Now before I launch myself into this philosophical escapade I’d like to state that, while I may express relative repugnance to the act of postulating, human beings would not be able to operate nearly as effectively or efficiently in every day life without the use of axioms. If most people constantly contemplated as to what ways their actions are or are not rational, they would get an interesting form of a cognitive workout but unfortunately their performance in their job[s] would most likely decrease greatly, assuming that these people aren’t working in a field that requires the
interminable contemplation of cognitive processes.
So here is my pre-reading supposition:
Postulating that the goal in life is unambiguously to obtain happiness and not just a state of disinterested complacency, and assuming that partaking in supposedly irrational things as well as abdicating a certain degree of self-preservation makes individuals enraptured, then their decisions to risk their lives and/or diminish productivity and efficiency isn’t irrational, it’s the complete opposite.
There are two axioms that must be assumed to make this argument completely rational and logical. The first is that the goal in life would be to achieve happiness, and while this noun may have a diverse set of meanings for each individual, all of these meanings seem to posses certain congruities at certain points; using a bell curve, these points suggest that happiness means that an individual would be in a state of contentment, pleasure, and joy. I believe for complete happiness, people would have to experience all of these feelings at once; I also think all of these feelings are contingent upon one another, but that’s a different line of thought. The second axiom is assuming that irrational and illogical acts make people happy. I think this one is fairly self-explanatory; a completely logical individual doesn’t exist. Perhaps the feeling of hope, the irrational aspiration that a situation[s] will improve in quality, is the only reason human beings continue to live. For example, most people would consider the act of an individual punching a hole in a wall because he/she is impassioned an irrational act. Viewed logically, this act would have considerable more cons than pros. However, assuming this act is the only way for the individual to quickly make the transition from unhappiness to happiness, and applying the second set axiom, then this illogical act would in fact be a logical act.
Now this argument, although filled with numerous flaws, could prove the rationality of irrational actions if the axioms are applied indiscriminately. This argument, stated mathematically, would look as so:
H=Happiness/C=Contentment/J=joy/P=Pleasure/?=Infinity
H=(C*J*P)?
Notice if any of these qualities equal ‘0’, Happiness wouldn’t be possible.
Here are a couple of questions –
-Do you think, assuming that the two axioms placed in the conjecture above are irrefutable, that this argument would make logical sense?
-Do you believe my description of happiness is accurate, or assuming that the definition isn’t relative, what would the definition most likely be if you disagree?
-Can we ever objectively ‘know’ something without the use of axioms?
-People can express that they know aspects of their religious beliefs, seeing as to ‘know’ something by definition would be to ‘perceive or understand as fact or truth,’ so therefore they could perceive that they know these things. Since most researchers know they are required to apply axioms to their work, they know that they can’t actually ‘know’ things, rather they can just ‘assume.’ Does this lack of need of quantifiable evidence make the act of ‘knowing’ possible then?
As a passing side-note, I’d like to say that I think if humans were ever completely happy they would amount to almost nothing; one of the characteristics of happiness is contentment. The act of being content is being ‘mentally or emotionally satisfied with the way things are’ according to the World English Dictionary. This would at the very least inhibit, and in all likelihood terminate, the individual’s motivation to change. To change imposes the want or need for an aspect to transcend to greater things, implying that a negative aspect once existed. If people were happy, or content, with the way things were, there would be no need to progress. I’m grateful complete happiness isn’t possible.
5 comments
If you are familiar with the Principia Mathematica then you know that 1+1=2 has been proven to be true without use of any axioms. I think it took around 5 years and 500+ pages to prove this simple basis of mathematics. The result is the second greatest contribution to analytical philosophy. And we all know that religion is a disease spread by selfish fools afraid of death.
Dear Hegesias of Cyrene,
Your mind is beautiful.
Good stuff. I’m not sure i can, or even should attempt to answer the questions you asked… but i think the primary flaw is that your mathematical approach seems to seek a static resolution. Also, i think there needs to be a variable for the amount of value placed on each or any of those factors, by the individual.
However, i agree with your apparent scrutinizing of the legitimacy of the very notion of happiness itself. I would say it’s irrational to expect, or even hope, to ever attain a static form of happiness, unless you allow for happiness to have a non-absolute value. I think it’s inherently incalculable, and is entirely subjective, and always in flux, partly because those variables are always changing… perhaps partly due to the inherent subjectivity therein.
There is old wisdom that would suggest that we always want more, no matter how many times we achieve whatever goals we set; it can always get better, it can always improve, somehow… and so there’s some relativity to be considered. Relatively speaking, an impoverished person would be thoroughly elated to encounter an unexpected amount of resources sufficient to release them from the bondage, into which almost all of us are born. But give those same resources to someone who has already achieved something beyond that, and they would merely be quite pleased.
So, skipping a whole lot of steps: where does this ultimately lead?
Perhaps the ultimate goal is to become immortal? But not just immortal, Godlike. Maybe the purpose of humanity is to ascend to such an elevated state that we can literally make anything happen just by choosing and willing it to manifest. And if we make a mistake, we could use that same capacity to correct it.
It’s an interesting topic, to say the least. I’ve personally always felt compelled to not just correct problems, but to analyze processes and find ways to improve both their efficiency and efficacy. Perhaps it’s just the result of various social influences i’ve encountered throughout my life, but i think it would be great if humanity could someday achieve ascension beyond my own wildest dreams.
Meanwhile, most people are trapped in survival mode, too busy struggling amongst the various and often needless problems, many of which are merely continued by others “because that’s just how things have always been done,” kinda like the monkey/ladder/icewater experiment (which allegedly never actually happened the way it’s often described, though something similar did occur)… to actually understand, or even pursue, or even perceive the value of approaching such things. And that “trappings of society” and “bondage,” is done by design, by a powerful elite, who have mostly inherited their elevated status and privilege from those who amassed it before them.
So… we end up with things like “life is about the journey, not the destination,” and learning to savor each thrill and cherish each moment, in the moment, and rely on memories to motivate us through each subsequent step… whether we ever get where we’re going, or not.
Hah, i forgot to add: every time i ever punched a wall, i felt it was a justifiably rational action, because i needed the release of dissipating aggression, and in a controlled manner, but wanted to refrain from allowing myself to harm any actual person… and so i accepted that i might have to incur some harm to myself, in order to accomplish that. It was never done in “black out” mode, but always as a fully conscious decision… because i needed to punch something, and didn’t want it to be a person (even when i did want it to be a specific person) lol.
I did eventually learn, though, that solid objects hit back as hard as you hit them, so it’s usually not worth it. It’s usually a bad idea to punch anything that’s harder than you are. ^^
I agree with how you ended this post – and I’d like to think it hints at something radical (radishes anyone?). If such a thing as a goal or objective in life might exist, maybe it’s not so much to be happy as it is to grow as a person. Happiness is a notoriously ephemeral thing, after all.