Why is experience itself supposed to be at a premium?

schopenhauer1

When you ask people about why it is being born seems to be a necessity, people will generally turn from basic hedonistic calculations to a holistic evaluation. In other words, people generally think that experience itself is just "good" in itself. So being in a traffic jam, or going through a frustrating situation of any kind is better than no experience, according to this theory. But why is this? Why is something better than nothing? Why is human experience a good in itself?

Much of life presents itself as one task after the other. Why are these series of things to get done something to be preserved and perpetuated? Again, the answers are inevitably something akin to, "something is better than nothing." Why is that the case? A boring or frustrating series of X experiences is better than literally "no thing", or "no thing experienced". I don't get that way of thinking. It's as if "no thing" has to be banished from the universe and filled with "some thing". It is a logical fallacy of reifying one's own current state of being as a mission to pass on over and over again.

Things to think about:
1) It literally would not matter to any thing if no thing existed from here on out.
2) A future person who experiences something, is not you experiencing something. It is a projection of your existence onto another as if you are living it out yourself, but you are not. It's an imaginative exercise.
3) The tasks of keeping alive, occupied, and maintained vs. no thing are equal, it's just that in one case a being must strive for a set period of time and in the other, no thing takes place. What is it about the "stage of experience" that matters intrinsically, other than people falsely projecting as 2 states above?

ChatteringMonkey

Why is human experience a good in itself? — schopenhauer1

1) It literally would not matter to any thing if no thing existed from here on out. — schopenhauer1

Right, without experience there is no one even able to make the valuation of good or bad.

The argument VS nothing cuts both ways though,

- if you think life is bad on the whole then presumably no life would be better
- if you think life is good on the whole then presumably no life would be worse

But these arguments are all of little consequence, because at base the valuation that we prefer life/experience to no life/experience is not based on a rational argument, but on some basic feeling. We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.

schopenhauer1

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does. — ChatteringMonkey

But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions.

Right, without experience there is no one even able to make the valuation of good or bad. — ChatteringMonkey

We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.

Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways?

ChatteringMonkey

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.
— ChatteringMonkey

But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions. — schopenhauer1

Thinking plays a role, but not fundamentally. We can reflect on certain valuations, and maybe switch them around a bit or change the ordering, but you always have to start with some base of valuation... you cannot get them out of nothing, thinking needs something to work with.

Take for example the basic feeling of hunger. Maybe we can evaluate whether we are eating to much or the right kind of foods, but we can't really come to the conclusion that eating is bad altogether, unless we find some twisted logic to override that basic valuation with other impulses (like say to need for social approval or recognition in case of some anorexics).

I think the same thing applies to us generally valuing life, we want homeostasis, to propagate our living being in time. You cannot get around it really. Even Schopenhauer himself didn't believe in his own pessimistic philosophy, Nietzsche says, because he played the flute!

We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.

Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways? — schopenhauer1

It's bad from the perspective of life, which is the perspective we have, because life generally values life. There's not much else to say about it, it's sort of axiomatic to life.

From the perspective of non-life, from the perspective of nothingness, the question isn't even a valid question to ask because there is nobody to make that value-judgement... it's like asking how much an idea weighs, it doesn't make sense.

schopenhauer1

Thinking plays a role, but not fundamentally. We can reflect on certain valuations, and maybe switch them around a bit or change the ordering, but you always have to start with some base of valuation... you cannot get them out of nothing, thinking needs something to work with. — ChatteringMonkey

But your contention was:

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does. — ChatteringMonkey

We may not want to live. We only can know life, true, but to want it over some imaginative other thing (like not having to do the tasks required of life), would be different.

I think the same thing applies to us generally valuing life, we want homeostasis, to propagate our living being in time. You cannot get around it really. Even Schopenhauer himself didn't believe in his own pessimistic philosophy, Nietzsche says, because he played the flute! — ChatteringMonkey

Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute.

From the perspective of non-life, from the perspective of nothingness, the question isn't even a valid question to ask because there is nobody to make that value-judgement... it's like asking how much an idea weighs, it doesn't make sense. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed, but just as being "non-life" is nonsensical from the perspective nothingness, so is the perspective that life needs to perpetuate, and that existence is somehow "good".

I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst.

schopenhauer1

↪ChatteringMonkey

To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is.

ChatteringMonkey

Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute. — schopenhauer1

I don't think this is true in general, at least not for everybody. I've only been afraid of death a few times, in some dangerous situations, and I know that is not what I feel day in day out... that's not what keeps me going. Can't speak for everybody of course, but I don't think I'm special in that regard.

I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst. — schopenhauer1

I'll respond to this in response your most recent post...

ChatteringMonkey

↪ChatteringMonkey
To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is. — schopenhauer1

Yes i'm saying this evaluation of these two scenario's doesn't make sense, because it kind of assumes an evaluation for some abstract point of view, where there are no given criteria for evaluation and no entity that can value things.

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.

schopenhauer1

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive. — ChatteringMonkey

But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.

If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid.

ChatteringMonkey

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.
— ChatteringMonkey

But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.

If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid. — schopenhauer1

Justification that people give to their beliefs are often not the real reasons for holding a belief... but just that, justifications or post hoc rationalizations. But yeah sure, if that is the reason they give for it, than it's not a very good reason.

Why is experience itself supposed to be at a premium?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions