Hierarchical Enjoyment

[Sinister]

(NOTE: You have to forgive my odd sense of humor but this thread occurred to me as a very weak prank to pull on our ID forums. For those of you who don't get it, don't worry, this is not just a prank but a fully functional ID thread complete with an interactive debate. Please read on and join in...)



Enjoyment is a strange phenomenon in the human mind. To be sure, there is it's chemical and biological form and function. It's purpose and various mundane explanations. I specifically want all of that avoided in this thread, if possible. That's not to say it doesn't have it's place in the topic, but more to say the topic can exist without it and is more clear, without it. Please also keep in mind that this thread is speculative in nature and does not deal in absolutes.

A good way to broach the subject is to present the direct question: "Who enjoys life more, the educated man or the ignorant man?"

Par exemple: The educated man browsing in an art gallery spies Salvadore's The Persistence of Memory. Observing the use of symbolism and imagery, he laughs to himself about the irony of time defined by memory as being linear and how it is perceived as universally constant, when time is relative. A man with no previous knowledge of such things also sees the painting and laughs to himself at the absurdity of soft pocket watches and the general air of surrealism surrounding the painting. Another example: a man who can pick apart every different note of a fifty-year old vintage wine, appreciate it's bouquet and color, does he enjoy it more than a man with no palate who simply likes wine?


Of these two men, of the educated man and the ignorant man... Who enjoys himself more? Such things I'd like you to take into account would be, for instance, that the educated man can catch many jokes that far exceed the understanding of the ignorant man. He has more access to cerebral media and understands many subtitles that forgo the ignorant man. The ignorant man may be easily amused and his sense of enjoyment easier to gratify due to it's non-biased nature. Many people have said that increasing your knowledge is tantamount to increasing your sorrow. That too would likewise affect the standings?
What is your opinion?


-Sin

[Sasquatch]

Ignorance is bliss.

Really.

Take cars. (Since I've been watching a lot of Pass Time in the last few days.)

If the average person sees an old, classic car that's been completely remodeled to the point that it might look good, but nothing like the original car, they might enjoy the appearance and performance of that car. Somebody who's passionate about cars, however, would be more inclined to pick it apart -- it doesn't look like it's supposed to, they mixed parts while rebuilding it, that's nowhere near the paint scheme that it would have originally had, etc. For example, some schmuck put a Ford engine in a '68 Camaro. Another schmuck might say, "hey, that's a cool car with a cool engine." Somebody else might look at it and say, "they put a Ford engine in there, what the hell is wrong with them?" Or two guys drag-racing GSXRs -- one person might say, "those are cool bikes", but another might say, "those are a couple of morons with stock bikes who don't know how to operate them worth a crap but think they're 'cool' because they have GSXRs."

Or Sinister's wine example. The average person wouldn't notice that it's just a hint too bitter, or that the terrior doesn't match, or that it's too oaky or earthy. They may be happy with the wine, but the person who knows more about it is more likely to find things wrong with it.

While I agree that the person with a better understanding is more likely to appreciate certain aspects of many things, I would argue that they are also more likely to find flaws. This is often seen in remakes of movies and songs -- those that haven't heard the original song or seen the original movie are less likely to pick out flaws in the remake, because they simply don't know how the two compare.

Interesting topic, indeed. (I'm visiting family for Christmas, so I'm not getting online much, but I'll get back to my regular schedule by next week.)

[OceanEyes28]

I enjoy life a lot, if that means anything either way to you.

The example I have is theatre. I've been training to become an actor and I've had practice critiquing people's work. It's habit to look for certain things. On one hand, it makes the good actors really good. Just incredible. I know what goes into it, I can see technique in action, I have a great appreciation for vocal work and character work... it's cool. But on the other hand, it doesn't take much for me to wince at bad acting. Something that used to entertain me might now annoy me.

Tea is that way. I've learned a lot about it, so I have a great appreciation for good tea and a mild disdain for most supermarket teas. That's fine with me.

However, I'm completely oblivious and ignorant when it comes to, say, marijuana. I've tried it, but it's not something I've tried to learn more about and I wouldn't know the good stuff from the bad. And that's okay with me. I'm pretty indifferent to it and I'd prefer to be ignorant and not have a developed palate for the stuff.

The things I'm interested in, I want to know more about. That makes me happy. If I'm mostly indifferent to something, but I have the opportunity to enjoy it, it's cool if I'm not already snobby about it.

I like... barely answered your question, ha. All written through the lens and perspective of "me." Ah well. It's all I've got at 1AM.

[Alpha]

So if this is a prank, then the question you are (might be?) asking is whether those who understand this thread's true purpose can enjoy it more than those who participate in it without knowledge of it's purpose? Yessum?

'Ignorant' and 'wise' people (not just men) are just as likely to enjoy and dislike anything. The wine example: the wise person may find enjoyment in it's underlying tones and what food it complements. S/he may also find problems with it. Perhaps it's not as good as the many other wines this learned person has experienced, which may reduce the pleasure of this wine. The ignorant person can find the same wine enjoyable; perhaps it is easy enough to drink to become drunk rapidly. They may also find problems with it. Maybe the cork is too difficult to get out, and would prefer a lid. There is no way one can measure the level of enjoyment the wise and ignorant people each 'get' from the wine. Which is why I don't really like the idea of 'utility' as used in economics (and associated applications; I've even seen it used in rationalising religious belief). We can only be sure that there are different factors influencing the enjoyment of anything for people in this polarity. You cannot deduce that a wise person enjoys anything more than an ignorant person. Likewise, the judgment made by an ignorant person can be considered no less valid than one made by a wise person; they are evaluating by different standards.

EDIT: 400th post, woo!

[Sinister]

*sigh*

Alpha exposed my rather lame idea of a joke and ruined all my fun, I'm afraid. There is no Heirarchy of enjoyment. You simply cannot quantify or qualify relative and abstruse terms to be measured and compared. The thread is a farce. But my point is that people make an attempt to do this despite it being ridiculous. I thought it would be ironic to put this thread in the ID forum. I meant no slight to any member here, please understand.

The entire thread was born from a philosphical debate I overheard once. You will never guess how strong the disagreement was. Angry words, oaths and downright yelling over which sort of enjoyment was the "highest" form.

Nevertheless, enjoy life, ladies and gentlemen.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

There is no Heirarchy of enjoyment. You simply cannot quantify or qualify relative and abstruse terms to be measured and compared.

Tell that to John Stuart Mill.

But are humans really that complicated?

[Sinister]

Humans aren't, the terms are... As for Mr. Mill, I'm not sure what part you suppose he has to play in this...

But even supposing an advent of a system where levels of the chemicals responsible for euphoria or enjoyment could be seperated and measured, or some other arbitrary system of measurement. They are still trying to operate on relativistic terms that may or may not bear little or no meaning to each and every individual and you are trying to assign them motive that is not fact.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

Mill's major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Bentham treats all forms of happiness as equal, whereas Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to more physical forms of pleasure. Mill distinguishes between happiness and contentment, claiming that the former is of higher value than the latter, a belief wittily encapsulated in the statement that "[i]t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."

I was reminded of utilitarianism in general, but particularly this, even if it only half-relates to the subject. Not that I agree with any of Mill's assertions.

A good portion of medical science no doubt works by approximation due to limitations, as do most things. Yet, it usually works. Even if we can't determine with exact precision how happy a person is through various means, a rough estimate can still be adequate. If you assume that humans bear some similarity to one another then there is no reason that you could not glean something from the collected data, if properly sampled.

Unless you're saying we are all so unique to one another that it is impossible to even obtain a basic idea of these sorts of things. It's sort of out of my league to debunk an assumption like that.

[Pete]

Long story short, you answered your own question. Joke's on you for typing that all up.
Both men are enjoying the art for different reasons. One enjoys it for the complexity of the meaning behind the imagery, while the other thinks the melting clocks are cool.

I pretty much agree with what everyone's said. Depending on how invested in a particular subject, you'll become more keen to the minutiae. The smallest details will both amaze you AND drive you insane, and you really appreciate whatever it may be for the hidden beauty.

I'm a terrible person to take a baseball game, because I'll look at and analyze everything. I also won't go to certain games if I know pitchers that I hate will be pitching; watching them just drives me nuts. However, I've gone with friends who are mere casual observers, and some of them just like the ballparks, while other just want to see home runs. We've both gotten enjoyment out of going to games, but for different reasons.

When it comes to happiness though, I think it's all ultimately subjective though. It all depends on your outlook on life. I can't say for sure that intelligent people are sadder, nor can I say that dumber people are happier. There are far too many factors, such as wealth and family histories to take into account.

Though I suppose when it boils down to it, it's all about whatever you like as an individual.

[Sinister]

I was reminded of utilitarianism in general, but particularly this, even if it only half-relates to the subject. Not that I agree with any of Mill's assertions.

A good portion of medical science no doubt works by approximation due to limitations, as do most things. Yet, it usually works. Even if we can't determine with exact precision how happy a person is through various means, a rough estimate can still be adequate. If you assume that humans bear some similarity to one another then there is no reason that you could not glean something from the collected data, if properly sampled.

Unless you're saying we are all so unique to one another that it is impossible to even obtain a basic idea of these sorts of things. It's sort of out of my league to debunk an assumption like that.

It's not an assumption, it's a rift. I must disseminate myself from you and every other human if we are to be separate entities. Therefor I cannot per any sort of predictability be consistently exact as every other human. If that's true who's to say that(or if), though I enjoy books AND sex, I must enjoy books more as it is a "higher" enjoyment.

It's all too nebulous to wade through... It's like Pete said, it's all about what you like as an individual, really.

And I knew the answer from the beginning of the thread, it wasn't a question so much as a stimuli to see the response. In retrospect the whole damn thread seems a bit stuck-up it's own ass...but I said it was a weak prank from the beginning and I still got some stimulating discussion out of it. So no one's loss.

[Sasquatch]

See, didn't I say that ignorance is bliss? If we had known about the "joke" or "prank" beforehand, we might not have cared about posting here. But we didn't, and still enjoyed it -- if we had known, we might have found it "lame" and not enjoyed it at all.

Of course, it's always dependent on the situation. As an(other) example, I don't like too many military/war movies because all too many of them are unrealistic as hell. Apparently, depending on who throws a hand grenade, they all either pop like a firecracker or have enough power to demolish a building. Remember Behind Enemy Lines, where Owen Wilson runs through the field of POMZs? (The things that looked like hand grenades on sticks, with tripwires running between them.) Yeah, he'd be swiss cheese. Or Tears of the Sun, where a 40mm grenade from an M203 destroys anything and anybody within thirty feet of it? No.

Of course, somebody without that knowledge might enjoy those movies more. BUT, if they were ACCURATE, the one WITH that knowledge would enjoy them more.

Amirite?

[SOLDIER #819]

It's not an assumption, it's a rift.

The fact that we consider ourselves to all be humans suggests that we are similar in various ways (or at least consider ourselves to be). It is also the reason that we can say anything about humans in general, or about each other. It could even be argued that without some similarity it would be impossible for us to communicate at all.

I understand where you're coming from, but a "rift" implies some great truth to the human experience (or at the very least, your experience) that stems even further from the argument than we already are and requires a lot of backing. It can be argued for (or against), but as it stands the idea has just been pulled out of thin air. I am not saying that we are all exactly the same. But likeness is necessary so that we may have the label "human", and without it any broad statement about humans would be impossible and huge sections of philosophy would be rendered purposeless.

If that's true who's to say that(or if), though I enjoy books AND sex, I must enjoy books more as it is a "higher" enjoyment.

Well, in the case of qualitative utilitarianism, you'd have to actually somehow prove that x activity is somehow greater than y. That's no small task. Even if you could prove that humans were exactly the same (which, again, I am not asserting), you'd have to prove that one thing brings more enjoyment than the other. And given that the basis for Mill's theory is arbitrary, it could very well be sex that makes a person happier, or that they benefit the person equally, or in different ways. Who really knows. He sure didn't!

With the way you phrased the question in the OP I think it was sort of the other way around though, right? Would one of greater know-how (an "expert") be able to enjoy a given activity more than one who was uninformed. Well... maybe? No need to repeat what I had already stated in my previous post.

It's all too nebulous to wade through...

If you look at anything... and I mean ANYTHING closely enough, you will find that it is "nebulous". There is always something we will not know about a given subject, and what we do "know" can be put under some scrutiny. The same goes for people. It is hard to make the claim that we have knowledge of the truth of something (without faith being involved). The best we can do is make an approximation.

[Alpha]

See, didn't I say that ignorance is bliss? If we had known about the "joke" or "prank" beforehand, we might not have cared about posting here. But we didn't, and still enjoyed it -- if we had known, we might have found it "lame" and not enjoyed it at all.

"Might" being the key word. If you can somehow prove that you and OceanEyes enjoyed the thread more before Sinister's stunt was revealed, then you can argue that. Otherwise, the only assertion that you can make is that each individual will enjoy the thread to different extents and for different reasons. You cannot just say that knowledge of it's purpose is the determining factor.

[Sinister]

The fact that we consider ourselves to all be humans suggests that we are similar in various ways (or at least consider ourselves to be). It is also the reason that we can say anything about humans in general, or about each other. It could even be argued that without some similarity it would be impossible for us to communicate at all.

I'm afraid you're getting the terms similar and exact confused. Having a basis for communication and being able to be described, as a species, with a single statement about how our brains process enjoyment, through terms of skill and experience, are far and away from each other.

I understand where you're coming from, but a "rift" implies some great truth to the human experience (or at the very least, your experience) that stems even further from the argument than we already are and requires a lot of backing. It can be argued for (or against), but as it stands the idea has just been pulled out of thin air. I am not saying that we are all exactly the same. But likeness is necessary so that we may have the label "human", and without it any broad statement about humans would be impossible and huge sections of philosophy would be rendered purposeless.

You're horribly misunderstanding me, I think...you must be. I do not imply anything other than difference...certainly not truth in our "human experience". And no, it is at the core of the problem, the reason for the problem and moreover we couldn't escape from it if we plugged our eyes and ears and pretended it wasn't there.

Well, in the case of qualitative utilitarianism, you'd have to actually somehow prove that x activity is somehow greater than y. That's no small task. Even if you could prove that humans were exactly the same (which, again, I am not asserting), you'd have to prove that one thing brings more enjoyment than the other. And given that the basis for Mill's theory is arbitrary, it could very well be sex that makes a person happier, or that they benefit the person equally, or in different ways. Who really knows. He sure didn't!

Yes, well... I don't agree with him either.

With the way you phrased the question in the OP I think it was sort of the other way around though, right? Would one of greater know-how (an "expert") be able to enjoy a given activity more than one who was uninformed. Well... maybe? No need to repeat what I had already stated in my previous post.

That is utterly impossible to prove. Once again if we were all uniform as a race of creatures we could definitively say experts enjoy things more than novices... Or however the statement would ring true(as it would because we would all be essentially the same.)

If you look at anything... and I mean ANYTHING closely enough, you will find that it is "nebulous". There is always something we will not know about a given subject, and what we do "know" can be put under some scrutiny. The same goes for people. It is hard to make the claim that we have knowledge of the truth of something (without faith being involved). The best we can do is make an approximation.

I'm a philosopher...I know this...

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

I'm afraid you're getting the terms similar and exact confused. Having a basis for communication and being able to be described, as a species, with a single statement about how our brains process enjoyment, through terms of skill and experience, are far and away from each other.

I don't believe I am confused in any way. I am saying that some similarity (if you believe it to actually exist) is all that is necessary to derive the sort of conclusion you asked for in the OP. There is no single statement, formula, or otherwise that can describe something perfectly. Yet we make due with our estimations regardless. I can't stress this enough, because it's more or less the argument I am trying to convey.

You're horribly misunderstanding me, I think...you must be. I do not imply anything other than difference...certainly not truth in our "human experience". And no, it is at the core of the problem, the reason for the problem and moreover we couldn't escape from it if we plugged our eyes and ears and pretended it wasn't there.

I do not disagree that some rift exists. What I do disagree with is the "size" you appear to be claiming it to be. A metaphorical space alone does not validate your claim. There is something more to it, or we would (logically) not be getting a different answer. To be honest, I'm not sure what your "rift" encompasses, but it's not merely its existence. That part aside from it is the assumption I was referring to before. It is also something that should be proven before stated, whatever it is.

If you don't want to continue speaking about this, that's obviously fine. I was just sort of surprised when you stepped in and said so simply that "hierarchical enjoyment" simply could not exist, as if it was a given. That truth was never so plain to me, and I was wondering what set of beliefs lead you to that conclusion.

