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.

[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?

[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.

[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.