It is time to get very basic and simple, and to start out from scratch, with the ABC's of all this, about ''how to improve your thinking and life''. So here we go, and of course anybody is welcome to add to this, correct it, or improve upon it in any way they choose.
First, I will start out with the basics of Eudemonism. This was a strategy for living and enjoying life, invented by Aristotle of ancient Greece fame, but actually coming from Macedonia, where Philip of Macedonia also came from the great ruler of Macedonia and father of Alexander the Great, also a Macedonian.
But enough of history. Eudemonism teaches us that everything we do is for one purpose only, and that is: to get pleasure while avoiding pain and suffering. In fact, we could even say that we do everything we do for the purpose of maximizing pleasure, not just getting a little of it, and minimizing suffering, as much as possible, throughout our lives. Even religions are all based upon this eudemonism principle, because they all teach what they claim is the best way to go to heaven or paradise, and the best way to avoid pain and suffering in hell, whether the particular religion teaches that this paradise will be in this life or in some putative life after we die.
So instead of bothering with any particular religion, and all its various idiosyncratic rules and fears and guilts and rituals and wastes of time and energy, Eudemonism teaches us to eliminate that middle man of religion, and go right to the main crux of our life, which is to focus on, and to concentrate on, exclusively, optimizing conditions. That is the main duty and goal of life.
Optimizing conditions means to arrange our lives and everything that we can in such a way that we will have the minimum of suffering and the maximum pleasure possible throughout our lives. Some people say, oh no, happiness is more important than just having pleasure, which they see the pursuit of as somehow evil or greedy or dirty or selfish, and so on, since most people think that pursuit of pleasure is somehow evil, based upon religion's telling us to sacrifice ourselves for God and other people and for the earth, and so on. But actually, this is a bad use of language, a bad imprecision in language, which is a bad imprecision in thinking. I'll tell you why.
Happiness itself, whether for humans or for a god, is defined as ''having pleasure and not pain''. In fact, perfect happiness is ''all pleasure and no suffering''. And vice versa: perfect unhappiness is ''all suffering and no pleasure'', and this is true whether we think of happiness as some kind of spiritual or emotional or mental state, or whether we think of it as also physical as well. It is not possible to define happiness in any other way, without destroying ''precision in language'', which is the same thing as precision in thinking, accuracy of thinking, and this precision in language is the necessary basis of happiness and of improving one's thinking and one's life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, I'm with you so far and in complete agreement and looking forward to where this line of reasoning takes us...
ReplyDeleteWell, to put it simply, in a nutshell, this means that if a person is pursuing any other goal in life than maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, he or she is wasting his time and life, by doing ''inefficient'' things and actions. Now we must define ''efficient'', because it is very important, most important, that we maximize our efficiency in our lives.
ReplyDeleteHere is the reason why: The definition of ''efficient'' is ''to be acting in such a way as to be minimizing waste of resources, including time, money, and work, as well as physical materials. And we can define ''waste of resources'' as that use of resources which don't go directly toward minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure. Any behavior other than acting in such a way as to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure is a waste of resources which could be used better if used to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, and therefore such waste is an ''inefficient'' use of resources, including time. You can see then why ''efficiency'' is not only much more important than commonly recognized, but in fact it is the most important thing of all, properly defined, since the most important thing of all is minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure. In fact, that is the only important thing that there is, in the whole universe, because all other ''useful'' activity is only useful to the degree that it serves to minimize suffering and to maximize pleasure, by definition of ''useful''.
Erich,
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking about this issue, the most important of all issues. And I will tell you why it is the most important of all issues.
This will be a very small first baby-step. But here I go. We have to start somewhere, so I will start with the most basic of the basics, and later get to the equilibrating homeostasis position of Gestalt Therapy, if anybody is interested by then.
There has been a lot of talk here about the definition of ''evil''. The definition of evil is: ''Something or someone causing or increasing suffering, and suffering itself. in the 'long-range net effect' of that something or someone's actions.'' It has nothing to do with so-called ''morality'', since there is no such thing as morality.
Morality is a nonsense term, confused with ''utility'' or ''utilitarianism'', and thrown at us constantly, particularly throughout youth, to condition us and shape us, by ''pairing'' the word with negative gestures, looks, and tone of voice, in order to get us to do what those in so-called ''authority'' want us to do.
Please do not understand me too quickly, before I have a chance to explain this Wittgensteinian/Skinnerian therapy for the mental illness of the world, which is an illness called ''imprecision in language'', according to Wittgenstein and Skinner.... and me.