That is utterly impossible to prove. Once again if we were all uniform as a race of creatures we could definitively say experts enjoy things more than novices... Or however the statement would ring true(as it would because we would all be essentially the same.)

I wonder... Do you believe that anything can be said definitively? I am just trying to understand your perspective at this point.

[Sinister]

I say that more is necessary. For example, I challenge you to prove your words. Prove to me that there is a Hierarchical experience. Can you do so? Do you know someone who can? Someone who can take an experience that is intangible to everyone but the one who experience it and then qualitatively assign a level of enjoyment is someone who is selling something. If you say you can approximate it, then I agree. If you say you can generalize it, fine. But you will never create a system that conforms to the human race.

I can say that the concept that smoking hurts my help does not decrease my enjoyment. You cannot tell me that is true for everyone. You cannot say that moral enjoyment is higher than physical pleasure or vice versa apart from your own experience. Therein lies the assumption. You want to generalize and put things in tight little neat packages that cannot possibly describe the experience that is your prerogative. You are fooling yourself and consequently anyone who listens to you. You are searching for a truth that exists in this rift. That's a vagary and is only useful in describing an experience that is inaccurate in any possible explanation.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

I say that more is necessary. For example, I challenge you to prove your words. Prove to me that there is a Hierarchical experience. Can you do so? Do you know someone who can? Someone who can take an experience that is intangible to everyone but the one who experience it and then qualitatively assign a level of enjoyment is someone who is selling something. If you say you can approximate it, then I agree. If you say you can generalize it, fine. But you will never create a system that conforms to the human race.

Rather than that, why don't you prove that it does not exist? Logically speaking, it is just as viable to prove something invalid by proving its perceived opposite. But I think that would prove just as difficult for you as it would for me to prove that my assertion (which is a "maybe" and not a "it can be done") is true. Furthermore, even if I couldn't find a single person on this earth that could prove what I am saying, given that your own words hold no inherent priority over mine it is illogical to conclude that this method would solve anything. We are pushing at each other with equal force and that won't change with things as they currently are.

I also do not know why you insist on classifying "experience" as intangible, nor what parts of experience you are referring to. Are you saying that, as an example, all of experience remains relative despite the similarity of its physical component? Are you saying that people are completely different from one another simply because they do not exactly resemble one another? I am trying to give the respect your opinions deserve by attempting to get to know them, but that is proving very difficult as I don't even know what they are.

I can say that the concept that smoking hurts my help does not decrease my enjoyment. You cannot tell me that is true for everyone. You cannot say that moral enjoyment is higher than physical pleasure or vice versa apart from your own experience. Therein lies the assumption. You want to generalize and put things in tight little neat packages that cannot possibly describe the experience that is your prerogative. You are fooling yourself and consequently anyone who listens to you. You are searching for a truth that exists in this rift. That's a vagary and is only useful in describing an experience that is inaccurate in any possible explanation.

This is all very well and good, but what you were asking in the OP works with different factors. Enjoyment of smoking for an individual is a matter of trade-offs, no matter what may be considered one. The moral enjoyment/physical pleasure example puts the priority on the activity, hinting at some inherent hierarchy that humans merely react to, and the consequences of believing this are VERY different. What the OP asks is, given that you define what an intellectual, an ignorant person, and enjoyment are, is it possible to determine who enjoys a certain activity more. I say that this may be possible given what I perceive to be the definitions. This may change if we actually came to a consensus on such definitions.

I have never said that I want to categorize things. I've only said that it may be possible to do something, and never once said it would be absolutely precise. You tell me what is or isn't, and even my intentions. This is commonplace and fine and whatnot, but you don't provide rationale and that is questionable. Far be it for me to say anything of one's opinions I don't even know, but if you don't want to discuss them then this won't go anywhere. But I guess that most philosophical debate leads there regardless.

[Sinister]

First off, I'm not calling experience completely intangible. My experience is intangible to you and vice versa. My love of books and smoking ect...has nothing to do with you and any or all expositions I make on my experience of said topics will be painfully intangible to you.

I can't help but feel like I'm repeating myself. I don't like repeating myself and all this conversation is, so far, is the two of us pounding our heads together like stubborn goats. But the only problem I have with what you are saying IS the definitions(specifically of enjoyment). You are pretending they are exact(and that they can be qualitatively described) and then when I pressure you with the fact they cannot be exact(see above arguments) you back off saying something about that I should disprove a definition that you cannot even prove in the first place.

