GDP and Happiness

Our society almost universally holds the following assumption to be true: as the standard of living increases (based on objective measures), the overall happiness of society will increase.  Why?  Because we assume that a higher GDP will give humans the time, safety, health, and freedom to pursue self-actualization through reflection, community, and creativity.

But in modern industrial societies, this is not what has generally happened. 

The tradeoffs inherent in improving the standard of living have often made life more miserable (e.g. constantly working a miserable job to sustain the expenses of modern life).  Instead of meeting our basic needs in terms of food, shelter, safety, and health, and then moving on to higher levels of actualization and living, our society has merely ramped up our desire to fulfill the never-ending naught of our basic needs.  Bigger houses.  Better food.  Better technology.  Better vacations.  Better distractions.   

Part of the problem is biological – we live in a society of abundance, yet our primal desires remain the same.  But I want to focus on a different point.  I want to present the following idea: All else being equal, ceteris paribus, once the standard of living hits a certain basic point (adequately fulfilling our need for food, shelter, safety, and health), increasing the objective standard of living will make people unhappier.

There are a number of reasons for this (e.g. evolutionary and biological reasons), but I want to focus on the problems of “contentedness” and “awareness” as the standard of living increases. 

In a large, interconnected society with a massive diversity of goods and ways to achieve status, people’s awareness of what they don’t have and what other people do have makes it very difficult for the everyday person to ever be content.  There is always something more.  The millionaire wants a private jet he can’t afford.  The senator wants to be president.  And so forth.

There become so many different ways to achieve temporary sensory satisfaction that life becomes a series of never-ending micro-goals with no conception of the overall goal and purpose.  The rat-race becomes more intense and competitive.  Things, people, music, cars, movies, tv, language, continually move faster.     

The benefits of technology are constantly heralded, and, rightfully so.  But advances in technology and economic efficiency with no purpose or aim are meaningless and often dangerous.  Instead of increasing our freedom, we increasingly become slaves to the endless complications and desires brought upon by a wealthier and more advanced society.

            The problems in our lives, contrary to what we may think, are generally not material but rooted in our recurring modes of behavior and thought patterns.  Our constant striving is more often a diversion than a solution. 

The economic recession is an opportunity to reevaluate the ways in which we organize our society.  Instead of using technology as a tool for continual economic growth, technology should be used as a tool for meeting our basic needs quickly and efficiently so that we have the freedom to organize our lives in a meaningful way. 

It’s time to slow down.  Less work.  Less stress.  Less goods.  Smaller houses.  Real interactions.  Real communities.            

Value, Competition, and Purpose

          I want to make a point about value.  Namely, what we value will always be some sort of combination of our intrinsic desires mixed with the object we value’s external exclusivity and rarity.  The intrinsic aspect will be the result of our hard-wiring and conscious choices while the external aspect will be contained in physical realities (e.g. limited resources) and group perception (the extent to which we conceptually label something as exclusive or worthwhile).

          Competition helps us determine value by breaking things into hierarchies.  Once we’ve determined what the competition is about and what the “rules” are, we can sort out the best and the worst (to more or less exactitude depending on the nature of the competition and the rules).

          This is important for two reasons: (1) it helps explain why we take so much pleasure in sports or games (in the broadest sense of the word), and (2) it helps explain why creating a meaningful philosophy of life is difficult.

          In terms of point (1), games make the objective clear, and we take pleasure in this clarity of purpose and clarity in determining value.  More or less, the rules of a given game are listed and understood, the “winners” and “losers” are objectively defined, and we can determine rank within a large hierarchy depending on what exactly we are choosing to value. 

          Point (2) is inextricably linked with point (1).  In other words, there are no clear “rules” in life nor is there a clear “game” to be played.  It is unclear who or what is valuable and how you can determine value in a term as broad as “living.”  Sports and games bring us the clarity of purpose and value we’re looking for on a micro-level but don’t supply us with much on the macro-level.

          Some people, almost always unconsciously, have defined their philosophy of life in macro-terms similar to the rules of a “game.”  Their purpose may be something as simple as “money” or “sex.”  These viewpoints can easily be regarded as shallow, but at least they do supply the person with some sort of sense of overall purpose and meaning (and maybe that’s better than defining no clear meaning at all). 

          A philosophy of “love” may certainly be important and ethical, but the term itself seems too amorphous to really be a guiding force (as compared to something as concrete as “money”).  Even if you’re main goal or purpose is to love and treat everyone kindly, it still doesn’t answer the question of how you exist at 2PM on a Tuesday. 

          If the default modern materialistic viewpoints were in fact making people happy, there wouldn’t be too much to quibble about.  But it hardly seems to be the case that the everyday successful person in modern America is roaring with joy. 

          Given our discussion of value, this doesn’t seem surprising.  Once you continually have the things you want, they are no longer rare and thus less valuable.  Hence the depression of the trust-fund kid or child-star – eventually a Mercedes is just a car, a five star restaurant is just basic sustenance, sleeping with a supermodel is just another activity.  Having an iPhone in 1999 would be unbelievable (how rare!).  Having the same iPhone as the guy to next to you on a plane is neither good nor bad – it’s functional.

