Having learnt some leaf types from the wonderful Memrise website, I managed to get a bracing run in and enjoyed a nice lunch.
Unremarkable. Though adding parsley to the lentil and carrot soup was a masterstroke.
For Plato though this is as good as it gets. For all I know he had no interest in leaves or jogging but what he did like was dividing things into threes.
You had to cater for your mind, body and soul. So learning things, exercise and enjoying yourself would tick his Hellenic beardy boxes.
It's 'all work and no play' really but I like the balance in it, I like the justification for pleasure.
Also applied to the state
He also extrapolated this idea to society as a whole. It needed three types of people. Philosopher (mind), soldiers (body) and those who produce things (ok it falls down here but it's still three things).
So take heart! When you are pulling on a nice pint with the paper in a comfy chair, Plato would approve. As long as you've schlepped up a hill first and written your blog having read up on the subject first.
Your author may be excused the last bit!
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Thursday, 8 November 2012
A flaw in Mill's happiness principle based on observations of the office heating arrangements
You read on after that headline? Well done.
I'm too warm in the office, others feel the cold and turn the heating up. 'Put a jumper on, have a cup of tea' I implore Marilyn, never to any avail. I'd rather be outside in cold weather, others hunker down and some people, would you believe it, don't like 70s progressive rock music!
The point being what we dig is subjective personal thing. What grates on me (playing music after a goal) others derive felicity from. Each to their own.
To stop harm, not for your own good
J.S Mill saw this an concluded if we want people to be happy there's no point in imposing your view of what's best for them. He was talking about government paternalism and moral coercion of the majority. He didn't believe you should have to have a beard, get married to be allowed in a B&B, always wear a poppy, not shop on a Sunday or not go to school if you are a girl for your own good. The only reason others can compel you is if you harm others, never for your own good.
Take drugs and gamble yourself to death. Who am I to say that doesn't make you happy anymore than they are to tell me I shouldn't go for a run in the rain (which people do). I can't know what makes you content.
Now the flaw!
It's a big deal for me to find flaws in Mill. I fundamentally believe the world would be better if personal choices were accepted more readily rather than us all telling each other what to do all the time. He argues that dissent sharpens the arguments and catalyses truth, so here we go.
There's a glaring problem though with the idea that happiness can't be imposed. The flaw being that you get used to things. The temperature, the tune you are humming or the food you like. To a massive extent they are influenced by what you are exposed to.
Aquire the taste
Me and the current Mrs Socks have exposed each other to football and baroque choral music to the point of mutual appreciation. You can acquire the taste for beer.
I bet you never used to like tomatoes?
So maybe there are things we can derive pleasure from if just forced to experience them. If that is the case then why shouldn't a wise government or moral society impose on us long country walks, yoga and reading the works of J.R.R Tolkein?
You don't like it because you haven't tried it?
I'm too warm in the office, others feel the cold and turn the heating up. 'Put a jumper on, have a cup of tea' I implore Marilyn, never to any avail. I'd rather be outside in cold weather, others hunker down and some people, would you believe it, don't like 70s progressive rock music!
The point being what we dig is subjective personal thing. What grates on me (playing music after a goal) others derive felicity from. Each to their own.
To stop harm, not for your own good
J.S Mill saw this an concluded if we want people to be happy there's no point in imposing your view of what's best for them. He was talking about government paternalism and moral coercion of the majority. He didn't believe you should have to have a beard, get married to be allowed in a B&B, always wear a poppy, not shop on a Sunday or not go to school if you are a girl for your own good. The only reason others can compel you is if you harm others, never for your own good.
Take drugs and gamble yourself to death. Who am I to say that doesn't make you happy anymore than they are to tell me I shouldn't go for a run in the rain (which people do). I can't know what makes you content.
Now the flaw!
It's a big deal for me to find flaws in Mill. I fundamentally believe the world would be better if personal choices were accepted more readily rather than us all telling each other what to do all the time. He argues that dissent sharpens the arguments and catalyses truth, so here we go.
There's a glaring problem though with the idea that happiness can't be imposed. The flaw being that you get used to things. The temperature, the tune you are humming or the food you like. To a massive extent they are influenced by what you are exposed to.
Aquire the taste
Me and the current Mrs Socks have exposed each other to football and baroque choral music to the point of mutual appreciation. You can acquire the taste for beer.
I bet you never used to like tomatoes?
So maybe there are things we can derive pleasure from if just forced to experience them. If that is the case then why shouldn't a wise government or moral society impose on us long country walks, yoga and reading the works of J.R.R Tolkein?
You don't like it because you haven't tried it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)