One Basic Question

[Venryx]

Are you sure that pain and happiness are necessarily antonyms?

I don't think they're antonyms, but because of the kind of question I'm asking, in answering one you would answer the other. So I presented both versions to make my meaning more clear.

[Carrikature]

Just like everyone else, I try to avoid pain and seek happiness.

But I have a question: "What reason is there to continue doing so?"

No, I'm not planning on throwing myself into the lake or anything; it's just an interesting question that I've never been able to answer.

I've asked this question before, but hardly anyone seems to understand what I actually mean.

I am definitely not asking:
● Why are our brains wired to seek happiness?
● How do our bodies benefit when we're happy?
● Can we be happy without happiness having purpose?

I'm talking about something a lot more fundamental:
● What purpose is there in seeking happiness?
● Give my brain a logical reason to seek happiness.
● What reason is there to seek the state of happiness?

Or to word these questions in another way:
● What purpose is there in avoiding pain?
● Give my brain a logical reason to avoid pain.
● What reason is there to avoid the state of pain?

The short answer is that we are wired to seek happiness and avoid pain. Happiness is a positive reinforcement and pain is a negative reinforcement. We don't necessarily need a logical reason to seek/avoid these things. Left to our own devices, leaving logic out of the equation, we will seek these things automatically.

Leonhard's post answers the 'why keep doing it' better than I could.

[Carrikature]

Are you sure that pain and happiness are necessarily antonyms?

Barring psychological issues where pain is misinterpreted as pleasure, I'm not sure when they would not be. I'd argue that even with these psychological issues, pain and pleasure are antonyms, but that a person can't accurately tell the difference.

[robertb]

Barring psychological issues where pain is misinterpreted as pleasure, I'm not sure when they would not be. I'd argue that even with these psychological issues, pain and pleasure are antonyms, but that a person can't accurately tell the difference.

I see. So you believe that pleasure = happiness.

[Carrikature]

I see. So you believe that pleasure = happiness.

Hmm, I guess that depends how semantic you want me to be.

In general, I think pleasure and happiness are the same. I think there are cases where pleasure may give momentary highs but is not a true happiness. Perhaps this is the difference between happiness and joy?

[Seasanctuary]

I follow a Humean account of reasons which says that having a reason is equivalent to having some appropriate desire. While not all desires involve happiness, happiness does involve our desires. This means we might have most reason to do something that makes us unhappy, but we always have some reason to do what makes us happy.

[Venryx]

Because that is what you want. Happiness is the thing you want most for its own sake. That's the definition of happiness. Wanting something gives you a reason for doing the things that best obtain happiness. I call those means virtuous, and I think (so far) that they're identical with the classical virtuous. I think avoiding pain, can be part of happiness, but its not essential. All else being equal, you'd be more happy without pain, however everything is rarely equal. There's plenty of things you can do, that would increase your happiness and cause you pain, and its being happy that you really want.

That's the ultra-short compacted version.

"Because that is what you want. Happiness is the thing you want most for its own sake."

But what reason is there to fulfill that want?

I'm basically asking: How do we bridge the gap between a natural desire and a reason to actually follow it? To me it seems that this is impossible, though I wish that I were wrong.

[Venryx]

Because pain hurts, and happiness feels good.

I know pain hurts, and just like you I try to avoid it, but the question remains of why. Why try to avoid the state of pain/hurting?

[shunyadragon]

I know pain hurts, and just like you I try to avoid it, but the question remains of why. Why try to avoid the state of pain/hurting?

Pain/hurting is a natural defense mechanism for signs of injury, harm, danger, or something is wrong. It is important to survival.

[pancreasman]

I know pain hurts, and just like you I try to avoid it, but the question remains of why. Why try to avoid the state of pain/hurting?

I think, at some point, there comes a time when asking why produces something that looks like a legitimate question but isn't really. Kids like to explore this a lot by asking 'why' after every answer you give. Sometimes I think the only possible answer is 'Because that's how it is.'

[Venryx]

I think, at some point, there comes a time when asking why produces something that looks like a legitimate question but isn't really. Kids like to explore this a lot by asking 'why' after every answer you give. Sometimes I think the only possible answer is 'Because that's how it is.'

I'm fine with you having your own opinion, but I would like to point out that, it's sort of cheating to say that regular questions of "Why" are valid, but then to say that the fundamental ones aren't, just because we don't have a satisfactory answer. (it's an ad hoc response)

So I think the kids are right when they tell us our mountain of knowledge is based on an unestablished foundation. (I know, I know, they don't actually say that... but it's an easy way to conclude.)

[pancreasman]

I'm fine with you having your own opinion, but I would like to point out that, it's sort of cheating to say that regular questions of "Why" are valid, but then to say that the fundamental ones aren't, just because we don't have a satisfactory answer. (it's an ad hoc response)

So I think the kids are right when they tell us our mountain of knowledge is based on an unestablished foundation. (I know, I know, they don't actually say that... but it's an easy way to conclude.)

So you don't think there are some questions which are grammatically in question form but are in fact invalid? What does the colour green smell like?

We're assuming that all questions that begin with 'why' have an answer that begins 'because'. I think the clue is in the 'because' in that it implies causation. We expect there to be a reason for most things. But I think it is possible for example that the question 'Why do I exist?' does not have an answer. I would argue that such questions exist and that it is possible this might be one. Taking a more mundane example, why do I like chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla? I just do. There is no underlying mystery.

[Venryx]

So you don't think there are some questions which are grammatically in question form but are in fact invalid? What does the colour green smell like?

No, I agree that some sentences which are written in question form are invalid. You provided a good example; here's another: "What color is the infinitely large boulder that has and never will exist?"

We're assuming that all questions that begin with 'why' have an answer that begins 'because'. I think the clue is in the 'because' in that it implies causation. We expect there to be a reason for most things. But I think it is possible for example that the question 'Why do I exist?' does not have an answer. I would argue that such questions exist and that it is possible this might be one.

Yes, I agree that there are "why" questions to which we can provide no "because". (for instance: "Why did the cow jump through the moon?") Some "why" questions may be asking for a reason that simply doesn't exist. (this happens very rarely, though, like when the question assumes something that's false)

But I don't think this possibility is really a problem for my proposition that we have no reason to avoid pain, and here is why: the question is such that if there is no valid answer, we actually verify that there is no reason to avoid pain! (in answering "What reason is there to avoid the state of pain?" with "You're looking for an answer that doesn't exist", we necessarily imply that "[There is no reason] to avoid the state of pain".)

Taking a more mundane example, why do I like chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla? I just do. There is no underlying mystery.

I'd disagree on the irreducibility of liking one flavor over another, (favoring of flavors has been shown to depend, at least to some level, on biological states, and since biology is mechanical, it could, at least in principle, be reduced to the molecular level), but since it's not a big deal I'm fine if you'd rather not spend a lot of time on it.

So how will I conclude this message?

Just by saying that until we can establish a reason to avoid the state of pain, it would seem that we've been basing our lives on an unestablished foundation. (which isn't such a big deal in this case anyway, though)

[pancreasman]

No, I agree that some sentences which are written in question form are invalid. You provided a good example; here's another: "What color is the infinitely large boulder that has and never will exist?"



Yes, I agree that there are "why" questions to which we can provide no "because". (for instance: "Why did the cow jump through the moon?") Some "why" questions may be asking for a reason that simply doesn't exist. (this happens very rarely, though, like when the question assumes something that's false)

But I don't think this possibility is really a problem for my proposition that we have no reason to avoid pain, and here is why: the question is such that if there is no valid answer, we actually verify that there is no reason to avoid pain! (in answering "What reason is there to avoid the state of pain?" with "You're looking for an answer that doesn't exist", we necessarily imply that "[There is no reason] to avoid the state of pain".)



I'd disagree on the irreducibility of liking one flavor over another, (favoring of flavors has been shown to depend, at least to some level, on biological states, and since biology is mechanical, it could, at least in principle, be reduced to the molecular level), but since it's not a big deal I'm fine if you'd rather not spend a lot of time on it.

So how will I conclude this message?

Just by saying that until we can establish a reason to avoid the state of pain, it would seem that we've been basing our lives on an unestablished foundation. (which isn't such a big deal in this case anyway, though)

Thanks. That last bit was what I was going to reply with next. I was going to ask, assume no one can give you a good reason for avoiding pain (apart from personal preference) then how would this impact your life?

[Carrikature]

I'd disagree on the irreducibility of liking one flavor over another, (favoring of flavors has been shown to depend, at least to some level, on biological states, and since biology is mechanical, it could, at least in principle, be reduced to the molecular level), but since it's not a big deal I'm fine if you'd rather not spend a lot of time on it.

So how will I conclude this message?

Just by saying that until we can establish a reason to avoid the state of pain, it would seem that we've been basing our lives on an unestablished foundation. (which isn't such a big deal in this case anyway, though)

I'm kind of surprised by this answer. You're willing to rely on a biological answer for liking flavors, but not one for avoiding pain?