          By objective standards (food, shelter, healthcare), the living conditions of the average American in 2011 are considerably better than the average American in 1811.  But are people happier?  Are we working less?  Are the people with the most time for leisure and most disposable income the happiest? 

          Going back full circle, if value is contained in rarity and our desires, and what we desire is material, modern man will not work less but work more as technology improves.  This is because modern man will be driven to create value for themselves through material competition for money, goods, and status.  As the world becomes more global and interconnected, the desire to be at the top of the totem pole will be greater than ever (through sheer awareness of others “value”) and loftier than ever (a very rare slice of people will have an incredible amount of wealth and power).

          The people at the bottom will be upset with not having the things at the top, and the people at the top will be unhappy because the things they sought are no longer rare and thus stripped of much value.  The people striving in the middle at least have something to aim for (the top), but it’s unlikely that materialistic striving equates with happiness.  

Fear of Failure

               A fear of failure is rarely based on the actual negative consequences that may result from failing.  Similar to any type of phobia, a strong fear of failure is generally the result of actively avoiding that phobia i.e. avoiding the experience of failure.  For example, if you are afraid of heights, you experience relief every time you avoid situations of high altitude.  Problematically, this reinforces your phobia and makes it even worse than before.  Why?  Because when you encounter phobia "X" and avoid phobia "X," you experience relief in fleeing phobia "X" because nothing bad ultimately occurs.  Thus, next time you encounter phobia "X," your first instinct will be to repeat your usual action - avoidance - and feel relief.  To get over a fear of heights, spiders, etc., you need to repeatedly face that fear head-on.  Through continual exposure, you will realize that the risk is minimal and nothing bad will likely happen.   The fear will slowly subside and eventually disappear.

               In everyday life, people often avoid taking action and risks because they fear the dangers of failure.  From an evolutionary perspective, this attitude makes sense.  Prehistoric man needed to avoid a number of situations to survive -- his fear was very genuine and real.  But the things people avoid now – mainly social and economic risks – are rarely, if ever, life threatening.  Most modern day fears are completely artificial (in terms of physical and mental danger).  Would it really be that bad to speak up in a public forum?  What could happen?  If you ask somebody out and they say “no,” so what?  If you lose your job (especially if you do not have a family), is this really the end of the world? 

               Instead of avoiding failure, you need to constantly take risks and experience failure.  Continually experiencing failure will result in two tangible benefits: (1) you will realize that failing isn't actually that bad and (2) you will reap the benefits of taking more chances i.e. more successes and experiences.  Those who have failed the most are often the most confident because they realize failure isn’t that bad.  Things will be okay; failing merely creates another opportunity.  Constant excuses are often empty rationalizations rooted in fear.

              Many people spend their whole lives waiting for a time when there won’t be a lot of risk, or they reach point “X” in their life.  This is a fool’s game.  Point “X” will never be as good as you thought it would be.  If you haven’t dealt with your philosophy of life, you will just find something new to worry about and consume your existence.  There is no “end game” or “ultimate point” in life.  The key is to enjoy the process and embrace the risk; understand that you can handle chaos and things falling apart.  This will free you to take the good with the bad and not constantly "cling on" to life with both hands shaking.  

  *Disclaimer: All of this assumes the “risks” you are taking are not inordinately dangerous to your health or safety.  But this is certainly not to say that you should avoid all risks to your health or safety.  Better to live a full, short life than a long, wasted life.

Epicureanism

Many of life’s difficulties are contained in the seeming contradictory nature of things.  To truly enjoy something, you need to “buy-in” and immerse yourself in the experience.  But this can be dangerous – too much attachment to something with too little perspective can lead to confusion and angst.  Same with relationships.  For human relationships to be worthwhile, you need to genuinely care and be committed to the relationship.  But this can lead to neediness and desperation that will ultimately ruin a relationship and not make it worthwhile.  Same with jobs.  You need to love and care about what you do while simultaneously knowing you will be “fine” if you were to be fired.

A sort of one foot in-the-door/one-foot-out dynamic is often criticized, but it certainly has its advantages.  The Epicurean view, contrary to modern linguistic usage, was not one of pure hedonism.  Whereas many of the Stoics rejected attending the great pleasures of a “feast,” the Epicurean view was that it is fine to attend and enjoy the feast, just don’t need the feast.  Or, more specifically, don’t let your internal happiness be determined by whether you attend the feast or not, but, simultaneously, be willing to enjoy the sensory pleasures of the feast.

How much can a person really enjoy something without feeling that they need it?  Or, in other words, can you truly experience great pleasure and feelings if you’re not all-in (where the thought of losing object x, job x, person x is unimaginable)?  Does the sort of moderation required to not need things result in a life not worth living (a life without enough passion, pain, and triumph)?  

Thoughts on the New App “Color”

A new app called “Color” was recently released.  For those of you who don’t know what Color is, here’s a rough summary of how the app works.  Essentially, any photo taken while using Color is immediately placed onto the public domain.  Any person using Color and within a 150 foot radius of your location can see the photos you are currently taking.  And, obviously, you can see the photos taken by anyone else using Color within a 150 foot radius.  These photos are then put into a “timeline” so you can see what is going on around you in photographic form. 

Ideally, you could open this app at a concert and see hundreds of photos taken by people of themselves and the events around them.  It creates an instant storybook of all events as they take place.

Silicon Valley is going wild over this idea.  Color quickly raised 41 million dollars and is being hailed as the future of social media.   

While I love the concept of Color, I have some concerns about its potential viability logistically and conceptually.

The popularity of Color hinges on it being used by nearly everybody.  If there aren’t numerous people within your radius taking pictures, there’s nothing to do on Color, and there’s no point of going on it.  The question becomes: how does Color get a large percentage of the country on their app in a short period of time? 

Facebook and Twitter had specific advantages for recruiting a social base that Color does not have.  Facebook was able to use colleges to create exclusivity – this allowed them to expand slowly (in relative terms) but expansively.  Furthermore, Facebook didn’t immediately depend on having millions of people using their program – all Facebook needed was the student body at a given college, which, given the social dynamics of campus life, wasn’t hard to get.  On Color, to make it actually worthwhile, millions of people will have to use it to create large scale use (because of the 150 foot radius requirement).  Color can’t expand piecemeal.

Twitter had the distinct advantage of celebrity for building a social base.  They were able to recruit celebrities (who realized Twitter’s potential marketing value) and then large scales of people joined to follow those celebrities.  Without the celebrity aspect of Twitter, there would be no viable way for them to create such a large social network.

Another problem I see with Color is that it is exclusively a smartphone based product.  Whereas Twitter and Facebook are used on computers and smartphones alike (and most often on computers), Color will be used mainly (if not only) on smartphones.  The problems with this are numerous. 

(1) Most social media usage is still ultimately computer based, not smartphone based.  Color relies on people taking photos with their smartphone and looking at other people’s photos in real time.  Even if people later go back and look at the photograph “timelines” from Color on their computers, computer access will not be Color’s primary or essential usage. 

(2) Looking at photos on smartphones is frustrating.  Even with the extremely high resolution of the iPhone 4, it still isn’t the same as looking at photos on your computer.  Have you ever used the Facebook app for looking at photos?  It’s terrible.

  (3) Advertising.  Advertising on smartphone based apps does not bring in nearly the revenue that advertising on social media websites does.  People don’t click, surf the web, and purchase on their smartphones like they do on their computers.

Do I think Color will be successful?  I don’t know – it depends on how the founder and investors of Color answer these problems.  Most importantly, they need to find a way to entice huge amounts of people to use their app virtually overnight.  I’m not sure if marketing alone will be enough.  Even if Color advertised at all large scale social events (such as sporting events, conventions, etc.), I don’t think this would bring the necessary numbers Color needs.  Some might argue that word of mouth will be enough.  I don’t think this is true because people are impatient – if they download Color and nobody else around them is taking pictures and using it, they’ll delete it and/or forget it even exists.

Color may have some adapting to do.  I think the idea is sound, but I don’t know if it has the legs to be successful on its own.  In my mind, the ultimate solution is for Facebook to buy Color (or get around Color’s intellectual property).  Facebook could then use their large social base to make the app worthwhile.  Then, within the Color function of the Facebook app, people could not only look at other people’s photos within their 150 foot radius, but they could look at the Facebook profiles of those people as well.  People could “friend” other people within their radius, learn about them, use the Color “timeline” photos by uploading them onto their profile, and ultimately create this huge, interactive social base. 

Passions as Virtues

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche spent much of his time studying Ancient Greek culture.  In numerous essays, Nietzsche discussed how the Greeks were able to turn seemingly bad human traits, such as cruelty and brutality, into something positive.  He argued that the Greeks took the negative drives of humans and developed them in a social institution based on continual competition. 

                This social institution of constant competition was used as an outlet for feelings of cruelty and brutality.  Consequently, the continual competition and striving to “win” resulted in Greek excellence in numerous fields such as architecture, theatre, sculpture, etc.   

Nietzsche’s philosophy was obsessed with this idea.  He argued that virtues are merely negative passions directed toward a higher goal.  Meaning: seemingly negative passions such as vengeance and fanaticism can be turned into great virtues such as justice and devotion through proper direction and outlets.

By virtue of being human, all of us will deal with a wide range of negative emotions.  The real question is: how do we direct these feelings?  And, even more interestingly, how often is the redirection of negative passions a prerequisite for high achievement (or high virtue)?  

Perspectivism

Many philosophers have looked at the nature of living and argued that life is nothing but suffering and misery.  These sorts of viewpoints tend to assume that “philosophy of life” questions are objectively true for everyone, regardless of their perspective.  But if our various attitudes and ideas change the way we experience the world, then it may be the case that certain viewpoints make life worth affirming and others make life worth denying. 

It seems clear that how the world affects us as individuals is always shaped in some way or another by our attitudes and ideas.  We all go through various mood swings and perspectives about the world over the course of our lives and these shape our experience.   On some days certain things will make us laugh that on other days would make us furious.  The actual event taking place in the world may be exactly the same, while our reaction and experience of the event may be completely different depending on our attitude at the time. 

