Well, 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.
Here 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 doesn'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 useful only to the degree that it serves to minimize suffering, and to maximize pleasure, by definition of ''useful''. This philosophy is known as Eudemonism, from Aristotle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike, if a person does things that others would consider "inefficient, waste of time, waste of resorces etc." but it is something that gives that person pleasure somewhat, does that still fall within the meaning of "efficient" as you have described above? Does it matter what others may think of the actions?
ReplyDeleteEd
Ed, it would still be efficient, but maybe not ''the most efficient'' thing that he could be doing. That would depend upon the ''long-range 'net' effect'' of the action. If it is the most efficient thing that he could be doing, then it would bring the maximum pleasure and the minimum suffering ''in the long-range net effect'', which means that the actions have to be judged from the point of view of the long term, and not just the immediate pleasure of the moment. The immediate pleasure of the moment is good, naturally, since that is the whole purpose of life, along with minimizing suffering. But the immediate pleasure of the moment must be judged in terms of the question: Is it the action that brings the maximum pleasure ''in the long-range net effect''. To the degree that any action does that, to that degree is it the right action, the most efficient action that could be done at that time, in the context of the totality of one's whole life. I will try to say more about this, because there is more that should be said, according to the science of Eudaemonism/Utilitarianism/Behaviorism.
ReplyDeleteMike, thanks---I think I'll just have another beer then!!!
ReplyDeletehahaha... LOL. Good idea, Ed.
ReplyDeleteNo, other people's opinions don't matter. The main question in the case that you described is whether your pleasure is helping you in your life purpose of maximizing your pleasure and minimizing your suffering. The beer sounds about right.
On another subject:
My favorite Bible passage is...
Deuteronomy: No graven image of God, of any kind, including any picture, statue, golden calf, mental image, definition, description, or saying or thinking anything whatsoever about God, because any image in our mind, or on the earth, is a false idol, because it is not God, or anything like God. So don't "worship" anything, including God, or any image that you have in your mind of God, because if you do, you are just worshiping a false idol (a "graven image"), which is that image of God that you have in your mind. This is according to Deuteronomy, which makes sense. That's from the Bible. That's why I don't go to church, temple, synagogue, or mosque, because I obey the Bible, at least the rare parts where it makes sense, like Deuteronomy does, with the golden calf, where God says that any "graven image", even if it is in your mind, is the same thing as the golden calf---any image of God at all, WHATSOEVER, even any definition or description in words, is a false idol. Even the word ''God'' is a false idol, because it refers to an ''image'' of what that is, or what that means, and is therefore a forbidden ''graven image''.
One final thing I'd like to mention...
Wittgenstein said: "The only place that 'meaning' exists is in a sentence, including not in the so-called 'mind' of the utterer of the sentence nor in the so-called mind of the auditor of the sentence, but only in the sentence, and nowhere else in the universe. 'Meaning' is a human invention, and existed nowhere in the universe until man came along and invented the sentence, and invented 'meaning' thereby. 'Meaning' is coterminous and co-extensive with a sentence" (Quote approximate, from memory). "Meaning" is whatever a sentence says, nothing more and nothing less, and it exists only in a sentence, with no extension outside the sentence in the real world. "The limit of my language is the limit of my universe." Wittgenstein
P.S. One further note: When I say that other people's opinions don't ''matter'', I need to define ''to matter''. That term refers to whether the act minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure. If something ''matters'', in other words, that means that it somehow reduces suffering, and/or increases pleasure in your life, especially in the long-range net effect.
ReplyDeleteOne further clarification: If something ''matters'', it could be doing the opposite too. If it increases your suffering, or decreases your pleasure, in life, then of course that ''matters'' too. It ''matters'' in both directions, increasing your suffering or decreasing your suffering.
ReplyDelete