On Temporal vs. Permanent Pleasures
On Thursday, I was arguing with a good friend while playing Sonic the Hedgehog 2 on an old Sega Genesis system that if I were not a theist I would be a suicidal nihilist. He didn't believe me. So we argued for about a half hour over this entirely unprovable quality of hypothetical me from an alternate universe. I claimed that without a divinity, I would find life meaningless -- too meaningless to be an existentialist or humanist or pantheist or any other "-ist". He claimed that my current world view was clouding my thinking. I claimed that it could be explained by a part of my personality not governed entirely by my world view. I gave an example of how more temporary pleasures, such as eating or playing sports, have less value for me personally than more permanent pleasures, such as reading something I find interesting and educational. In the former case, the value of the activity does not last much longer than the time the activity was enjoyed. In the latter case, the knowledge I gain from the book stays with me and changes who I am far more than what I ate for dinner that night. It is this type of preference of mine that would drive me to nihilism in the alternative world, in my opinion. I would not find value in anything that would be entirely irrelevant the second I died.
So ignoring whether or not he or I am right about who "alternative-reality" Lhynard would be, we also disgusted whether eating or playing sports or watching frivolous TV shows were truly temporary pleasures for all people. So this entry, I think, links well with two of my previous ones -- one on "highbrowishness" [1] and one on time. [2]
Can one intrinsically distinguish temporary pleasures from permanent pleasures? And can permanent pleasures be said to have more value than temporal ones? As for the latter question at least, I think it is safe to argue the affirmative.
What is more expensive -- that is, what has more value -- a fake diamond or a real one? Certainly, it is the real one. Why? Does not the permanence of a diamond play some role in its given value? "Diamonds are forever."
Do not people usually consider their oldest friendships or the ones that seem like they will last the longest their most valuable?
Which is less money -- renting a fancy sports car for a single joy ride or buying a nice, family car to drive around for a long period of time?
And I don't think these observations are world-view-specific. I think it is true that people, as a general rule, prefer permanence.
As for the other question, I want to think that there is some inherent difference, but as my "highbrowishness" entry pointed out, I'm not sure that there really is. Can someone truly get as much value out of a social party as one can out of an intimate Gemütlichkeit moment? [3] Can there be as much lasting value in watching a slapstick comedy as in watching a true-life story? Certainly, the former can be more enjoyable for some as entertainment than for others, but can one also go so far as to say that it can have as much value?
So ignoring whether or not he or I am right about who "alternative-reality" Lhynard would be, we also disgusted whether eating or playing sports or watching frivolous TV shows were truly temporary pleasures for all people. So this entry, I think, links well with two of my previous ones -- one on "highbrowishness" [1] and one on time. [2]
Can one intrinsically distinguish temporary pleasures from permanent pleasures? And can permanent pleasures be said to have more value than temporal ones? As for the latter question at least, I think it is safe to argue the affirmative.
What is more expensive -- that is, what has more value -- a fake diamond or a real one? Certainly, it is the real one. Why? Does not the permanence of a diamond play some role in its given value? "Diamonds are forever."
Do not people usually consider their oldest friendships or the ones that seem like they will last the longest their most valuable?
Which is less money -- renting a fancy sports car for a single joy ride or buying a nice, family car to drive around for a long period of time?
And I don't think these observations are world-view-specific. I think it is true that people, as a general rule, prefer permanence.
As for the other question, I want to think that there is some inherent difference, but as my "highbrowishness" entry pointed out, I'm not sure that there really is. Can someone truly get as much value out of a social party as one can out of an intimate Gemütlichkeit moment? [3] Can there be as much lasting value in watching a slapstick comedy as in watching a true-life story? Certainly, the former can be more enjoyable for some as entertainment than for others, but can one also go so far as to say that it can have as much value?