For instance, after watching a scary movie, a knock on the door may completely frighten us and result in us calling the police.  The scary movie shapes our perspective in such a way that an ordinary event, such as someone knocking on the door, becomes a seemingly frightening and dangerous event.  The experience of the world is different than what it would have been if we had not watched the movie. 

The physical reality of the external world takes place in a definite way and then our internal world shapes the way in which the events of the external world make us feel.  This is something we experience quite often.  We may hear a motivational speaker or have a sudden epiphany about the world; now, tasks that we once found frustrating are transformed into something enjoyable.

The trouble with ideas and attitudes as they pertain to the philosophy of life are numerous.  There is a question of what attitudes and ideas we should bring to the world and also what attitudes and ideas we are willing and able to accept.  We may desire to take a life-affirming attitude toward the world but be unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. 

If enjoying the events of the world were as easy as just looking at it in a certain way, everyone would choose such a viewpoint.  Furthermore, various attitudes and feelings about the world can depart quickly.  A great novel can leave us feeling happy about life and ready for anything – but these feelings generally fade away within a short period of time. 

While our experience of the world is affected by our attitude, the events themselves still play a significant role on our experience, regardless of our attitude.  It does not seem that I can make the experience of being tortured enjoyable by merely assuming the right mindset. 

Even with these worries in mind, the philosophical question of what attitudes and ideas we should aim for in our approach to life is still of great importance. What we are looking for a is a way to make life in general worth affirming, even if that does not result in every experience being enjoyable. 

How do we properly shape our perspectives?  We need to attack the issue from numerous fronts mentally and physically.  I have a lot to say about mental perspective shifting, but I’ll go into that on another day.  Also, a lot of perspective shifting must be highly personalized to the individual. 

But here are some very basic things everyone can do to shift their perspective positively: don’t surround yourself with negative people, eat healthy, sleep, expose yourself to a variety of media and art, workout, and sit in silence for at least 30 minutes a day.

We all basically know to do these things – it’s just a matter of actually doing it.

Various Thoughts on Rap Music as a Genre

                Rap music holds an interesting position in our culture in terms of artistic and popular criticism.  For many intellectuals, rap music is either perplexing, idiotic, or both.  There are a number of reasons for this, many generational, sociological, or psychological.  I’d like to draw out a few of my thoughts on what rap music is and what it means.  It wouldn’t surprise me if many of these ideas have been discussed before, but I must plead ignorance to most writings on rap music criticism.

                Rap music, unlike other music genres, is inextricably tied to the artist’s real identity.  And while pop and rock groups often cultivate artificial identities (see Lady Gaga, Motley Crue), any indication that a rapper has misrepresented who he is decreases the quality of his music.  For instance, if it turned out Jay-Z was not from the Marcy Projects, and instead from a wealthy suburb, virtually all of his music would immediately be rendered terrible.  In juxtaposition, a variation in the biography of virtually every rock or classical musician I listen to would have little or no effect on my enjoyment of their music.  This is not a criticism of rap music, but an example to point out the unique way in which identity informs aesthetic quality in rap music.  In pop music, we understand that Britney Spears or The Backstreet Boys are cultivating a false identity – we accept it as the nature of the genre.  In classical music, the music almost completely stands alone and is rarely informed by indirect information.

                Now, what is the nature of identity as it applies to rap music?  Generally, the better the rapper, the more we know about who they are, how they think, and how they’ve evolved.  The average rap fan knows everything about where Jay-Z’s from, Eminem’s family, Tupac’s social struggles, etc.  Once we as fans understand their identity, we understand their music.  We see where every shift in perspective fits into their big-picture development as a human being.  That’s why it is so difficult for non-rap fans to even understand what is going on in much of rap – without a certain amount of understanding of the history of rap, the socio-cultural dynamics between rap individuals, and an artist’s underlying motivations, numerous songs are virtually unintelligible or without meaning.   

What is the rap identity?  The rap identity is the modern version of the American dream: rags to riches, overcoming adversity, the triumph of the individual over his circumstances.  The experience for the listener is two-fold: (1) they view the artist as an object of admiration (the underdog overachieving) and (2) they view themselves as the artist and experience what it is like to be in their position. 

This is why rap has certain unique features that rarely, if ever, take place in other genres: rap “dis tracks” and constant guest performances on one another’s records.  Rap “dis tracks” are essentially the clash of identities between two rappers.  They are going to use music as a way to express why their identity is more genuine and actualized while their opponent is not legitimately representing who they are.  Guest performances, which rarely make sense in rock music, are commonplace in rap because it gives each artist a chance to present variations on their identity through the overall theme of the song. 

Granted, most of this discussion only applies to rappers who are consistently popular and influential throughout their rap career i.e. good rappers.  One-hit wonders of rap come and go because they haven’t understood these concepts.  Their songs are not an expression of their identity but instead capture an external feeling.  This can work in the short-term, but they will not have long-term success because the listener has not connected with them individually – they have connected with a rhythm and theme that exists outside of the nature of the rapper.   

