Real Pleasure
So there’s this girl. I’ve never met her, I just know her on Facebook. Apparently, according to her terminology, I have an “internet crush” on her. I don’t know what this means exactly. It’s not in Urban Dictionary. I guess it just means I am infatuated with some girl I know over the internet whom I’ve never actually met. It’s pretty straightforward I think. And it’s true. I think she’s cute. If she were here or if I were there, I wouldn’t mind taking her out. But so far as it goes, it is just that, an internet crush, as opposed to a legitimate crush. But is that sufficient? Is it sufficient enough for something to merely give the illusion of reality for it be sufficient enough for my experiencing it?
There are those that answer that the feeling of pleasure, whatever that may mean, is an end itself. So for example, in the case of this girl on Facebook, I have this sensation when I flip through her pictures, and when I like her statuses, or when we have conversations on chat. I get small little butterflie in my stomach. But her being not very real to me (since we’re limited to Facebook) makes such sensations hollow and shallow. They lack depth. But then imagine if she were a bit more real, like my next door neighbor. Having conversations with her seem to have more significance, watching television shows with her like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead seem to create a stronger experience than if I were to have her on Skype and just have my computer in front of the television. So we recognize the difference, but to some, that difference isn’t relevant. To some, it is merely that you gain a sense of enjoyment or pleasure from it that makes it sufficient. This is known as Hedonism.
Hedonism is basically that view that pleasure is the goal, or end, and is generally disinterested in the wellbeing of others. If it is interested in the wellbeing of others, it is because that individual takes pleasure in being interested in the wellbeing others, and so is only secondary. If my example of Facebook girl makes you think that so long as I get the butterflies in my stomach and I have this positive feeling is what ultimately matters, then you’re a hedonist.
There are some extra scenarios we can think of. In the Matrix Trilogy, human beings are being enslaved in a virtual reality. In the real world, it is constant war. In virtual reality, there is general peace, tranquility, and ease. In the real world, it is ugly, dangerous, and restless. The protagonists fight to reveal the real world to those enslaved by the virtual reality, called the matrix. One character in particular, Cypher, gets tired of reality and wants to go back to the matrix. We look down upon him, and he is depicted as a villain, but if you’re a hedonist, that’s exactly what you would do. It seems like an uncomfortable choice.
Philosopher Robert Nozick brings up the same argument. If somehow psychologists could invent a machine that gave you experiences of immense pleasure, would you plug in? If the ultimate end if really pleasure, then why not? If there is no reason why you shouldn’t, then you should. And if pleasure is your end, then there is no reason why you shouldn’t, hence, you should. But when driven there, one gets a sense that something isn’t right, and so is a reductio ad absurdum. To think that one will live in a comatose state, without any love, without any friendships, basically, without reality, seems like a pathetic state.
Like Jim Carrey in the Truman Show. He lived in a world where everything was staged for him. His friends didn’t really care for him. They were actors. His wife didn’t really love him. She was an actress too. Truman finds out, and cannot live with it. When he was deceived, he was happy. But this happiness, on a deeper and more truthful level, was completely an illusion. And we recognize that he did right by leaving that reality. If he chose to continue on like that, we would shake our heads. It does seem wrong to live a lie, even if it does bring you happiness, and such thought experiments reveal to us that pleasure is not the only thing that matters is by far not the most important thing.
If there was a choice of having the experience and pleasure of climbing Mount Everest and actually climbing Mount Everest, many would chose doing the real thing because we want to actually do these things, and not merely experience them. Fighting hard and winning a war is desirably different than winning a virtual war because actually doing it in reality, being a real thing with real consequences has more value to it (even losing wars as well) than make believe. In love to, when a husband makes love to his wife, it is better that the wife actually does return her love, and does not merely pretend to love her husband. We don’t just want to experience our spouses love, we want to experience a spouses real love. If not, then why get married at all? So, reality does make a qualitative difference, but not to the pleasure itself, and so, pleasure, or Hedonism, is weak as a theory of ethics because there are other ends worth pursuing, like truth.
There is practical application to this. Indulgence is foolish. This is why I don’t get drunk or go to orgies. While these things may be pleasurable, they hold no ultimate meaning to life. It is like choosing to live in a virtual reality. Further, these things (drugs, alcohol, sex) are ever fleeting, and so I become an addict, which is a bad thing anyways. It is not bad to enjoy alcohol or sex, or just pleasure in general, but done as if it were all that mattered, we now know is false, and so such actions are immoral. Also, if I do have a crush on anyone near me in Long Beach, that crush will be more real and so more valuable than my crush on Facebook. So, in choosing whether or not to devote time to Long Beach girl or Facebook girl, my choice is pretty clear, Long Beach girl because she is more real to me. So back to the original question, “Is it sufficient enough for something to merely give the illusion of reality for it be sufficient enough for my experiencing it?” The answer is No. However, since it’s not like I have a choice between spending time with a girl in Long Beach and talking to Facebook girl since there is no Long Beach girl, it will suffice…for now. But hey, who knows, maybe our paths will cross in the future, and virtual Facebook girl IS Long Beach girl. Choke on that pill, Keanu Reeves.