To sum up: In short, the only possible sensible definition of the term ''evil'' is suffering or causing suffering. The reason that we can't ''blame'' anybody for anything is that since morality only refers to offending or bringing suffering to non-human things, such as gods or to the universe in general, then it is nonsense, because those things can't suffer, and we can't bring suffering to them. We can bring suffering, only to humans and other animals, which means that we can bring ''evil'' to them, but that is not a question of morality, since morality refers to bringing suffering to gods and to the universe in general, and utilitarianism, not morality, is the science or art concerned with relieving as much suffering as possible, to bring about ''the greatest good for the greatest number of people'', in the ''long-range net effect'' of all our actions, in their long-range net effect. "Blame" is a term from morality, and therefore has no ''utility'' in reality, and only makes things worse, by confusing our analysis and by destructively inflaming emotions. We need to substitute the term ''causal analysis'' for the term ''blame'', to be more accurate, scientific, utile, understanding, psychologically healthy, physically healthy, and of course to be speaking with ''precision in language''. If you need references for any of this, I would suggest starting with Skinner's great classic, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, pages 22 to 34, as I recall.
I am summarizing the entire science and all the books here, so naturally I can't convey the whole science and literature of Eudaemonism/Utilitarianism/Behaviorism in a little email, and expect it to be the final word on it, or even expect it to be understood by lay people. But I am making the effort, in barely beginning to scratch the surface.
The four forces from physics, and tropisms from biology, and adhesion from chemistry, etc., are the physical underpinnings, but we will need to skip all that for the moment, even though they are very important to understand how they all explain what I am writing here.
There is much more to this, so I hope you can be patient, and give me a chance to explain in a little more detail, before jumping to any conclusions, since the science, art, and philosophy of Eudaemonism/Utilitarianism/Behaviorism, taken as a single science, is in a very advanced stage of development, and thus very complex, and requiring much more explanation, study, and extrapolation, which I will be happy to provide, as long as anybody has any interest in it. If you have any question or comment, I will try to address it, and the only thing I ask for is your patience, before making any hasty inductive leaps (understanding me too quickly). As Francis Bacon said, ''Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.'' In other words, we don't have free will to just command nature, to be blamed for our choices. That term, free will, is imprecision in language. We need to substitute the term, ''probability estimation'' for ''free will'', because that is what it is.
ReplyDeleteMore soon.
mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: efkern@earthlink.net
To: gylverw@earthlink.net; michael_wargo@hotmail.com
CC: bobkowell@aol.com; troy286@yahoo.com; raymond@aaronspc.com; rstetson@capps-assoc.com; molldrem@dreamscape.com; nitro900@bigpond.net.au; t_monster@juno.com; rfaprez1@aol.com; mickeywargo@hotmail.com; tkcarter85@verizon.net; digithead16@hotmail.com; leagaldog@aol.com; jjkern@aol.com; hampdenkid@yahoo.com; cornstarch35@cox.net; wargopoppy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mike / About Blaming // Where is Larry?
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:25:31 -0700
Mike,
Perhaps I understood you too quickly as you are fond of saying, however when you state "including the blaming of anybody for anything", how do you square that with conscious, malevolent choices that an individual makes which results in harm to others? Is not the person who made such a choice to be blamed for causing harm to others? Should I not blame them, and if not, why not?
What you say sounds very much like an argument Sartre would make which I read many years ago.
Of course I would blame them.
Just quickly read ... so ... apologies for misinterpretations. The word "happiness" worries me (I think efficiency does also). Happiness seems to often be an excuse for self-indulgence. If I understand you correctly, you seem to proposing by effectively discovering and fulfilling the potential value of one's existence is to achieve the goals of eudaemonism. Without recognizing the inter-reliances of all individuals we miss an essential characteristic of creation which I assume is not an accident.
ReplyDeleteEfficiency worries me because it assumes no positive outcome. Efficiency without effectiveness can kill the patient.
my .02
You are using very imprecise language. You need to improve your language, which will improve your thinking. For example, ''worries me''... is not really a concern here, unless it is causing some loss of pleasure or increase of suffering. If that is what you mean, you should say that, and not beat around the bush, with this phrasing that ''The word 'happiness' worries me (I think efficiency does also)...'' And so on. Then you say, quite imprecisely in imprecise language: ''Happiness seems to be an 'excuse' for 'self-indulgence'.'' We don't need an ''excuse'' for anything. Using that term is being ''moralistic''. ''Excuse'' for what? What are we doing that is so evil that we need an ''excuse''? ''Self-indulgence'', you say. In other words, maximizing our happiness by maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our suffering, and that of others, naturally, is what you are labeling ''self-indulgence''. You can see, I trust, why this is very imprecise use of language, with a moralistic prejudice. I don't mean to criticize you, but I want to talk straight, with ''precision in language''. I hope you can understand this, but so far your writing here shows a bit of a misunderstanding, a confusion in ''universes of discourse''. Eudaemonism pre-empts any moralism in thinking. It ''Moral'' and moralistic are terms that refer to making God happy. When we are speaking of making humans and animals happy, it is a different ''universe of discourse''. It is the universe of discourse of ''utilitarianism'', and not morality or moralism, which is about making God happy, not humans and animals. We must really be more precise in language, in order to be more precise in thinking, and to improve our thinking and life. As Wittgenstein said, the world is suffering from a great mental illness, and the main characteristic of this mental illness is ''imprecision in language''. The therapy for the world, and for the mental illness of the world, is language analysis, like we are doing here, to make our language more precise, and thus our thinking more precise. It is a very thoroughgoing mental illness that the world has, and it is unconscious, since almost nobody knows we are suffering from this mental illness, in all of our literature, science, history, folklore, religions, everyday thinking, and so on. I'm not saying that ''by effectively discovering and fulfilling the 'potential value' of one's existence is to achieve the goals of eudaemonism,'' to quote you here. And you continue in such vein: ''Without recognizing... we miss an 'essential' characteristic of 'creation' which I 'assume' is not an 'accident'....'' ''Efficiency worries me because it assumes no 'positive' outcome (Of course this is extremely imprecise language, since a maximally positive outcome is the very definition of efficiency). Efficiency without effectiveness can kill the patient.'' Very imprecise language, because it is an antinomy, at the same time as being an equivocation. ''Efficiency'', in other words, is DEFINED as ''effectiveness'': The more ''efficient'' one is, the more ''effective'' one is, obviously, and ''the more the outcome will be positive''---obviously, when using ''precision in language'', which is also precision in thinking.