Communication Barriers

                While reflecting on what I was hoping to accomplish through this blog, I have mixed feelings.  I’m glad that I’ve been able to post relatively consistently, albeit a very short period of time, but I still haven’t captured the direction I was hoping to go in. 

                The posts have mainly explicated theories on how I think different things work in the abstract.  Although this is what I want to write about, it is only part of what I am trying to accomplish.  I’d like this blog to draw out abstract explanations from an extremely personal point of view.  The current distance between my internal thought process and external postulations is something I’d like to destroy.  Granted, there will always be a distance because of the limitations and differences between thought and communication, but I’d certainly like to bring the two much closer together.

                That being said, this is not easy.  Such directness can run the risk of being convoluted or uninteresting.  I want more rawness but not at the expense of clarity.  I recognize that the conceptual point I’m trying to make is easier shown than explained.   In the coming weeks I hope there will be a shift in tone and perspective on the blog.  Whether this will be for the better is yet to be seen.

The Thrill of the Unknown

How quickly we get bored with what we understand.  The unknown and the confusing is what truly attracts us and keeps us engaged.

Think about when you first started a new activity such as a job or your first day of college.  Fast forward three months later.  That same job or class is completely different in terms of how you think about the people, the space, and how you interpret every experience.  The original nervousness, excitement, and enthusiasm are gone – everything has become routine and digested.

                When we first meet somebody that we’re attracted to, much of the excitement is contained in the fact that we don’t know who they are and what they will do.  Anything seems possible.  Once we get to know them, we will never feel the same way because we now understand how they operate.

                This is the difficulty in finding a job or relationship that works.  A creative job, such as being an artist, is always inconsistent and wildly unpredictable.  But the possibility of creating something new and interesting makes it worthwhile.  Routine jobs bring the benefit of predictability and clear cut goals, but it’s hard to stay continually interested in anything where you can predict what will happen in advance.  Same with relationships.  The predictable relationship is satisfying in its dependability but rarely emotionally riveting.

                Why do we like the unknown?  Because, as stated before, anything is possible.  When anything is possible, there is always the hope of a transcendent experience.  Routine behavior rarely brings up such feelings.  When I think back on my most memorable experiences, they were almost always unforeseen.  Plans and routines create massive limitations, but they also create stability.

                The concept of balance seems to be a recurring theme on this blog.  How do you create a life framework that is generally reliable but leaves ample room for unknown, transcendent experiences?

Skins

                If you’re lucky, you have never seen the television show Skins, MTV’s attempt at a show about “teen life.”  The show claims to be an accurate prediction of what teen life is really like, yet the show manages to contain zero events or characters that bare any resemblance to reality. 

                The problem with shows such as Skins is that anybody can understand what social role each person plays within ten seconds of watching.  Instead of having multifaceted characters with complex motivations, each person is defined by a singular motivation i.e. a girl they can’t have, a desire to fit in, an attempt to be a sports star, etc.  Not only is this style of writing disingenuous, it’s terribly uninteresting. 

                Teen shows and movies make it seem as if life is defined by singular, seminal moments such as prom, a first date, a championship sporting event, etc.  But this is generally false.  Seinfeld realized that life is defined by the ordinary events that make up our everyday lives.  Portraying the subtleties of a dinner party or having coffee with a friend is far more interesting and meaningful than extremely dramatic events.  Until teen shows such as Skins attempt to capture “everydayness,” they will always be cliché and boring.  This is because portraying normal events requires nuanced, well-rounded characters while extreme events tend to create archetypes instead of real humans.  

Do Push Your Luck

                Anyone who gambles understands the concept of hot and cold streaks.  When gambling on games such as blackjack, we often get an intuitive feeling that the cards are going to fall our way.  When this happens, good gamblers take advantage of the opportunity and start doubling or tripling their bets.  Conversely, we often get the opposite feeling that the table has gone “cold” and start betting less or leave the table completely.

                Life works in a similar fashion.  When things start going our way, we need to seize the opportunity and start being bold and aggressive in all aspects of our lives.  Good things tend to come in groups – a “hot streak” can permeate every phase of our existence.  When things start going poorly, we need to stop, quit being bold and aggressive, and re-analyze the various courses of action in our lives.  Things have gone “cold.” 

                Slow and steady does not win the race of life.  Gamblers who bet the same amount of money regardless of the situation almost never win; they just slowly lose their money little by little.  In life, we must be willing to go out of our comfort zone and try new things when it “feels” right. 

                Interestingly, long-term balance in life is not found in consistently neutral behavior.  Balance is found through the yin and yang of boldness when things are going well and being able to pull back and reanalyze when necessary.  Those who are consistently betting high and trying to ride out every hot streak are doomed to fail.  But those who always play it safe will never actually achieve high goals.  

Aesthetic Relativism?

*I’m indebted to the philosopher David Hume for some of these ideas.

                When we discuss works of art or culinary dishes, we generally accept that people’s preferences are subjective.  I may love a movie that you hate.  Neither of us is objectively right – it is merely our preference.  But we also feel that some works of art are objectively better than others.  It seems that The Shawkshank Redemption is objectively better than any Pauly Shore movie.  This is more than a mere preference.  How do we reconcile these two viewpoints?

