a clear cut pleasure/pain reaction. Does it hurt here? might not be enough ask. Happiness sometimes hides a great deal of pain.
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Jul 18, 2009 22:35:49 GMT -5
Butthead says: "You need stuff that sucks to have stuff that's cool"
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 18, 2009 22:59:16 GMT -5
^ Human beings are "digital creatures in an analog universe", natural world vs human culture. Levi-Strauss (structuralist anthropologist) made a good case for that in his work about human culture and language, The Raw and the Cooked.
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 18, 2009 23:07:22 GMT -5
^Yes, I also picked apart the question afterwards. But on the surface he was asking the reader to make a value judgment or trade-off--which I made on the basis of personal philosophy. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that how can one expect a rationally sound response to an rationally unsound question? Ignoring that fact (which seemingly goes against the pursuit of knowledge), hypothetically I have chosen knowledge on the basis of what you have mentioned previously and a quote I tend to enjoy, "an unexamined life isn't worth living". This sums it up neatly. I'll admit I haven't read much of the responses (was too busy picking apart the question), but will get to it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 19, 2009 6:13:41 GMT -5
If you're eternally miserable, there's no pleasure/happiness/satisfaction involved at any stage, whatsoever. So you define eternal misery as a total absence of pleasure? Is that evident in what you see in the miserable lives of today? Yes, I do. The 'miserable lives of today' are real, meaning that they are not strictly confined to misery/there is room for pleasure. In this hypothetical case of eternal misery, however, I assume that the misery is continuous (without rest or end). The miserable seem to be poor or rich, old or young, sick or healthy, alone or in good company. I'm probably repeating myself, but misery can come from things which cause us pleasure. Yeah... ? I don't recall denying this anywhere... But then you come around to asserting that humans should always choose happiness or pleasure at the cost of becoming an animal--which to me is a case for insanity. I can understand the case for insanity, but it is the hardest one to make while still having your wits about you. I didn't say 'should'. I said that, in my opinion, humans always act in the interests of their desires, which when accomplished, give satisfaction. In this case, becoming a pig is merely a means by which we reach our always(/most commonly) desired end: happiness. I don't understand why someone would consciously choose a path leading them away from what they want/toward misery, knowing that there is no hope/possibility of feeling good again. (i.e. no pain then pleasure; only pain forever.) I think this question asserts a fallacy as it implies that misery and happiness (and the knowledge thereof) are not included in the realm of all forms of knowledge, this being propositional knowledge, procedural knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance, however one can not be deemed 'all knowing' without the: - knowledge and understanding of happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding of what causes happiness and misery - knowledge and understanding on how to act to cause happiness and/or misery It is because of this contradiction I have chosen knowledge. Well, keep in mind that this decision is not made on the day we are born. It's being made now. If you know the things you have listed now, it's not going to be wiped from your brain. Plus, if you are to be all-knowing, you would know those things (otherwise, you wouldn't be all-knowing). If you can obtain the knowledge of something you have never studied, why wouldn't you be able to do the same with feelings you have never felt?
|
|
|
Post by D.A on Jul 19, 2009 8:24:31 GMT -5
Well, keep in mind that this decision is not made on the day we are born. It's being made now. If you know the things you have listed now, it's not going to be wiped from your brain. Plus, if you are to be all-knowing, you would know those things (otherwise, you wouldn't be all-knowing). If you can obtain the knowledge of something you have never studied, why wouldn't you be able to do the same with feelings you have never felt? err, I don't get what you are trying to say here - whether you are agreeing or disagreeing as your response slightly lacked a bit of coherency (sorry)... there was nothing within the question which stated anything about when the decision had to be me made. I know that decision is being made now, but what has this got to do with the question? Also, what I mentioned was that to be all knowing, you would have to know about emotions, what causes it and how to induce it. Thus if one was 'all knowing' they would know how to induce happiness and thus the contradiction lies therein, that one is subjected to misery even though being gifted the knowledge on how to induce happiness. Ergo, an omniscient being wouldn't be stuck in eternal misery. I'm going to take a stab at what you were trying to say, let us play hypothetical (seems like the trend with this question) and assume one (at the beginning of their life) has no knowledge but has been gifted with language. This implies that they have no knowledge of happiness and/or misery. If proposed the exact question, what would be your first response? It would be to explain what knowledge, happiness and misery mean, or in other words to be acquainted with happiness, misery and knowledge. One simply cannot answer the question without knowing these things.
|
|