ReplyDeleteDon, I'm sorry to be so late in responding, but I'm really not late, because I wrote a very extensive answer to your comment, and posted it, but for some reason I see that it is not here anywhere. That happens frequently, and it is one of the problems with this site, if one writes a somewhat lengthy comment. I will try to remedy this, by writing in short segments, and posting them immediately, vs. long segments.
ReplyDeleteDon, you make some great points, and I'm sorry for seeming short, and for giving it short shrift, but I'm trying to write as fast and straight as possible, and to post it as quickly as possible, to prevent my writing from being lost again, and it might come across as critical or smart-ass, but it is really a product of rushing like hell, to beat the deletion by this site again. I will post this now---quick!
ReplyDeleteI meant to quote Wittgenstein regarding his demonstration that most of the big important words we live by are nonsense terms with no meaning whatsoever, such as ''justice'', ''morality'', ''spirit'', ''soul'', ''god'', ''devil'', ''angel'', ''metaphysics'', ''teleology'', ''eschatology'', and on and on and on. He demonstrated inexorably that the whole world population has a collective mental illness, and is constantly engaged in doing almost everything it does out of its mental illness, such as ''worshipping God''. Even our own religions tell us not to do that. For example, the Koran and the Bible in Deuteronomy, where Moses talks to God as a burning bush and gets the 10 Commandments, tell us that God/Allah said that we should have no ''graven image'' of God at all, including in our mind or our verbal definitions, and we can't even say any name for God, but only Yaweh, which means ''I am who am'', specifically with no definition, name, or image. What this means is that everybody who is worshipping any image that they have of God/Allah is worshipping a false idol, whether it is a definition in words, a picture, a statue like a golden calf, a human figure like Jesus, a ''wrathful god who requires punishment and obeisance'', a god who issues rules, commandments, revelation etc., any image whatsoever: If you are worshipping anything at all, you're worshipping a false idol, because whatever image you are worshipping, it's your own human creation, a ''graven image'' forbidden by God and Allah, according to all religions. If you are worshipping anything at all, you are worshipping a false idol, because whatever you are worshipping is an image, and it is not ''God''. Whatever image you are worshipping, said God in Deuteronomy, you might as well build a golden calf and worship that, because that is what you're doing anyway, just worshipping a graven image, an image created by man. Because, whatever you are worshipping, God is not that. Humans are not capable of knowing God or the ''true nature of reality'' or the ''universe'', or its ''meaning''. As Lao Tsu said: "The greater the island of knowledge, the greater the shoreline of wondering.'' It is an asymptotic exercise, to try to move closer to ''the truth'', and the closer we get to it, the more questions we get, not less, so we only get further away from it. I'm talking about Wittgenstein here, who said ''Not only can we not answer any questions about metaphysical/spiritual things, such as 'Is there a God?'; not only can we not answer such questions, but the questions themselves don't make any sense; they are nonsense questions, with no meaning, composed of nonsense terms which have no meaning, since all meaning comes from our EXPERIENCE with the phenomenon being described, and nobody has any experience with metaphysical/spiritual things, BY DEFINITION!!!!!: ''meta'' ''physical'', which means ''beyond our physical world'', those things that we get no signals from, that we can't know about, and that we can't even know whether any such things exist. And yet, 99.percent of the world's population are ''worshipping'' these entities, these images that they have in their minds, created by themselves, and they're even fighting horrible wars with each other about which one of their images is the 'correct' one. It's a collective mental illness, literally.'' Quote approximate. The only cure for this mental illness, says Wittgenstein, is ''language analysis'', to determine which words are nonsense terms and which are accurate, and why, and their sources, etc.
ReplyDelete