                From the perspective of one’s experience, it seems absurd to say a given piece of art is objectively better than another.  Whatever the individual experiences when encountering the art is purely subjective and neither right nor wrong. 

                But it seems that some people are in a better position to judge the actual quality of a piece of art for a variety of reasons.  An expert on 17^th century French painting is in a far better position to judge the quality of a Sebastien Bourdon painting than I am.  The art critic, by virtue of his knowledge, can compare and contrast a piece and understand how it fits into the medium.  A wine critic may have better taste buds and a much wider range of wine experience than the average person.  Therefore, he or she can better judge the objective quality of a wine.  Things such as knowledge, experience, and sensory capacity put certain individuals in a better position to objectively judge the quality of a piece of art. 

                As I listen to more music, watch more movies, and better build up my sensory and critical capacity, the way I experience pieces of art changes.  I am better able to tell the actual quality of something.

                In essence, the critical distinction I am trying to make is between our individual subjective experiences and the ability to objectively analyze the quality of something.  It is idiotic to argue with the way somebody experiences a piece of art.  Experience is subjective and relative – however it felt to the individual is how it felt.  But certain people, as a result of their knowledge and sensory capacity in a given field, such as critics, are often in a better position to determine the actual objective quality of something.  For example, if I have only seen two movies in my life, and I’m partially blind and deaf, it can be objectively said that I am in a worse position to judge the actual quality of a given movie than, say, Roger Ebert.  

Vote or Die

               I didn’t vote in the most recent election.  When I told Puff Daddy, he shot me.

Money, Time, and Tradeoffs

                Every dollar we earn supplies us with an increasing number of options and opportunities.  This is because money can be exchanged for almost anything material or physical.  In essence, an increase in money equals an expansion of freedom and time (all else being equal).  For example, a millionaire can always choose to live like a hobo, while a hobo cannot choose to live like a millionaire. 

                Problematically, earning money almost always involves a massive limitation on our time and freedom.  For most people, a large percentage of their waking life is spent doing a job they don’t enjoy because they need money for a variety of reasons. 

                We want money to maximize our free-time, but we sacrifice our free-time to earn money.

                The real question is: where is the equilibrium point between having enough money to have a multitude of options (by sacrificing your freedom to earn money) and having plenty of time to enjoy life but limited options (because you haven’t earned enough money through work). 

                Many people have not found a logical balance.  They have so blindly pursued money that they have sacrificed nearly all their time (and freedom) in the process.  What is the point of earning money if you don’t have the free-time to properly enjoy the options it supplies? 

                To achieve an optimum balance, one should begin by determining how much money they need to live a basic, modern lifestyle (rent, food, gas, etc.).  After that point, every extra hour of work should be analyzed in terms of whether the money earned is worth the sacrifice of freedom.  While this may seem obvious on a conceptual level, it appears very few apply this logic to their own lives.

                Granted, most jobs do not allow one to determine how many hours they will work – it’s either a large amount of hours or none at all.  But life is always a series of tradeoffs, and massive changes may be needed to put our lives in order.  I think most of us would be happier working less and earning less, but this sort of decision requires us to accept that many people around us will have more “things.”  We will not be able to keep with the Jones’s anymore.  Although this may be terrifying for many of us, ultimately it will be more freeing.  We expect to own all these possessions because we see them all around us, not because we actually need them.  Once we independently determine what we actually need, we will no longer be endlessly working to fulfill a never-ending void.

Peter Van Inwagen’s Refutation of the Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts (DAUP)

This post will probably be of little interest to those who don’t care about metaphysical issues in modern analytic philosophy i.e. nearly everyone.  But lately I’ve been thinking a lot about modal logic and essentialism, and I wanted to draw out one of Peter Van Inwagen’s  interesting arguments about objects, parts, and continuity through space and time for those that are interested.

In a famous essay, Peter Van Inwagen argues that the Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts (DAUP) is false because it commits one to accepting Mereological Near-Essentialism.  What is DAUP?  The general view of DAUP states that there is an object corresponding to any part of a material object, no matter how one cuts it up.  In other words, this doctrine is stating that any region of space of a material object can be divided up into a part and that the part constitutes a material object. 

For example, any part of the Egyptian pyramids or John Coltrane’s saxophone could be divided into a part, no matter how random or arbitrary, and the part would be a material object in and of itself.  On the face of it, DAUP appears to be obvious and intuitively true.  We can speak of and point out all the different possible parts of an object and consider them as objects in and of themselves. 

It seems clear that a small chunk of the top of an Egyptian pyramid, or any other part of the pyramid for that matter, can be pointed out and considered a material object.  Furthermore, DAUP seems to coincide well with the intuitive view of universalism.  Universalism, in the metaphysical sense in which I am using it, states that trying to draw a distinction between what parts of an object are arbitrary (and not to be considered material objects of their own right) and what parts of an object are not would have no clear justification. 

