It is Immoral to be Boring

SatmBopd

Variability characterises the things in the universe that are interesting. Stasis, or something approaching it, characterises the things that are not.

Those things within the realm of variability which also contain a destructive quality are at risk of leaving a stasis in their wake, granting destructive variable things the distinction of being net-less interesting than variable things of a creative or harmless nature, but more interesting than a stasis on its own.

For clarity, I will rank the interesting-ness of the degrees and kinds of variability.

1. Creative, variable things
2. Non creative but harmless variable things
3. Actively destructive variable things
4. Static things

Ranking the interesting-ness is important, because my argument’s final premise maintains that interesting things tend to be worth engaging with, and not interesting things tend not to be worth engaging with. At all.

Therefore, the argument's conclusion presents the same ranking from before, with the express assertion that as a phenomenon ascends the ranking, it increases in the extent to which it is worth engaging with, and vice versa, as it descends the ranking.

Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things

(The tricky part with this framework is categorizing the various phenomena of the world into the four categories. This endeavor is probably to be regarded as imprecise at best.)

I will now (for better or worse) bring the baggage of moral language into the argument:

You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with.

Sprinkle on the idea that static things are boring to bring it full circle with the title, and bada-bing bada-boom, you got yourself a way to feel morally obligated to be interesting.

*Bonus consideration (for fun)
Now what if I said, logical argumentation is boring?

Cuthbert

Sorry, I keep dozing off. What if you said logical what is what again?

bert1

I remained awake and I'm glad I did. I remember when I lived in the North West of England where it was customary to accost neighbours on the way to the shops and tell them, in great detail, all of the personal events that have been exercising their minds since one saw them last and before, repetition being no bar. I had thought this merely boring and incredibly rude. However I now see clearly that these neighbours were actively destructive variable things.

Artemis

You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with. — SatmBopd

Seems like some begging the question is going on here unless you clarify or rephrase what it means to be "worth" engaging with.

As is, worth implies moral value, so you're essentially saying:
"You morally should engage in things that are of moral value to engage with."

Tom Storm

You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with. — SatmBopd

I think just about everyone holds a view like this. But is it not the case that determining which things are not worth engaging with is one of the more complex problems faced by human beings? Even the question what is boring is subjectively determined. I, for instance, am bored by theater, sport, rock 'n' roll, Netflix, religion, weddings, science fiction, politics. Others seem to be invigorated and galvanized by these subjects. What's next?

SatmBopd

↪Cuthbert

That is, logical "argumentation" is "boring". If that premise AND the premise that boring (static) things should not be engaged with are true, then it would follow that logical argumentation should not be engaged wi...
...
Oh.

SatmBopd

↪Artemis

Oh. Yeah I didn't mean for there to be moral baggage on the word "worth". I think the question of weather something is worth engaging with precedes the question of weather it is moral.

Having been influenced by Nietzsche, I want to ask the question as to weather morality itself is worth engaging with, for if morality doesn't do anything good for us, then we shouldn't use it.

So without wanting to take anything for granted, I'm backing up and asking "What is worth engaging with?" or "What will I do with my time?". My answer in this argument is "variable, creative things are worth engaging with" or "I will spend my time with variable, creative things". Now all I have to do is figure out which things are variable/ creative.

The way I see it right now, I'm only adding moral language to increase the emotional intensive to engage with/ refute my claim. It's a whole other bag of worms but I kind of think that people only ever use moral language as a way to incentivise action (for better or worse).

bert1

I have a soft spot for new ways to carve up the world. This is an interesting one. Are the 'things' you have in mind physical objects? Activities? Goals, purposes? People? Living things? Any and all of these?

A few examples might be interesting.

Artemis

↪SatmBopd

I'm still struggling with what you really mean by "worth." I assume you simply mean "has value" and that's subjective. Just like interesting is subjective.

bert1

I think this thread is a creative variable thing. Does that work?

James Riley

I don't know about "immoral" but:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

Different minds are bored by different things.

Tom Storm

Now all I have to do is figure out which things are variable/ creative. — SatmBopd

I'm sure a range of morally questionable activities are also this.

Nils Loc

It's probably more immoral on the whole to be interesting/variable, since ever the ratcheting adaptation of the human race is an existential threat not only to ourselves but many other species.

We humans are immoral because we can't tolerate boredom/stasis.

Curiosity might kill the sapient apes but at least they were interesting.

James Riley

We humans are immoral because we can't tolerate boredom/stasis. — Nils Loc

:100: But boy are we good at it. We even spin it, from the insecurity it really is, to a positive called "curiosity." We aren't curious. We're just tired of having ourselves around. Rather than satisfaction with what is, we try to makes things what they are not.

SatmBopd

↪Tom Storm

The morally charged part of my argument is the least important part. I'm trying to gauge... I guess potential fulfillment from doing certain things, and my measuring stick is variability.

Theater, sport, netflix, weddings, science fiction, and politics, are all variable things, meaning they change and have multiple aspects which has the potential to make them interesting. Since none of them are actively destructive (I hope) and none of them are completely static, I would argue they are all "worth engaging with" although by no means do you have to.

There is a bit of a playground there where you are free to subjectively enjoy any of the "harmless variable" or "creative variable" things that you like. Maybe there are even times where "destructive variable" things like war are necessary. But I would objectively measure something as creative rather than harmless if it if it propagates even more variable things after it, just like destructive variable things "are at risk of leaving stasis in their wake".

