Our group continued the discussion on illusory happiness by examining the costs and benefits of becoming enveloped in another, overtly unreal reality such as fantasy worlds. Although we focused mostly on the Power Puff girls, we concluded that the schism is more or less applicable to any such stimulation to which we may attach meaning or a sense of synthetic consciousness. Essentially, we saw the pursuit of these realities and the dissociative effects they can have upon a human mind as analogous to the experience machine, in which one may opt out of ordinary reality for the chance at an ideal state, or at least an ideal set of conditions with which to continue life. We determined one of the key differences, however, was that the pursuit of unrealities may not be quite as voluntary as as hooking yourself up to an experience machine, as most of the dissociative harm they incur goes more or less unnoticed by the individual, possibly lapsing one into "delusion". It was here we had to make the distinction that it would be the shut-in who never leaves his house in order to play WoW constantly that would be the candidate for living a deluded life, far more so than the one who willingly gives himself to an experience machine, and is thus at least aware of the nature of his unreality.
In the end, we concluded that the pit falls of completely whimsically thinking/living are not conducive to a comprehensive sense of happiness, or at least a happiness that is not simply your own. However, the stimulant happiness/pleasure that unrealities can provide are not themselves inherently harmful. In fact, i would say they're a rather healthy thing to enjoy from time to time. It is at the very least, healthier to be able to enjoy them, than having all your metaphysical senses (which i would use to describe the manner in which we enjoy all art, Power Puff girls included) shut off to all that which is not overtly tangible. I don't need to forget which reality i live in when i read a book to enjoy it, but i do need the ability to imagine. Is becoming lost in fantasy a healthy thing? No, but neither is the inability to do so in a particularly self-aware manner. This is the line between enjoying your illusion, and losing to delusion.
Sorry that I missed the discussion! Sounds super interesting--I'm going to post our questions at like 11:30 today--I just have to run to class right this second. See you all later in the afternoon :D
ReplyDeleteUgh--James has been off-and-on sick for the past few weeks, and I thought I had dodged it until last Tuesday. The symptoms are creeping up, and I need some soup and sleep. Either way, this is why I wasn't in class last time.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could've discussed the Power Puff girls with you all! The conclusion that you all came to lines up quite nicely with my own opinions on the matter--Illusions are healthy, but moderation is key in so many factors of life. James and I talked about the topic even though we weren't in class, and we both wanted to add that perception in general is often falsely associated with the "real," whereas we, and many philosophers/classmates, acknowledge that perception itself is an illusion. We construct things like color and depth in our minds, and my chair does not have the qualities of black, soft, comfortable, etc. Those are perceived by my body. In essence, all experience is illusory to some extent, in some context, and it would be wrongheaded of us to assume that the "natural" state of a human being is one without any illusions.
Regardless, happiness can be sought through these tertiary illusions, such as the experience machine, in order to broaden our concept of reality and possibility within it. I agree with the notion that too much of any such illusion leads to delusion, but I have to pose a further question--delusional to what? I would hesitate to try to posit an absolute or objective reality, but if we want to say that it's delusion to a shared reality among conscious beings, we then have to define what that reality IS. I don't think we can do that in entirety without acknowledging the many natural illusions experienced by all of us, in a variety of methods, by a multiplicity of minds. However, I don't wish to completely devolve the conversation into a discussion of the philosophy and science of the mind. Instead, turning our attention back to the concept of "synthetic" realities, we may be able to better describe what we mean by delusional. If, in this sense, we consider the escaping of the shared reality to be delusional if in excess, I'd have to agree. While I'd like to say "different strokes for different folks," I can't help but feel as though there's something inherently negative in wanting to completely remove the social factors of reality--almost as though that person is willingly accepting an arrested development. It's a resistance to the "natural" flow of life, and though I totally understand the want and, indeed, need to get away from this from time to time, I cannot condone the out-right denial of it at every opportunity.
I can't help but think about Shallow Hal when I think of illusions and Lycas:
"Hey, if you can see something and hear it and smell it, what keeps it from being real?" or "I saw a knockout, I don't care what anybody else saw!"
As far as questions for the scope chapter go:
Discussion - What are the benefits of a wider scope on happiness?
Factual - The two senses of what term are: extent, range, reach, sweep of perceptions, thoughts, or actions; and freedom, latitude, and leeway?
Answer: scope
"In the end, we concluded that the pit falls of completely whimsically thinking/living are not conducive to a comprehensive sense of happiness, or at least a happiness that is not simply your own"
ReplyDeleteI was wondering what exactly you meant by "a happiness that is not simply your own"?
thanks!
I think he was referring to how one's completely whimsical thinking/living would affect others such as family and friends like the Greek merchant whose family and friends were worried about him enjoying empty theatres. That's what I took from it anyways.
DeleteWhen you open yourself up for a wider scope on happiness things may surprise or disappoint you, but the fact that you are widening your interests and trying new things or just exploring new opinions or values you become a more dynamic person. I think this is one way to keep life interesting and exciting.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion question: Would you want to experience "Shallow Hal syndrome"? If you did would you be okay with it still if you lost the illusion, or would you rather experience it on a more permanent level?
Factual question: Who was the editor for this book?
answer: Heather McCallum from Yale University Press
http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1326943518189_1162504.png
ReplyDelete