While it is true that some parts of an object may be more interesting than others and someone’s leg may seem more interesting as a ‘part’ than three square inches of their right thigh, this doesn’t mean that DAUP is false.  If anything, to say that certain parts of the Egyptian pyramids are material objects while other parts are not would seem dubious and unwarranted.  While certain portions of an Egyptian pyramid may seem more logical to consider as a part, this doesn’t preclude seemingly more random parts from being material objects. 

Additionally, our intuitions about what happens when we break a material object appear to be in line with DAUP.  If one randomly breaks a graham cracker into two pieces, it seems unlikely, one would argue, the two separate pieces of graham cracker just came into existence.  The parts of graham cracker existed as material objects before the break took place. 

Because of the intuitive power in favor of DAUP and universalism, arguments against DAUP must be very strong to be given serious consideration.  Since Van Inwagen argues that DAUP is false, even though DAUP has much intuitive plausibility, Van Inwagen’s argument against DAUP can be viewed as an argument and/or a puzzle to be explained.  If DAUP is false, then universalism is also false, and giving up these views would not be easy for most people.

To argue against the truth of DAUP, Van Inwagen states that a commitment to DAUP leads to Mereological Essentialism and since Mereological Essentialism is plainly false (on the face of it), DAUP must also be false.  What is Mereological Essentialism?  In short, the thesis of Mereological Essentialism is the view that an object has all of its parts essentially.  If an object has parts, it always and necessarily has these parts according to Mereological Essentialism.  In Van Inwagen’s argument against DAUP, he claims that his argument shows that DAUP leads to a weaker version of Mereological Essentialism which he calls Mereological Near-Essentialism. 

The difference between Mereological Essentialism and Mereological Near-Essentialism, the view Van Inwagen argues DAUP entails, is that Mereological Essentialism contends that if a part is removed from an object it ceases to exist in all cases.  Mereological Near-Essentialism allows for a part to replace a part that was removed so as to allow the object to continue to exist.  The reason Van Inwagen believes that his reductio ad absurdum will be successful, even though all it does is show that DAUP leads to Mereological Near-Essentialism, is that he believes Mereological Near-Essentialism is clearly false.  Furthermore, Van Inwagen must believe that the clear falsity of Mereological Near-Essentialism is more compelling than the intuitive power in favor of DAUP. 

There are very persuasive reasons to think that the thesis of Mereological Near-Essentialism is in fact false.  For example, if Mereological Near-Essentialism is true, virtually no objects persist through time.  Organisms and objects are constantly losing atoms and parts.  If an object must have all of its parts essentially and cannot survive the loss of even the tiniest or most seemingly irrelevant part, then according to Mereological Near-Essentialism, it no longer exists. 

This clearly goes against our basic intuitions.  If one were to lose an arm in a car accident, no one (or at least most people) would say that one is a new person after losing that appendage.  It doesn’t seem to be the case that an arm is so essential that the loss of it results in a person ceasing to exist.  It appears clear that they still exist, whether with their arm or not. 

On a side note, it is interesting that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of DAUP and universalism is that they are loose, casual doctrines.  DAUP appears intuitively compelling because one feels it would be too strict and arbitrary to declare that some parts of an object are in fact parts while others are not.  But if Van Inwagen is right, and DAUP commits one to Mereological Near-Essentialism, a commitment to DAUP does not leave one with a liberal doctrine but instead forces one into an extremely strict view about objects and their persistence through time.

Van Inwagen is not saying that objects don’t have any parts at all; he is arguing that objects don’t have arbitrary parts.  Van Inwagen, because he gives a reductio ad absurdum to show that DAUP is false, begins by assuming that DAUP is true and also asks us to assume that Mereological Near-Essentialism is false. 

Here’s Van Inwagen’s argument, in short: Imagine there is an object O, with a part P, at time 1, and that the object O could survive the loss of part P.  According to DAUP, there can be an object which is the difference between O and P at time 1.  This object, which is the difference between O and P at time 1, will be referred to as O-minus.  O-minus and O are clearly different objects.  They occupy different regions of space, have different parts, and are numerically diverse. 

Now, at time 2, imagine that O has lost part P, but because Mereological Near-Essentialism is false, O exists and survived the loss of part P.  At time 2, O-minus still exists and its’ qualities are the same as they were at time 1.  But now, at time 2, as a result of O losing part P, O and O-minus are material objects wholly in the same place at the same time, sharing all the same properties, and composed of all the same parts. 

Van Inwagen argues O and O-minus, which were once distinct material objects at time 1, are now the same thing at time 2.  Van Inwagen believes that the idea of two different objects coinciding in the exact same place at the exact same time with all the same properties makes no sense whatsoever.  So DAUP, which allows for any part of an object to be an object itself, leaves us with this seeming contradiction; O and O-minus, which were once distinct objects, are now the same. 

Van Inwagen concludes that O-minus doesn’t exist and not every part of an object can be divided into an object.  Van Inwagen’s argument, which assumes Mereological Near-Essentialism to be false and DAUP to be true, shows that the conjunction of these views leads to a contradiction.  If one accepts Mereological Near-Essentialism, one can argue that when O lost part P it went out of existence so there is no seeming contradiction.  However, as pointed out before, Van Inwagen and many others find this view of Mereological Near-Essentialism untenable.  Therefore DAUP entails Mereological Near-Essentialism, and since Mereological Near-Essentialism is false, DAUP must also be false.

