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)?