I'm going to break this down again in another manner:

joy
  /dʒɔɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [joi]
–noun
1. the emotion of great delight or happiness caused by something exceptionally good or satisfying; keen pleasure; elation: She felt the joy of seeing her son's success.
2. a source or cause of keen pleasure or delight; something or someone greatly valued or appreciated: Her prose style is a pure joy.
3. the expression or display of glad feeling; festive gaiety.
4. a state of happiness or felicity.

This is an emotion...an affective state of consciousness. Consciousness is the phenomenon of being conscious and thus aware of your status as a sentient individual separate from your fellow creatures. To be sure, we all experience consciousness, we all experience emotion, almost all of us experience what is termed joy at some point. You may share similar mental and physical make-up with each other but your own experiences that shape you do not necessarily shape everyone. Therefore empirical manifestations of joy are not equivalent from individual to individual. You can say anything you want if you tack on those handy phrases like "As a general rule" but if you want to be exact you have to reduce those assumptions away and simplify down to the smallest element.

Just to triple check to make sure you've not misunderstood what I've been saying all this time...or even the very point of this thread. I'm not saying there cannot be a hierarchy unto one individual. Or that one does not gain more enjoyment in the pursuit of intelligent endeavors over non-intellectual or any such statement. I make no statements on the subject whatever, other than that no completely true statement as to the uniform way the human race organizes their levels of experiences of joy(as a race) can be made. Because the human race is not mentally uniform..

If you still have more to add you might save yourself the effort, I wont respond. This is not any slight against you or this argument. It's quite simply that I don't know how to proceed. I've stated and restated the same thing so many times it's beginning to look obscene. If you simply don't understand then I apologize, I am no lecturer(I've obviously no skill and I'm not being paid). If you do understand and disagree then I regret any attempt to supplant your own take on the matter.

-Sin

[SOLDIER #819]

I only regret that we couldn't get our thoughts across to one another. I don't seem to understand where you are coming from and vice versa. A shame.

Though I still prefer this to not talking at all, so thanks.

[Pete]

Oh my God this is getting redundant.

You're both right to an extent. Sin, yes, you cannot say that everyone will enjoy the same things to the same extent. All people can experience joy and enjoyment, but depending on any number of factors, ranging from internal to external (or nature vs nurture, which I AM NOT getting into) we will enjoy different things. I enjoy working out and playing sports, my brother enjoys reading. We both feel happy after doing what makes us happy.

At the same time, you can look at the benefits or morality of it, but does it really matter? It doesn't make me a better person (healthier yes) because I work out, but I am no closer to being a saint that my brother is for reading. Now, if someone enjoyed murdering people, then that is a whole different story. There are moral issues, as well as legal and I'd wager even psychological. At the same time, that person is deriving pleasure or enjoyment from their actions.

Also experience does play a role in enjoyment. Some people enjoy cutting themselves. I've gotten my fair share of cuts and scrapes to know that I do not enjoy it. I've also played enough baseball to know that it's something that I love doing. However, I've never played golf, other than mini-golf. This doesn't mean that I would enjoy or hate it; I would have to try it first and then decide. I would also think that this goes without saying. Before we rule anything out, we should try it, so long as it's reasonable.

S is also right to an extent. While I don't think there is a hierarchy of enjoyment, there is a hierarchy of needs, as outlined by Maslow. Boom.

What it ultimately boils down to though, is why do we do what we do?

For most of us, we do things because they make us happy or feel good. When we are not bound by necessity (work, raising kids, etc) and are on our own personal downtime, why do we do what we do?

I'm sitting here, looking over TFF because A, it's cold outside and B, I enjoy reading these debates and seeing the opinions of others.

I enjoy playing baseball because I like being part of a team, and I like to compete, and quite frankly, I like hitting the ball as hard and far as I can. It provides a sense of accomplishment.

If you really, truly wanted to, you could relate this all back to Maslow. Enjoyment can come from a sense of esteem and self- actualization. When we feel respected and when we can return that sense of respect to others, we feel better about ourselves. When we do not feel respected, or when we feel above others, problems begin to arise, and we can become depressed or arrogant. Neither is is a very positive self image, and it affects our happiness, and dare I say it, enjoyment of life itself.