There are those that answer that the feeling of pleasure, whatever that may mean, is an end itself. So for example, in the case of this girl on Facebook, I have this sensation when I flip through her pictures, and when I like her statuses, or when we have conversations on chat. I get small little butterflie in my stomach. But her being not very real to me (since we’re limited to Facebook) makes such sensations hollow and shallow. They lack depth. But then imagine if she were a bit more real, like my next door neighbor. Having conversations with her seem to have more significance, watching television shows with her like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead seem to create a stronger experience than if I were to have her on Skype and just have my computer in front of the television. So we recognize the difference, but to some, that difference isn’t relevant. To some, it is merely that you gain a sense of enjoyment or pleasure from it that makes it sufficient. This is known as Hedonism.
Hedonism is basically that view that pleasure is the goal, or end, and is generally disinterested in the wellbeing of others. If it is interested in the wellbeing of others, it is because that individual takes pleasure in being interested in the wellbeing others, and so is only secondary. If my example of Facebook girl makes you think that so long as I get the butterflies in my stomach and I have this positive feeling is what ultimately matters, then you’re a hedonist.
There are some extra scenarios we can think of. In the Matrix Trilogy, human beings are being enslaved in a virtual reality. In the real world, it is constant war. In virtual reality, there is general peace, tranquility, and ease. In the real world, it is ugly, dangerous, and restless. The protagonists fight to reveal the real world to those enslaved by the virtual reality, called the matrix. One character in particular, Cypher, gets tired of reality and wants to go back to the matrix. We look down upon him, and he is depicted as a villain, but if you’re a hedonist, that’s exactly what you would do. It seems like an uncomfortable choice.
Philosopher Robert Nozick brings up the same argument. If somehow psychologists could invent a machine that gave you experiences of immense pleasure, would you plug in? If the ultimate end if really pleasure, then why not? If there is no reason why you shouldn’t, then you should. And if pleasure is your end, then there is no reason why you shouldn’t, hence, you should. But when driven there, one gets a sense that something isn’t right, and so is a reductio ad absurdum. To think that one will live in a comatose state, without any love, without any friendships, basically, without reality, seems like a pathetic state.
Like Jim Carrey in the Truman Show. He lived in a world where everything was staged for him. His friends didn’t really care for him. They were actors. His wife didn’t really love him. She was an actress too. Truman finds out, and cannot live with it. When he was deceived, he was happy. But this happiness, on a deeper and more truthful level, was completely an illusion. And we recognize that he did right by leaving that reality. If he chose to continue on like that, we would shake our heads. It does seem wrong to live a lie, even if it does bring you happiness, and such thought experiments reveal to us that pleasure is not the only thing that matters is by far not the most important thing.
If there was a choice of having the experience and pleasure of climbing Mount Everest and actually climbing Mount Everest, many would chose doing the real thing because we want to actually do these things, and not merely experience them. Fighting hard and winning a war is desirably different than winning a virtual war because actually doing it in reality, being a real thing with real consequences has more value to it (even losing wars as well) than make believe. In love to, when a husband makes love to his wife, it is better that the wife actually does return her love, and does not merely pretend to love her husband. We don’t just want to experience our spouses love, we want to experience a spouses real love. If not, then why get married at all? So, reality does make a qualitative difference, but not to the pleasure itself, and so, pleasure, or Hedonism, is weak as a theory of ethics because there are other ends worth pursuing, like truth.
There is practical application to this. Indulgence is foolish. This is why I don’t get drunk or go to orgies. While these things may be pleasurable, they hold no ultimate meaning to life. It is like choosing to live in a virtual reality. Further, these things (drugs, alcohol, sex) are ever fleeting, and so I become an addict, which is a bad thing anyways. It is not bad to enjoy alcohol or sex, or just pleasure in general, but done as if it were all that mattered, we now know is false, and so such actions are immoral. Also, if I do have a crush on anyone near me in Long Beach, that crush will be more real and so more valuable than my crush on Facebook. So, in choosing whether or not to devote time to Long Beach girl or Facebook girl, my choice is pretty clear, Long Beach girl because she is more real to me. So back to the original question, “Is it sufficient enough for something to merely give the illusion of reality for it be sufficient enough for my experiencing it?” The answer is No. However, since it’s not like I have a choice between spending time with a girl in Long Beach and talking to Facebook girl since there is no Long Beach girl, it will suffice…for now. But hey, who knows, maybe our paths will cross in the future, and virtual Facebook girl IS Long Beach girl. Choke on that pill, Keanu Reeves.
Comments
Post a Comment