Goals, Confidence, and Personal Evolution

                For most people, the goal of life is to be happy.  Ideally, one would be happy, ethical, and productive.  The trouble is: how does one become happy?  And, is happiness merely a natural disposition, or can one “will” themselves to be happy?

                If one seeks to be happy in the long term, seeking short term pleasures will almost never work.  Prolonged happiness is a state of mind, not an individual experience.

                Happiness is closely tied with confidence.  When one is genuinely confident in themselves, they will generally be happy.  How does one gain confidence?  Confidence comes through goal accomplishment – one needs to set long and short-term goals that are not too hard, but not too easy, and then repeatedly accomplish these goals.  This will create actual confidence.

                Problematically, most of our time is spent pursuing goals, not accomplishing goals.  So we need to not only set and accomplish the right goals, but we need to find goals in which we will enjoy the process of striving for those goals.  Otherwise, we are either in pain striving for goals we don't have or bored because we are not striving for something.

                Therefore, we need to set a number of goals in which we enjoy the process, and then balance the goals against each other to make sure we are spreading ourselves adequately in every area of life (physically, mentally, spiritually, economically, etc.).  This is not easy.  A further wrench in the equation is that as we grow older, accomplish goals, and have more life experiences, the goals we desire change and the relative enjoyment we get from striving for certain goals will evolve.  This is why life will always be complicated and shifting. 

Depressed people tend to look at this situation and see it as a never-ending game that can’t be won.  But this perspective need not be taken.  The dynamic nature of goal setting and personal evolution is what makes life always interesting – and leaves virtually an infinite amount of room for growth and fulfillment.  Our perspectives shape our reality, and thus shape our experience. 

                The next question becomes: can we control our attitudes and perspectives?  And, if so, how?  That question is for another day...  

Epistemological Confusion

                When people debate nearly any philosophical, religious, or political subject, a point often raised is an epistemological one.  The line of reasoning is generally stated as follows: 1. We can never truly know anything with 100% percent certainty.  2. Therefore, nobody can ever say something is true or not. 

                This line of argumentation is generally brought up by somebody who is losing an argument, so they throw out this epistemological “catch-all” to change the direction of the argument.

                The problem with this line of reasoning is it is based on the false notion that if we don’t know something with 100% certainty, we don’t know any truth at all.  This criterion for truth is far too demanding.  Truth is always a probability game. 

    Some things are far more likely than others, and we are always analyzing the truth of something based on the facts we are given.  For example, in all likelihood my parents are my biological parents, but there is always the possibility they are not, even if I was to take a DNA test.   The logical mistake people often make from here is that since something is not certain, it is now equally likely that my parents are (or are not) my biological parents.  This makes no sense; we must always analyze things in terms of relative likelihood.

    This epistemological confusion is constantly used in religious contexts.  People often say things such as “you don’t know for sure Jesus isn’t the son of God” or “you don’t for sure Xenu the Robot isn’t real.”  From this they conclude that all religious beliefs are equally valid.

    It is certainly true that you can never know something with 100% certainty, but religious questions, like all questions, need to be weighed against empirical and rational realities.  I can never be completely positive that Greek mythology isn’t the correct understanding of divinity, but there is virtually no basis for such viewpoints.  Therefore, in all likelihood it is not true.  Similar (and more thorough) analysis can be applied to most religious viewpoints.

                In similar fashion, many have argued that humans cannot grasp truth about objects because the linguistic symbols and conventions humans utilize are not based on adequate awareness of objects.  They claim we merely have awareness of the mental or representative states of objects and not adequate awareness of objects themselves (because of sensory and intellectual limitations).  The path between an individual and an object, which moves from object to perception to concept to linguistic symbol, dilutes our awareness of the object in and of itself and undercuts our ability to find actual truth.

    I grant that humans cannot directly access all possible perceptions and interpretations of an object, but it is not clear why this is a problem or why as a result humans cannot be adequately aware of objects or discover any truth about objects.  This criterion for truth is far too extreme – it claims we either have complete truth and awareness of an object or none at all.  Representative states are imperfect, but they also give humans a way of knowing and understanding all sorts of things about an object.  And although sensory data and representative states can be deceiving at times, and there is a sequential path between objects, perceptions, concepts, and words, this path still gives humans a form of awareness that has proven itself extremely valuable for learning highly probable truth about the world over time. 

Post 1

Like everyone else in the world, I’ve decided to start a blog.  I figured I might as well start recording my thoughts on various topics in some sort of written form.  Even if no one reads it, at least I will have a written record to look back on.

This blog will mainly concern my thoughts on various topics from a macro-perspective.  Namely, philosophy, sports, economics, psychology, etc.  I guess will see how the subject matter evolves over time.

I hope to update this blog at least once a week.  It appears most blogs start off with tons of posts and then quickly trail off.  Hopefully that will not be the case.

Feel free to comment on any topic.  Hopefully some topics will create a consistent discussion thread, especially those of a more philosophical nature.