Hello. I know I'm starting to get really involved in this blog but as previously stated somewhere on here, it is really cathartic and Zen for me and really helps me to deal with my stresses, anxieties, paranoia, and depression, so why not go crazy with it? Plus I figure the more interesting stuff I have on here, the more likely people will find it and start to read my entries.
This is a blog dedicated to explaining philosophical ideologies in my own way. I mean that my ideas of the idea. I’m not sure if I am making sense here. I mean like…ok, I got it! See, I’m a philosopher, and what do philosophers do? Come up with their own ideas. However, as mentioned in the Tanakh, which was written roughly around the same time Socrates was giving lectures, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Meaning? Philosopher’s read and here ideas and then use them, debunk them, or change/adapt them to suite their own means. I don’t mean they take the ideas out of context, merely that they are inspired by one another. This is what this blog will be about. My own ideas/versions of famous philosophic concepts.
This week I am focusing on John Stuart Mill’s Hierarchy of Pleasures (Mill is also one of the primary fathers of the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which I also support).
The Hierarchy of Pleasures was formulated to explain how one should live their life to a degree in order for Mill’s Utilitarianism to make more sense to people. Mill’s Utilitarianism is the idea ethical theory that to figure out what the right thing to do is one should contemplate on how it affects people. Mill believed in the highest quality pleasure for the highest quantity of people.
I agree with Mill 100% when it comes to his Hierarchy of Pleasures. He defined what was more important in life than base pleasures. The way one figures this out is thru contemplation of the deed in question. Does it further one’s existence? Does it involve socially/politically/philosophically redeeming value? Are you seeking this out for basic physical pleasure or is there an underlying cause? Does follow more of a “contemplation lifestyle or a “pleasure”/”honorable” lifestyle (as stipulated by Aristotle which I will also go over in a blog entry. I wanted to do this first because of things that have been bugging me.)
So, we have all these questions, but does that really clear it up? How about some examples. Well base animal pleasure, such as eating; drinking for simple nourishment is low on the hierarchy as well as sex for pleasure/reproduction. Things high on the list would include true art and true beauty, contemplation, etc.
Still not clear? Well let me give you better examples:
The difference between “fucking” and making-love”:
If you are having sex /masturbating for purely physical reactions that induce pleasure, than it is a base pleasure low on the list. There is no contemplative or spiritually redeeming value and you are doing it out of instinct, lust, etc. However, if you and your partner are making-love: there is a spiritually redeeming quality. You are engaging in this activity for the greater pleasure of bodies becoming one, souls becoming one, to be intimate with ones lover, for contemplation about life, to feel something greater than and outside of yourself. A true and full experience as Aristotle would say.
Getting completely wasted on beer vs. a fine glass of wine with friends or at a party:
If you drink for simple reason to get physically drunk and to poison your body, you are certainly focusing on animalistic pleasures. You have no respect for the people or environment around—getting drunk to the point of disregarding your surroundings, possibly being very annoying, disruptive, rude, and end up physically sick in the morning. Mill would say this is pointless. In the end it not only has no value, but the base pleasure turns into discomfort with hangovers, blackouts, vomiting, etc so it in the end cancel’s out the little base pleasure being drunk gives. If you enjoy a glass of wine, cider, something handcrafted, made locally or organically, something with character as it were, and not to the point of getting drunk, disruptive, and sick, at the very least you become tipsy or buzzed. And this drinking is not done alone, it is at a nice party with rewarding and redeeming topics of conversation, in a social environment where one can freely interact with other people, perhaps accompanied by art, a film, some music, perhaps some cheese to experience a heightened sense of taste pleasure not found in McDonald’s cheeseburgers, expanding your pallet, trying new things, and if you drink for the whole experience, not just the physical, and your reasoning behind the physical is that it relaxes you slightly, and you can enjoy the food and the mood, then it is redeeming.
Potheads vs. Hippies:
If you smoke pot, (or do any drug for that matter) for the sole purpose of the physical result of pleasure that it induces, to do so much you get completely stoned out of your mind and are now a nuisance to those around you, just as with being drunk, rude, loud, annoying, etc. it is for the wrong reasons and has no redeeming value, the only reason you are getting high is in it as itself. Meaning you get high to get high. However, as Hippies (and others, not just hippies) will attest, there is great spiritually, mystically, and contemplative redeeming values. They are always willing to give some of their drugs away for free because it is not about being addicted or needing a fix or anything like that. It is about sitting around, enjoying each other’s company, trying to connect to something spiritual, trying to “expand the mind” and work out the mysteries of the universe, being polite and respectful of other people.
Listening to music:
I guess now this will go under my other blog as well. So Mill on Music:
This is a touchy subject because if I were to quantify types of music in relation to each other or quantify the artists in relation to each other, I could easily offend hundreds of thousands of people. There are also several factors to consider so I will try to be careful and use a great deal of tact:
First, it would depend on the reasoning behind listening to music. If you listen to it as a distraction from reality (not a cathartic escape but as a “distraction”) or as background to simply drown out another unwanted sound or for some other reason, this would probably be seen by Mill as the wrong approach to music. If you are listening to it to understand the message of the piece, the state of the artist, to feel the emotions connected with it, then you are probably going about it the right way. Therefore, Mill would disagree with absolute music as defined as one listening to music devoid of distractions including lyrics, messages in the piece, images it brings to mind and feelings it conjures. However, Mill would agree that Muzak is evil, and if it is not evil, then it is on the bottom rung of the Hierarchy of Pleasures. Mill, contextually (meaning his time and place) would most likely have a problem with most types of modern pop, rap, etc. Mill would accept pop only as far as in it brings a great deal of pleasure to a great number of people. However, that is missing the point. Mill would say they are mistaken in their opinion of the pleasure interpreting it as a higher quality than it is and if they do not understand the pleasures inherent in the classics or the songs with great messages of social strife, he would say they just have not listened to it properly. Mill would be of the belief that higher quality music requires skill, creativity, and talent, meaning that music that is written by the person who really thought on the lyrics and did not write simply what the people wanted to hear, played instruments, and actually sang, he would accept this as high quality music. However music that is auto-toned such as Kesha, or devoid on actual instruments (and if they are present, then they are in the form of prerecorded stock sound) such as in the rap of today and some forms of pop today.
If the music brings about pleasure of the mind and spirit on top of physical pleasure (such as making love), is creative and talented, has some sort of significance and redeeming value, Mill would be okay with it.
Kitsch vs. Art:
To fully understand this, I suggest reading Beauty, Kitsch, and Glamour by Kathleen Higgins; the link is posted on my blog but I'll link it here as well: http://www.thereitis.org/gmc/philosophic-reflections/higgins_beauty-kitsch-glamour.pdf
Kitsch is stock art. And when I say art I mean I have no other way to describe it. Kitsch can be knick knacks, motivational posters, mass produces stock footage things that take no effort, skill, creativity, and do not spark contemplation as in they don’t make one think of something new or different rather than an idea they are already comfortable with, like posters of girls from movies hugging cars, or random scenes of nature with messages that sound like something out of 1984. The messages are mindless encouragement. Another good example is tattoos. Is your tattoo a cliché skull or snake that hundreds of people have that you picked out of a book? Alternatively, is it an artistic conception that you may or may not have designed yourself that has true significant meaning to you in some way that others who see it may not understand at first glance and therefore encourages conversation? Kitsch in essence is fake art just as Glamour is defined as fake beauty.
No comments:
Post a Comment