A song is creative and variable if it propagates more variability (someone taps their foot, or dances) and it's harmless and variable if it doesn't (say because it's too quiet, or too modern, and therefore doesn't have enough notes). Death is something that's completely static, and destructive variable things, are those that bring about static things like death.

I do think you raise a good point. It may be hard to actually put things into these categories... and if it all does break down into subjectivity then it isn't useful.

SatmBopd

↪bert1

Yep lol. All things are things. So as long as it's a thing.

SatmBopd

↪Tom Storm

Only if they leave a stasis in their wake. At least according to my argument.

Tom Storm

↪SatmBopd

Thanks. I'll mull over this a while.

SatmBopd

↪Nils Loc

To your first point, interesting/ variable things that serve as existential threats would be categorized as "destructive variable things" since non-existance is a stasis. There are many variable things that are only creative. I'm thinking mostly of things like great music and artistic expression.

To your second point...

Boredom still contributes to variability, since it provides a novel break from excitement (boredom AND excitement together are more interesting than excitement on its own).

Absolute stasis however (something I think is basically interchangeable with death) is, if not immoral, something that I have no interest in engaging with. I think actions are better if they are more similar to life (maintained and characterized by variability) than they are to death (characterized by stasis).

I think death may be a compliment to life, like how boredom is a compliment to excitement, but as a living creature, I see myself as having the responsibility to celebrate life (variability). When I am dead, I will have the responsibility to celebrate death (stasis).

SatmBopd

↪Artemis

I think I'm pretty okay with subjectivity on this. After all, subjectivity is variable.
So if you think something is "worth doing", or "interesting" and I don't, that's fine.

I would estimate that you are unlikely to think something is worth doing if it's 100% static. And in honesty, I would disagree with you if you did.

I want to do things that are in the vein of life and music and movement and colour, and I don't want do the things that are in the vein of death and eternal silence and whatnot.

Artemis

↪SatmBopd

Well, since you've taken morality out of it and you're admitting it's pretty much all subjective... what's the point of this thread? (I'm not trying to be rude, honest question here.)

As of right now, all I can say is: yeah, go ahead and do the things you think are more worthwhile and interesting than others. Have fun!

SatmBopd

↪Artemis

Okay mostly, the point of this thread is to have fun.

But I also kind of think that the whole point of life is to have fun... so I'm proposing a scale for measuring value (subjectively or otherwise) along the variability/ stasis dichotomy, which aims to make this bias of mine articulate, with the hopes of spreading said bias to others (moral language being used merely as a tool to communicate).

I guess I'm sort of curious if anyone thinks if there is anything better to try to aim for than filling one's life with creative, and variable things. Maybe there is an even higher end that I'm not thinking of? Or there is something bad about creativity and movement that I am unaware of.

TheMadFool

It's high time I suppose we fixed the boundary for morality/ethics. However, so long as there's life and there's pain, that won't happen. Then there's the question of how best to live? Let's not forget infinity and that Anaximander and Cronus have an "interesting" relationship.

Get up in the morning, perform your ablutions, head for work, return home, go to bed. Lather, rinse, repeat. Sisyphusean algorithm aka the shampoo algorithm.

Cuthbert

...leave a stasis in their wake — SatmBopd

You mean Finnegan's wake or someone else's?

Wheatley

It is Immoral to be Boring

Damn straight!

SatmBopd

↪TheMadFool

Must admit to not understanding the Anaximander/ Cronos reference. I think you're saying something really interesting but I can't quite wrap my head around it.

If possible, do you think you could elaborate?

TheMadFool

↪SatmBopd

I'd rather not! Sorry.

SatmBopd

↪Cuthbert

(Those things within the realm of variability which also contain a destructive quality)'s wake.

TheArchitectOfTheGods

You seem to be defining interestingness as a net change in activity level / information content over time. Why would destructive activity be more prone to leave a stasis in its wake than constructive activity? I think you need to elaborate here. People tend to be fascinated by war and crime events, they find them very interesting, often more interesting than the invention of a new constructive technology.

Alkis Piskas

↪SatmBopd

Of course it is not immoral to be Boring. You only create boredom. Most people do that most of the time! :grin: Can you blame them for that?

If you would blame people of being boring what would you do if they are angry or sad, which are and create more negative emotions?

SatmBopd

↪TheArchitectOfTheGods

Hmm. That is a good point.

Does the variability generated by the fascinating study of war exceed that which would have been generated by all the people who died in it? Maybe if it's a really small war? Or I guess at least as long as there are enough survivors to go on and make poems about it after. Nukes for example might be quite variable but if there is no life on earth left after we use them then I think it's kind of not worth it.

I definitely think there is a place for like, mischief right?
So like you go around stirring things up, making things variable to get people to respond. I would not say that "constructive" things are necessarily the most variable. After all you could probably "construct" something boring if you wanted. I'm kinda thinking that "creativity" or "heroism" is the key? So like you go around taking a risk and making something that is more colorful or surprising than before. Maybe that even means destroying an old structure.

I guess my opinion right now is that there is some potential creative power in being destructive (that's why it's ranked higher than stasis) but destructive actions might be at risk of not being sustainable. You only get to light a firework once. Maybe it should be ranked higher than harmless variable things though? Because harmlessness is kind of like stasis. (But I do not think creativity is harmless)

It is Immoral to be Boring

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions