DarshanChande.com

What Is Rationality? Is Man Rational?

2012-05-19T12:40:00.000+05:30

"Man is a rational animal — so at least I have been told. Throughout a long life, I have looked diligently for evidence in favor of this statement, but so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it, though I have searched in many countries spread over three continents." (Bertrand Russell)

Rationality is defined as a) the state or quality of being rational or logical, and b) the possession or utilization of reason or logic; where rational is defined as a) having or exercising the ability to reason, and b) of sound mind; sane.

These are general definitions. The terms can be understood in a deeper way. Man is said to be a rational animal. Does that mean all men are logical and are good at utilizing reason? If not, then why is man still called a rational animal? There are irrational men and there are rational men. So, what it is to be truly Rational?

What Is Rationality?

As the definition above says, rationality is a state or quality of being rational (i.e. exercising the ability to reason) or logical. However, this definition doesn't actually tell us if rationality is a positive or a negative trait. All it says is that rationality is a way, a method. A tool. Now, without any underlying values and belief system the tool called rationality is useless and means nothing. Our values and belief system help us decide our goals; and to act in ways that take us closer to our goals then becomes a rational thing to do. So, only in context of our goals we can say that to do and think certain way is rational or irrational. Rationality is a tool to help us achieve the ends. The ends are the goals that we set in life. Rationality tells us how exactly are we supposed to live if we want to meet those goals.

To take a simple example, if your goal is to become a computer engineer then we can say that it is irrational to spend your time reading books about, say, quantum physics; and rational thing to do is to learn about computers.

But does that tell us whether learning about quantum physics or computers is in itself rational or irrational irrespective of one's goals?

If what is rational depends on one's goals then isn't rationality subjective, since everyone has their own different set of goals? This question perplexed me for a long time when I was grappling with understanding rationality. I would often think of a terrorist and try to understand how to prove his acts irrational. No doubt that terrorists are gruesome human beings, for killing people the way they do, and for the reasons they have for it, is wrong. But think about it in this way: the terrorist believes that doing what he does is God's will, and the only way for him to get to the heaven. He is brainwashed into believing that his acts serve the greatest purpose of humanity. His 'knowledge and understanding' is limited, and so flawed are his 'values and belief system', and consequently his 'goals'. But is he aware of it all? Clearly not. So, he is actually choosing the most rational path for himself. That means when we say that terrorists are irrational people, mustn't we mean that they are irrational from our perspective but they may be rational otherwise?

This was an extreme example. But an important and somewhat startling learning out of it is: for given knowledge and understanding – also called 'starting assumptions' – if one takes the most logical path to reach one's goals then one is rational. There are two caveats in this statement. 1) one's knowledge and understanding about life may be flawed, or not the best, and 2) one's reasoning/logic in pursuance of the goals based on those starting assumptions may be flawed.

In the terrorist example, therefore, even if the terrorist's reasoning may be fine, his knowledge and understanding is flawed. There's no God, no heaven etc, and the guy is misled big time. So, to us having better knowledge and understanding he is irrational. Likewise, there may also be cases where the starting assumptions are right but the reasoning process followed is flawed. (Refer to the list of fallacies.)

So, when it is said that one has rational arguments for one's position, that in itself does not mean that the position one's arguing for is good, and the person is rational; because even if one has rational arguments supporting one's position, as we saw, rationality is merely a tool. Till we don't know the person's goals (which are determined by the starting assumptions) and his reasoning process, we can't tell if he is rational.

Ancient Greeks had concepts of rationality called theoria (theoretical reason) and praxis (practical reason). The latter is also called instrumental rationality. Instrumental rationality is a tool to serve specific ends. If you have followed this article well, you would know that it's all I have talked about. And looking into the caveats we also understood that anybody can be instrumentally rational and at the same time be irrational from others' point of view.

What is theoretical reason? Theoria is that rationality which justifies a position irrespective of any individual's starting assumptions. The position reached through this type of rationality is 'the rational' position. It's what is truly Rational. But I believe since we have epistemic limits we can't have absolute knowledge. Meaning, there's always a possibility that our knowledge and understanding can be improved. Therefore, in true sense, we can never be truly Rational. Corollary is: rationality is always subjective. Theoria, however and therefore, justifies a position reached through the best of human knowledge and understanding.

Is Man Rational?

Humans are called rational animals in that they always have some justification for whatever they are doing. I think the appeal here is to instrumental rationality. However, I believe, most humans don't even meet the conditions of instrumental rationality. For example, when pushed by emotions and instincts humans often act in a way that they know in their head is not the best way (defying their own knowledge and understanding) and also the reasoning followed by most people is not always correct. So, I would say humans quite often are irrational on this count.

As for being rational in theoria sense, vast majority of humans are irrational, because the goals most of the human pursue are not the best ones, i.e. not derived using the best of human knowledge and understanding of life.

Monkey With a Machine Gun

2012-05-02T09:13:00.000+05:30

Everybody has great intentions. Well, almost everybody.

A monkey with a machine gun in hand doesn't have to have bad intentions. It's just a wrong situation. There will be destruction regardless of the monkey's intentions.

Modern generation are the monkeys and many elements of modern environment are the machine guns. And everybody has good intentions, but so what? For nobody (well, almost nobody) understands their environment, the world they are living in, whatever their intentions, they are prone to fucking up.

When someone tells me to trust him/her, for s/he has pure heart and good intentions, and that s/he is not like everyone else, I want to tell them: I don't doubt your intentions, dear, but you're a monkey with a machine gun. You have no idea what you will do until you have done it.

[I might extend this post in the future. If you like, keep checking until this message is removed.]

Why Choose Philosophy Over Mindless Living

2012-04-28T10:41:00.002+05:30

Here by 'philosophy' I mean philosophical development through truth-seeking and critical thinking.

The mantra of mindless living is: don't think, just enjoy! There's no shortage of people who would tell you things like.. the gift of life comes only once, so live it to the fullest.. do not think too much.. do not remain serious.. have fun.. etcetera. Now, fun is okay, but "don't think" and "don't be serious"? As if it's some sort of disease to be serious.

I on the other hand strongly believe that the philosophy of mindless living is not only harmful for an individual living that way but is pernicious from the point of view of society too. Not only that, I think the best way to spend human life is to live with philosophical inclination. To say like them, philosophy is actually and truly the way through which one can live life to the fullest. Mindless living is like living inside a little box. How much can the scope of ignorance be?

In this post I give reasons to choose philosophy over mindless living.

I think a life spent in pursuit of the most "worthwhile goal", or the "highest good" is the best lived life. What is the highest good? To state from Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, if at the end of one's life one looks back and genuinely feels that one has had a good life then that is a happy life. Aristotle called this happiness Eudaimonia (which is Greek for wellbeing). In this sense, the purpose of human life, or the "highest good", should be to achieve eudaimonia.

Now, eudaimonia or eudaimonic happiness is different from fun and pleasure-happiness which is what mindless life is about. For example, hooking up in a one-night-stand can be a pleasurable experience, but constant pursuit of such pleasure is certainly not in one's best long term interest. In the concept of eudaimonia, fun and pleasures are not strictly to be avoided, but they shouldn't be pursued as ends. They are good only to the extent they contribute to eudaimonia. Simply meaning, such fun/pleasure which can harm you in the long run is bad. So, a good happy life is a long term project. And to accomplish this one needs to develop intellect/intelligence and use it to understand about life. For only then one can take good decisions for the long run. And that's where the importance of philosophical development.

Philosophical pursuit has its pitfalls, too. One may run into angst and become suicidal if one isn't able to reconcile with the truth. Should that happen, however, I wouldn't blame the philosophical way itself, but say that one is a bad philosopher.

As for mindless living, it is sure fun to live that way. And if one is lucky enough one may get through life without any trouble at all. But most people are not that lucky; not to mention mindless living in any case is not good for overall wellbeing of the world. The pitfalls of mindless living are when hard times strike. In hard times there is suffering. And to suffer and not have a clue about why the suffering is happening is a terrible state to be in. Most people frequently experience that state. I know quite a few who are perennially like that. They whine all the time, like narcissistic little children, about how the world is totally unfair to them, not knowing the actual causes of their misery, much less able to do anything about it. A good philosopher does suffer, but s/he would never face that sort of misery. Misery is the state of suffering which has to be overcome. And the best way to avoid misery is philosophical development, i.e. understanding life and the causes of suffering. I won't say that a philosopher can bear all suffering, but I would emphasize the fact that a good philosopher is in the best position to deal with suffering, because he knows the design of life and the causes of suffering. A non-philosopher person has two-fold suffering. The suffering itself, and the suffering of not understanding why, how and what of the problem.

Apart from the personal costs and benefits: people who are not critical thinkers often cause problems for themselves and for others without even realizing that they are doing so. I wrote a post about it a while back which should give you a general idea of what I am saying. When I see such people and feel irritated and wish they knew better to live, what does that mean for me? That I have to be better, and better, and better, always. Because if I give up on being better, I can't expect others to improve themselves too, whatever be their level. And that can't work. The world as we have it today simply won't sustain itself if everybody started living in a narcissistic way only for fun without regard to how they affect others. The fact is, everyone is by default a cost on the society and affects negatively others' wellbeing. It's only by playing some positive role in the social setting one offsets the default negative costs one exerts just by existing. That's the reason we don't prey on each other in the civilized world like the animals do in jungle. Therefore it's necessary that we understand the world we are living in, and more importantly, recognize our fundamental duties as human beings. Do those who live mindlessly have all this knowledge? And it's so fundamental. See the harm?

As for me, I feel moral ought to understand life and its problems as much as I can, not only to pursue my goal of eudaimonia, but also in order to live as harmlessly as possible and educate others about the same. It gives me a solid meaning. And meaning is the most important ingredient that goes into creating in the end a sense of having lived a good, worthwhile life. More than fun and pleasure, I think, man needs solid meaning.

Now we saw two solid reasons why philosophy is preferable to mindless living, based on 1) personal costs and benefits of mindless living and philosophical life, and 2) social costs and benefits of the same. And synthesis of the two would reveal that philosophy nurtures an individual in a way that doens't undermine his/her environment (the society), which is the only way to sustainable development.

Our life is so designed that one can't meet one's own best interests if not through pursuing best interests of the world one lives in. Mindless living is too narrow in scope for that. Not even selfish me would approve of it.

Related post(s):

How Non-Critical Thinkers Create Problems

Is Sex a Basic Need Like Food and Water?

2012-04-27T10:14:00.001+05:30

I often hear people – recently the advocates of sexual libertinism or free sex, especially – say that sex is a basic human need like food and water. I agree that it is a basic need, and a pretty strong one at that; but I don't think it is as basic a need as that for food and water. The need for sex, and the need for food and water, therefore, don't gel well in the same sentence.

Here are some of the differences:

Without food and water a person dies. Without sex, one doesn't. For survival one doesn't need sex, much less free sex. So, when we have good reasons for regulating our drive for sex, to keep the society from falling apart, we must do so. Sexual restrictiveness and regulation is one of the fundamentals of our civilization.

Another difference: acquiring food is much less (relatively speaking) complicated than getting sex. The pursuit of sex can take high toll on one's mental and material resources, considering it is not as urgent a need as food/water. Winning a mating partner often requires systematic 'gaming'. There are complications even when one achieves the goal with ease.

Sex develops romantic love, which in my view is not a very healthy state to be in. Our long-standing tradition which rightly saw romantic love as frivolous thing validates this view.

Sex, at the very least, entails a contract between individuals which inevitably extends to things not covered in the original bargain (i.e. sexual intercourse), and can weigh the individuals down. More often than not the costs (mental costs -- possessiveness, jealousy, obsession, restlessness.. material costs -- gifts, money,.. social costs -- lack of focus on education and its social consequences, loss of more meaningful friendships, work and marriage,..) this contract exerts offset the pleasure one gets from sexual intercourse. That's probably the reason one often feels kind of guilty when pursuing sex just for the sake of it. It happens because of the conflict within; the conflict between one's own human nature and animal nature.

If one buys sex in the market then some of the costs mentioned above can be avoided, but that's not the way most people want to have sex. Nor do I recommend that.

What I am saying is, sex is a lot more complex and a lot less basic need than the need for food; and the complexity of its pursuit makes it counterproductive with respect to our social goals. Sex serves absolutely no other human purpose than giving one a child, if one wants a child, that is. Aside from this one thing, in all cases it merely complicates civilized human life.

It does give pleasure, but in my opinion pleasure is not a worthwhile human goal. Pleasure should be a secondary pursuit, primary one being something worthwhile, which would be contributing towards making and maintaining various social contracts that make pleasure-consumption even possible. For, without social contracts, i.e. in the state of Nature, pleasure as we have today would be a rare luxury. The drive for pleasure must not undermine the very arrangement which makes pleasure possible.

Therefore, sex enjoyed within marriage – or in a similar long term commitment based on reasons better than romantic love and physical attraction – is the best way to go about it. For thereby one has the pleasure within a worthwhile social contract of marriage which serves higher human goals. As against that, coming together of individuals in a fling is myopic from society's standpoint.

People constantly pursuing sex and justifying their pursuit saying it is a basic need like food and water must know that while spending their time and energy upon the pursuit of sex they would for the long run be losing out on the opportunities to build a good, secure and peaceful life.

Free sex has disastrous social implications because sex only gives pleasure but doesn't satisfy any of the important needs of human nature (except reproduction) and thereby of human societies. Albeit, without the social control mechanism that we had in the form of religious morality it doesn't seem possible to keep individuals from exercising sexual freedom. The result to be expected is: 'jungle rule', in sexual sphere at least.

Related post(s):

Difference Between Pain, Suffering and Misery

2012-04-26T09:57:00.000+05:30

The words 'pain' and 'suffering' don't seem to have a definite meaning and are often used interchangeably. In this post I have spelled out their meaning as I think of them.

Pain refers to physical discomfort beyond the point where it becomes difficult for the one having it to function normally. What is thought of as normal functioning is a subjective matter; but the point is: pain is physical.

In contrast to that, suffering is psychological, i.e. of the mind. Suffering is a broad term containing avoidable and unavoidable experiences that we don't want to have. So, the one who is in pain is also suffering (unless one is enjoying the pain) because it is an experience one wouldn't want to have.

Suffering can be in many forms apart from pain.

Why suffering?

While pain is experienced by many animals, it requires consciousness for suffering to be felt. As I said, suffering is any experience that one does not want to have. That definition of suffering presupposes cognition and thought processes; things that are made possible by consciousness and self-awareness.

An animal without consciousness does not know that it does not want to have certain experience; because an animal without consciousness hasn't the ability to see itself as distinct entity apart from Nature (i.e. no self-awareness), much less has a sense of what experiences it wants and wants not to have.

Though it is evident that animals feel pain (from their wailing and other behavior), but since they lack self-awareness and advanced thought processes they behave heteronomously (as against autonomous), in a preprogrammed way without realizing if they want or want not to have the experience. We can not say definitively to what extent other animals feel suffering, but the extent of suffering humans feel is the greatest. The reason being that we have the most sophisticated consciousness known among all animals.

Additional note

Suffering is not to be eliminated, because it's an important ingredient for one's development. Without suffering, there's no development; and more importantly, there can't be happiness in absence of suffering. Though it's our nature to avoid suffering, but one needs to ensure that one doesn't shut oneself out of all experiences of life in order to just keep from all suffering.

Pain is to be avoided. Suffering is to be dealt with.

Misery is the state of suffering which has to be overcome. Suffering is healthy, but feeling miserable is not. The best way to avoid misery is philosophical development, i.e. understanding life and the causes of suffering.

The Latest "Where Have All the Good Men Gone" Article

2012-04-09T13:54:00.000+05:30

Following are the comments made by one of the Reddit members on Where Have All the Good Men Gone. (Update: The woman seems to have deleted the article from her blog! Luckily I found the web cache on Google and copied it in time. Here it is.) Reposting from Reddit.

Comment One

You had better get used to it.

You need to examine your own illusions about yourselves and the lies you have been told, and the lies you tell yourselves. You say you want sweet sensitive men, but you fantasize about dangerous alpha rogues. You want equality but expect chivalry. You want sexual liberation but are surprised when men act in a sexually liberated manner.

As I said before.. men aren't disposable. You aren't entitled to benefit from our blood or our labour. Women and children first died when you started burning your bras. Now it's children first and you get to wait in line with men and go down with the ship. You open your own doors, pay for your own meals, carry your own boxes and change your own tires.. just like men.

Don't expect men to give you the gift of chivalry when you are competing with them for jobs and political power. You have your equality. Enjoy!

Want ideas for novels? How about an educated young professional woman who has a long and loyal romance with a boring, average, pudgy walmart greeter who works 14 hours a day to provide. He was falsely accused of rape, and now this is the only job he can find. He comes home so tired he has no time for grand gestures, but he is still a great guy and the rich woman sees this.

They marry and she settles down and becomes a housewife. She loves her lower status man so much she gives up everything, accepts a life of relative poverty to become his wife. They have 5 children and live happily ever after.

Or how about a woman who leaves her dashing adventurer husband for a dull but stolid sewer inspector who is balding and overweight.

You think they will sell?

Comment Two

If you want to understand the cause of this lack of "good men", you really just need to investigate the incentives. As in, what incentives are there for men to meet this "good man" standard, and are they sufficient to justify the risks and costs associated?

Really think about it, because out of all the "man up" articles that have come out in the last year or so (and there have been a few), none have done any serious examination of what, exactly, is in it for men to get with the program. None of the authors have actually really explored men's motivations here.

To be considered a good man, women expect men to get good high earning, high status jobs (generally BETTER jobs than the women they expect to land have), and then they expect them to commit to one women through marriage.

Here are the problems with those requirements.

1) With education and the workforce becoming more and more female focused (and dare I say it, male hostile) and with women becoming more successful in the workplace in their twenties (see any of the recent "women on top" cheerleading articles for reference) it requires a lot more effort for a man to exceed a women in this area to make himself marriage material. Because women generally won't see a man who makes less than them as being acceptable for marriage. (Be honest ladies, unless you're really evolved the thought of a guy who makes less than you doesn't jibe, does it?).

2) The roles of husband and father are hardly high status roles that men can be proud of any more. Think about it – how are husbands and fathers portrayed in society these days? On TV we have role models like Homer Simpson and Ray Barone, and the men on commercials who can't work out how to use basic household products. Idiots who would be helpless without their wives. Hen pecked men bossed around by women who know better. In churches and during fathers day speeches by President Obama, they are told how they aren't doing enough, how they must do better. After divorce, they are dead beats, who don't want to see their kids any more, and won't pay for them. They are abusers who so often beat wives and molest children. Feminists love to tell us how fathers are not needed at all, all they need is a mother. I think my dad is great and I'm for ever thankful for his influence in my life in so many ways, but if he hadn't been in my life I'd have no positive associations with the term at all.

3) Marriage is a huge financial and emotional risk for men. Over 50% of marriages will end in divorce, and women file for divorce more than men – the popular stats say 70% of the time. Women get custody of children in about 90% of cases, and with the kids come the marital home, alimony (where applicable) and child support. Men get all the debt, and visitations with their children every other weekend. For middle class or poorer men (and that's most of us), child support can leave them with barely enough money to live, and depending on jurisdiction it can be set beyond their ability to pay. Some jurisdictions also will imprison men who fail to meet their child support payments. Many men faced with the destruction of their lives through divorce often turn to or seriously consider suicide (odds are 2:1 that a man committing suicide is either divorced or in the process of divorce). How can men avoid these negative outcomes from divorce? Choose a good wife is about the best advice I've heard, although considering the number of divorced men I have heard state "I never thought she was capable of that" after getting screwed over, thats little comfort.

4) Women tend to ignore men with the qualities that will result in them being good "marriage material" when both are in their twenties. The reality is, becoming a "good man" requires that a man spend his twenties working hard to accumulate wealth, yet such a studious nature in men is generally regarded by most younger women as "no fun" and "not exciting". There is a rather funny (and by funny I mean really, really sad) example of this in the Hymowitz WSJ article, where comedian Julie Klausner, after spending her twenties "dating" rockers, pornographers and felons (paraphrasing her own words) suddenly finds in her thirties that there are no men around suitable for marriage. It's an unfortunate truth in this case that you get what you reward, and when the younger studious types see this type of behavior from young women, this rewarding of douchebags with sex and female attention, they quickly become fed up and take one of two paths. They either quickly realise that "studious" crap gets them nowhere and they stop with all that difficult career nonsense and start learning game from the PUAs so they can get laid, or they just forget about western women entirely (maybe they look overseas for a wife, or maybe they just swear off women entirely).

In essence, this is why western women can no longer find any good men. There is simply insufficient incentive for men to play that "good man" role for you. As a man I feel about as happy about this state of affairs as you do. I see this as having potentially disastrous effects on the future of our society. But at the same time I entirely understand why men are refusing to "man up", and I don't blame them at all for their choice, because it's entirely rational and in their best interest. (Well maybe apart from the extreme slackers – men should at minimum be supporting themselves and not relying on their parents.)

--

Excellent comments!

Individual Freedom and Societal Collapse

2012-03-20T11:53:00.000+05:30

What Is Societal Collapse?

Societal collapse is a phenomenon brought about by such undesirable changes in the society that rapidly undo what is built over a long period of time. The undesirable changes include changes which are undesirable in themselves (direct harm perceived), and also those changes whose offshoots would be undesirable if the result could be known prior to the change taking place (indirect harm). Societal collapse can be of the economy, political system, culture etc, and/or combination of those.

There can be many reasons for societal collapse depending on the area or the type of collapse. If we wish to prevent the collapse, regulations are necessary. And regulations means we can't exercise complete individual freedom. In fact, that's the foundation of civilization. It's another thing nowadays we have widespread ignorance about the fundamentals and a lot of people are fighting for their individual freedom.

The Meme Theory Defense (of Individual Freedom)

One of the interesting defenses of individual freedom is given in the form of meme theory of sociocultural evolution. According to the theory the new behavior and ideas in a society go through the same kind of process that genes go through in biological evolution. A behavior or idea that is beneficial in the society is naturally selected for survival and harmful behavior/ideas are automatically eliminated. Here behavior/ideas conceived of as genes, are called memes. That means there's no need for taking away people's freedom, or applying any regulations. If we let society run freely then sooner or later everyone would realize that there is nothing like complete freedom in the society, and since our survival and welfare in the society depends on cooperation, it will never collapse. The new behavior/ideas would only bring positive changes over time, because only the good ideas would be naturally selected in the long run. Thus, the society would only change forms as it has always done.

In short: say the meme theory defenders: the changes which bring social disorder will be out of place soon, because the very sense of chaos would make people aware of the need for order. Only those changes which are good for the society will find their way in society.

Contention:

Consider this: If we suddenly remove all the laws and free all prisoners, would they "sooner or later realize" that no one has absolute freedom, before the society turns into a chaos and breaks down? If that was to happen, would we have prisons?

It shows, in principle, that collapse is possible, and to avoid it there are already many mechanisms of social control in place. The cause of worry then is that the law doesn't cover all bad behavior. And when the grip of ethical sense loosens across masses, it may cause the collapse even without a breach of the law. We know that economies and political systems collapse that way. Modern society is faced with many new age problems which have this nasty characteristic of massively harming society without breaking the existing laws. That calls for novel ways of regulation, not more individual freedom.

..the society would only change forms as it has always done.

No, collapse is a real phenomenon. There are many types of collapse. In WWII Japan collapsed, Germany collapsed in yet another fashion, then there is Soviet Union collapse, for example. So, there's a difference between mere "change of form" and collapse. It can be economic, political, cultural, combination of all.

The changes which bring social disorder will be out of place soon, because the very sense of chaos would make people aware of the need for order.

For that to happen everyone needs to be perfectly aware of the complex structure of the system. Only then one would know what to fix to avoid the disorder. But the fact is, our world operates with many layers of complexity and no one has perfect understanding of what relates to what and to what degree. Lay people (that is, most people) don't have slightest idea even about the simplest of those complexities. So, when some actions are going to cause disorder people won't know it until it has happened, and thus, the disaster can't be avoided.

Consider again why and how economies collapse. Among myriad reasons, the major one is that wrong actions have been taken. But those wrong actions could not be prevented because of imperfect knowledge of the complex system among the ordinary people who participate in the economic activities.

When the knowledge about the system/society is imperfect, because the complexity is huge, the masses must accept the authority of a few knowledgeable people/experts. This sacrifice of individual freedom is a price to be paid for comfortable and worriless living. Few people take the trouble to understand and manage the system while the masses "enjoy" their lives. Masses can't have the cake and eat it too.

1) Either everyone needs to be a critical thinker and understand the world near-perfectly, or 2) Some must accept the authority of those who do understand the world.

Giving freedom in the hands of everyone (which is the popular idea of modern times) would turn the society into anarchy; or at least result in fragmentation which would not be desirable if people could foresee its effects on the level of welfare we currently enjoy.

In an ideal society a politician's opinion should weigh more than a lay person's, a scientist's opinion should weigh more than a politician's, and a philosopher's opinion should weigh more than everyone else's. When this chain of command can't be effectively implemented, the society has reached an alarming level of complexity. And when the reverse of it becomes unvoidable, that society is near its failure.

Related post(s):

Society and Morality: Why You Don't Have a Right to Be a Jerk

Is Sexual Freedom a Good Thing?

2012-03-19T22:47:00.001+05:30

In modern times there are many advocates of sexual freedom or free sex (myself formerly being one of them), with a justification that sex is a natural activity, suppression of which is causing many types of suffering.

Apparently, what these people fail to understand is that what is natural is not necessarily good or desirable. Nature is barbarous. One needs only to look at the lives of other animals to see that.

Sexual restrictiveness is one of the foundations of human development into civilization. A society which lifts all restrictions on sexual pursuits would turn into a chaos, with men-women relationships becoming more painful than ever.

Sex has evolved to be a taboo, not because of crazy ignorance of the society, as the advocates of free sex who decry tradition would have one believe. It's considered bad for the reason that it is counterproductive with respect to most human pursuits.

For the creatures with self-awareness and the goals of their own apart from the Nature's evolutionary goals (propagation of genes through reproduction), it's only natural that sex should come under high regulation. From Nature's standpoint, sex is the sole purpose of our existence; but since Nature's goals are not our goals, sex is detrimental to our interests.

No doubt, sex is immensely pleasurable; but pleasure is a trap. It's an incentive for us to reproduce.

Not that reproduction is bad. In fact, where Nature's goals overlap with human goals is when one wants to have a child of one's own. But in every other situation sexual pleasure is a distraction from the worthwhile human pursuits.

Overindulgence of sex is not only counterproductive but destructive with respect to our social goals. Look at the life of a sex-addict. Look around to see what obsession with sex does to marriages. Our society is too evolved to give free way to the so-called natural behavior.

Then why is it so difficult to tackle this problem?

Sexual freedom is always an attractive thing from an individual's standpoint. Since everybody enjoys sex, and possesses strong sexual urges, the easier one gets it, the better.

It's one of those nasty problems which turn almost irrevocably harmful to the society only after they have become a mass phenomena; until then the individuals with the potentially harmful tendencies greatly benefit from exercising them. So, it's hard to be checked at an individual level since the benefits are far away in effect and indirect (in that it will benefit the society as a whole, not an individual directly), whereas in direct sight are mostly the disincentives of controlling one's urges in the face of choices.

Religion had worked out an ingenious solution to this conundrum by making unregulated (premarital and extramarital) sexual indulgence immoral (thanks to the Big Guy in the Sky).

Now thanks to the increasing influence of mass media, the values established by religion are washed away, bringing about animalistic culture of narcissism and alienation, and disintegration of families and society.

Majority of the modern generation are literally lost creatures without the sense of right and wrong, without correct guidance, and with no higher purpose in life than pleasure seeking. No wonder they so love the idea of free sex!

Unrestrained sexual expression and predominance of sex in relationships is not the mark of a forward society but a backward one. Kill tradition and bring sexual freedom, and let marriage become an utopia and ugliness crime...

Happy riding back to Nature!

Related post(s):

Is Sex a Basic Need Like Food and Water?

Can Men and Women Be Friends?

2012-03-09T10:06:00.000+05:30

There is no reason for a man to be interested in a woman (and for a women to be interested in a man) other than sex. Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, copulation is the only reason why there are two sexes around, and it is fundamentally the only thing for which the members of the two sexes are drawn to each other.

Propagation of genes is why we are. Whatever else we think life is about is but our delusions, and a part of the grand scheme of Nature the cold bitch. Not that these delusions are bad (for what choice do we have?), but to the best of human understanding that's what life is.

Man and woman can't be friends in true sense of the word. Meaning, they can't have a pure friendship. The forces governing same-sex friendships and those governing cross-sex friendships are significantly different. Think about it. To give some hint of the difference in the dynamics: one doesn't use the same criteria for evaluating people of both genders while choosing friends. The degree of influence one's male and female company exert on one (other things being the same) is not the same. And that evidences plentiful role sexuality plays in friendships involving opposite sexes. One is influenced and affected by a person of the opposite sex far more easily and deeply then by a person of the same sex.

Sexuality makes one biased towards the person of the opposite sex in every situation which has a possibility of it leading up to sex (which is almost always), no matter how remote the odds. And no, one doesn't always have to have a conscious intention of sex while exercising the bias. It just happens that way, apparently because such behavior is hardwired in our biology. This purported end of the bias, sex, would not be the goal of pure friendship. This I say because friendship is a human concept serving human goals, as opposed to Nature's goals which is sex. For a relationship to qualify as friendship the minimum condition is that it must be founded on some social purpose; the purpose that originates from one's human nature as opposed to the animal nature. (Follow links for definitions.) Since the sexuality-encouraged gender bias is always present in a man-woman friendship, such friendship is always more or less impure, and as a consequence there are complications roughly proportional to impurity in friendship.

The complications in man-woman friendships arise because the biological intention (or animal purpose, sex) freeloads in the boat purported for social purposes (or human purposes). This is manifested in friendships in which the parties would not admit their sexual interest (be it active or latent) but their biology, through behavior, would from time to time betray them creating what is called awkward moments of sexual tension.

In modern age the reverse is also quite common, where the social goals freeload in the boat purported for biological interest. This is when the two persons have decided to come together as fuck-buddies and then try to pretend to themselves and to each other that they are friends (friends with benefits?) and care about each other more than just for sex. The pretense probably is the result of guilt triggered by deep-seated values by which being fuck-buddies is wrong.

People of the opposite sex who become friends, then lovers, and then break up, find it hard to remain friends. They wonder: if we were friends before, why can't we be friends again? Well, one reason can be that either both or one of them is not yet free of the romantic feelings for the other. If, however, that's not the case then here's why: they never were friends in true sense. (And this reason is always there in cross-sex friendships to more or less extent, by the way.) Whether the two were conscious of it or not, it was always about sex. Romantic love, for that matter, is nothing but sexual desire of subtle nature. When they totally eliminated the possibility of sex by breaking up, their biology wouldn't support them to be together as friends, for there's no reason for it left.

Exceptions to the above analysis

I could think of three exceptions:

1. Asexuals
2. Gays
3. Unattractive people

In case of asexuals it's easy to see why. Though I have never met an asexual person, so I can't be totally sure, but here's what I think: since asexuals won't have any appetite for sex they won't exercise the bias towards the opposite gender. Neither have I known a gay person. But I think a gay person would exercise the bias towards the own gender, and would be able to have pure friendship with the opposite gender. These two may be the cases of perfect exceptions.

The third case may be of imperfect exceptions. Say, if one's friend of the opposite gender is so unattractive that there's no possibility of one even imagining sex with him/her ever, then one may be able to keep the friendship totally free of sexuality-encouraged gender bias. However, since the taste in looks is a subjective matter, we can't tell with certainty which cases would fall under exceptions.

Barring the exceptions, the analysis stands true for all cases of man-women friendships.

Now I am at a peril of being accused as obnoxious cynic. Anyway, all that said, there's no reason to not believe that men and women can be friends. If we tweak the definition of friendship a little bit to include the sexual component as a valid purpose then they can be friends very well. The gist, then, is that men and women can't be friends in the same fashion as men-men or women-women can. But that's no reason to not enjoy the friendship, or whatever one may call it. I for one still call it friendship!

Proof of Free Will in Few Words

2012-03-03T07:51:00.000+05:30

(Cross-posted at DC Lexicon)

Free will is our ability to choose through reflection.

Determinism implies that we don't have free will, because everything in the universe exists through a chain of causality. While I don't refute determinism, I hold that we do have free will.

My proof of free will:

Assuming that a bird is not self-aware (which is probably right), when it is flying, we can say that the flying is happening. The bird as an autonomous agent is not flying. Only the physical body of bird, a heteronomous living object, is being driven by the laws of the universe. Without self-awareness and thought processes, the bird won't know what's happening. The bird as an autonomous agent is not, i.e. does not exist. (If it is self-aware/conscious, then it would be said to have free will to the degree of its consciousness. Most animals and birds have too little or no self-awareness.)

In the same way, if the thinking in our brains was just happening, then we, as autonomous agents, wouldn't exist; only our physical bodies were being driven by the laws of the universe. But the fact that we "choose" what to think means we exist as self-aware and autonomous agents, unlike birds (and other creatures for that matter). Autonomy is free will.

I think, therefore I am. (Descartes) "I" is self-aware and autonomous, therefore I have free will.

Spirituality, Eliminating Suffering, and Narcissism

2012-03-01T13:46:00.000+05:30

This post is a unified response to the comments on the previous one, and can also be read as a stand-alone article covering what spirituality is, its comparison with philosophy with respect to the suffering; and explaining how spirituality is a narcissistic lifestyle.

What Is Spirituality?

Spirituality is truth-seeking with the goal of getting rid of the suffering of human life.

There are many versions of spirituality, some involving a belief in God, others atheistic. It is hard to understand how truth-seeking and a belief in theistic God can be in one system of living – because the truth is, there is no God. However, and hence, the defining feature of spirituality, I would say, is the pursuit of enlightenment – the state of permanent and everlasting happiness, IOW, elimination of suffering. Stripped of this goal, the system is anything but spirituality.

Some modern spiritualists concede the impossibility of enlightenment or everlasting happiness. But even so, their main focus is always on the inner/self, and how to protect the self from every form of suffering, which nontheless follows from the main ideal of hardcore spirituality.

Earlier I have been into a personalized version of atheistic spirituality, but no more. Spirituality – more precisely the goal of eliminating suffering (or pursuit of unending happiness) – is by nature a narcissistic system of living.

Spirituality, Philosophy and Focus on the Inner and the Outer

Note that exclusive focus on the outer is not suggested here. One has to develop from the inside too. Balanced growth is what is needed. But the problem with spirituality is its exclusive focus on the inner.

Common notion is that philosophy is all about logic, rationality and the outer world, while spirituality is about the inner. That needs to be corrected. Philosophy is a vast field. There are myriad philosophers and their philosophies. Everything – inner and outer – of human condition has been dealt with by one or the other philosopher. Take Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, for example. His concept of Golden Mean is similar to the Middle Way of Buddha. What philosophy does not deal with – and that's spirituality's main focus – is enlightenment and oneness with the whole, et al of spirituality.

What message a spiritual master gives that is not there in philosophy in general? It's non-attachment, enlightenment, world-is-illusion, elimination of suffering and freedom from the human condition. If one points to any other wisdom, it's just philosophy. When one mentions spirituality, it's essentially all those things mentioned above. Just as when one says one is religious, I would assume one believes in God; when one says one is into spirituality I would assume one pursues all those things. And every one of those ideas is a poor way to live, to say the least about it.

Reflection on Suffering: Is It to Be Eliminated?

Suffering is not to be eliminated. The very idea of everlasting happiness is narcissistic, not to mention it's not possible. The real key is existential wisdom. Existential wisdom (which comes through philosophical development) is to understand the human condition and then live as worthwhile a life as one can, and let happiness (or no-suffering) be the by-product of good life, instead of the goal. To be focused on eliminating one's suffering is to be self-focused. And since the goal is never to be attained, the self-focus always remains in a spiritualist. Freedom from the human condition is the only ultimate goal of spirituality. It's easy to see then that a spiritualist (spiritual master) doesn't really deal with anything within the human condition other than enforce the delusional goal of ultimate self-fulfillment.

The focus of life should not be to eliminate/reduce suffering. The focus should be to live a worthwhile and virtuous life. There are similarities between spirituality and philosophy, as both involve truth-seeking. But spirituality's main goal, elimination of suffering, is narcissistic. Philosophy strives at making life good, not eliminate one's suffering. The difference is subtle, but the implications are vast, if perceived.

What to Do About Suffering? Not Avoid It?

Well, avoiding suffering is only right and logical. But making it life's focus is narcissistic. Again as I said, the difference is subtle, but its implications are great. Certain suffering is necessary. A life without suffering would be worse than hell. Because without suffering, happiness can't be. So, what is one to do? Not avoid suffering when it is taking place? That would be absurd. Fight suffering when it's taking place, but be aware of the fact that it's a part of life and it will come back in one form or another, and that's alright. Happiness and suffering are not really different things. One should not shut oneself out of suffering, which is exactly what spirituality purports. That's what continuous focus on elimination of suffering means. Shutting oneself out of suffering is shutting oneself out of life. For suffering is a part of life.

Consider this example: Should I not run from the dog when it's coming towards me to bite me and give me suffering? I must run. But should I permanently shut myself inside my house because the dog is out there? A spiritualist would say yes. He would say, the world is an illusion anyway, everything you need is inside. Don't believe it? Why do you think hardcore spiritualists don't participate in the society?

One has to develop from the inside, yes. And that would be in the form of strong spirit after knowing the truth of existence, involving ego/self, what consciousness is, and how ego and consciousness give rise to suffering etc. It does make one strong to face adversities. And it is necessary. But that's nothing that is not explored in philosophy. Moreover, there is the outer reality too. And outer development is being able to see meaning and worth in the material life (as opposed to spiritual, which is the exclusive reality in spirituality), because materialism has always been a fact of life. Instead of running away inwards, one has to live a normal life balancing one's inner life (spiritual) with the outer (material). And suffering is a part of normal life.

A Note on Philosophy/Spirituality Dichotomy

It is for the sake of convenience that I use the dichotomy of spirituality and philosophy. If we go deeper, it has to break down, because spirituality is one system of living (the aim of which is elimination of suffering), while philosophy is a collection of opinions about what truth is. A system (or worldview) under the label "philosophy" that could be compared to spirituality (which is, as I said, a system) could then be a particular worldview proposed/advocated by one or more philosopher(s). Examples: Nihilism, Absurdism, etc. It's for keeping it simple I say philosophical development when I mean personal development through truth-seeking and critical thinking. Of course, absurdism and nihilism (and many others) are worse ways to live than spirituality. But that's not what I am suggesting by "philosophy". And when I said philosophy strives at making life good, it's this broad label "philosophy" I referred to. Why else would we seek-truth if it didn't provide any utility (good life)? The propensity to understand life is the propensity to make it better. For the likes of nihilists, then, I would say, bad luck that they struck the dead end.

How Spirituality Makes Narcissist of Man

2012-02-17T10:07:00.001+05:30

The biggest flaw in spirituality is its exclusive focus on the inner. In spirituality everything that needs to be fixed is inside the person.

Suffering is intrinsic to our existence. There's no escape from the human condition for anyone; and a spiritual person is no exception. He also suffers. As long as the spiritual person suffers (which is always, like any other person) his focus would be fixated on the inner, that is, himself. When there is always something to fix on the inside, naturally, one won't be interested in the problems external to one. A spiritual person looks at the problems of the world, and internalizes them. Meaning, he views everything that causes man to suffer as man's inner weakness. If you are suffering in love, he would tell you: you need to develop from the inside. Feeling anger and jealousy? Develop from the inside. The more a spiritual person suffers, the stronger his obsession with the self gets.

What is this focus on the inner? Spirituality views the world as a part of the whole. A spiritualist believes that his true nature is not his ego-self which is just an illusion created in consciousness. His true nature is the nature of the universe, the whole. Any man trapped in his consciousness, i.e. having ego-identity (which by the way includes every normal, functional human being) is imperfect and needs to develop. The state of perfectness is when one loses one's ego-self and experiences oneness or unity with Nature or the universe, or the whole, whatever that means. Both "true nature" and "the whole" are terms so fuzzy that one must be stupid to take them seriously.

Spirituality's focus is so much on the whole that it never really connects with the problems of the world. Only (non-)remedy it offers is for people to stop being people and merge into the whole. Spirituality therefore is hokum.

So called enlightened people are not free of suffering. If anything, they have built thick walls around themselves cutting them off from every element of the human world. Through reclusive practices they have mastered the art of deluding the self. At best, they have achieved unwavering focus on the self, and their obsession with the self has overridden every other drive they might have. They appear to have concern with the problems of the world, but not really. For every suffering they encounter, they view it as a sign of their imperfectness and obsess more with the self, through isolation and meditation and what not. And they offer the same to others. That's not really a concern for the world but their self-affirmation. They have effectively noting to offer the world but their own madness and narcissism.

It is impossible to care and not suffer. If there is a truly enlightened person who is free of suffering (which I don't think is possible in a normal, functional human being) then he must be a narcissist of the highest rank. He cares squat about life, the world, and other people's suffering. He is happy in his delusions. The king in the empty kingdom. He is no more alive than a piece of vegetable. Pinch him and he will crawl ever deeper into his self.

Existential awareness does make one strong from inside by enabling one have a right perspective, and that's important too. But that is philosophy. Spirituality is different in that it involves obsessing with the development of the self to the point of viewing the world as illusion and seeking the end of suffering. That is bullshit. Since there's no such thing as oneness with the whole or perpetual bliss as long as we are alive and conscious, he who believes he is there is deluding himself. And his apathy towards everything but the inner/self reeks of narcissism.

A Little Commentary on The Family and Society

2012-02-15T10:42:00.000+05:30

Some thoughts that followed my reading of The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky, a book the previous post was about —

In the book, the author talks extensively about love but hasn't gone much into the technicalities of romantic love and merely says:

None of us knows what kind of force, regardless of all reason, suddenly ties us to one particular person, and nobody can say why sometimes, equally unexpectedly, the magnet that attracted one body to another loses its pull.

Well, now we do have good enough clue about it. We know that romantic love is mating drive, and what hormones cause it, et cetera. That doesn't undermine the book's message though; but I think now that we can explain romantic love scientifically, and thereby more meaningfully, it's a good idea to do so whenever we write on this topic, because otherwise there's a lot of scope for misinterpretation, the word "love" being used for varied feelings. I have written a series of posts explaining romantic love and related issues here.

Another excerpt from the book:

The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier today—they are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!

I totally agree with that. And the solution the author prescribes in the last paragraph of the book is:

Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizing—evil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.

That's also right. But it shows that the book is not philosophically rigorous. This is not a criticism of the book, and doesn't invalidate the book's core message. The book belongs to a relatively simpler time (1990). In today's times I think there's only one real solution: Existential wisdom. Meaning, understanding life and existence through philosophical development.

In earlier times social conditions were different, and the evil influences (like mass media) too weren't around, and traditional wisdom was prevalent. Religion, however flawed, was much better source of moral education than mass media which is the primary vector of cultural education today. Earlier, even in imperfect marriages people didn't think of divorce because so was their conditioning. It was wrong! And large families and culturally allocated roles and duties provided people meaning despite lack of passion in marriage. Now the world has changed. We neither have that binding social structure (large family, and the traditional/cultural roles and duties), nor have right moral guidance since cultural education is coming from mass media. Both together (among other factors) make sure that people don't behave in a way they did in earlier times in dealing with family issues.

In such a scenario, the only solution I see is for people to do their own homework. Understand what society is from bottom up. Understand the importance of family in relation to human nature. Earlier this exercise was optional. Now it is mandatory.

The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky

2012-02-08T09:26:00.000+05:30

Harmanjit shared with me a remarkable book called The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky (also spelled Zhukhovit︠s︡kiĭ). The book doesn't seem to have been very popular, but it contains a world of wisdom within its less than fifty pages. Sharing some gems from it in this post:

The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky (Cover)

Quotes from The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky

In an ordinary family, I was thinking, any big quarrel may bring the partners to the verge of divorce—for they live under each other's noses and there is nowhere to escape to in order to give it time and calm down. But in a large family, even a serious discord is only with one out of five or seven and it is not at all necessary to split up... Husbandless mothers may still exist in a family like this, but there will be no fatherless children.

***

The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier today—they are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!

To some extent the growth in the divorce rate is a kind of a tax on good living.

***

The family is destroyed by the very concept of some ideal structure, which is almost automatically obliged to provide us with a happy life. The logic is as follows: the family is good, and I am good, but things are bad at home. Whose fault is it? Obviously, whoever is nearest to us. But the person who is nearest to us thinks exactly the same. So the destructive work starts from both sides.

***

Once an eminent Estonian scientist, Gustav Naan, wrote in Literaturnaya gazeta that the family is a self-destructive system. What a clever idea! The gradual deconstruction of the family is not an exceptional phenomenon but a normal one. It falls apart not through the fault or malicious intent of one of the partners but simply because everything on earth sooner or later falls to pieces. Do you want to preserve your house? Then repair it regularly, rebuild it, build onto it and adapt it to changes and new situations...

***

Why are you getting married? Nine girls gave nearly identical answers: In order to be happy. And only the tenth said: In order to make my husband happy. I'm afraid that she was the only one out of the ten who found happiness.

***

Divorce is quite common nowadays. It is something else that is strange—the fact that marriages based on love turned out to be the weakest ones. Yes, it is true. Those who were looking for some practical purpose in marriage are still living together—maybe not ideally, but still they are together. However, marriages founded on the most impassioned love broke shatteringly into pieces.

***

In marriages of love, both of course are counting on their love remaining as passionate as it was before the marriage. Whet safety margin is there in passionate love? Unfortunately, not everything depends on our intentions...

Love's passion is the greatest of joy and the greatest miracle. It has thousands of virtues. It lacks only one thing—stability.

***

Millions of people suffer because love-passion becomes weaker with time. But nature gave us quite an adequate compensation: love-friendship, which grows stronger all the time. Where human relations are being built, the house builds itself automatically.

***

The experience of happy family should be studied on its black days.

***

Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizing—evil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.

Download The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky. If the link stops working, notify me through a comment or contact me with your email.

Society and Morality: Why You Don't Have a Right to Be a Jerk

2012-02-01T22:16:00.000+05:30

Individualism is a popular ideology today. Everybody wants to live one's own way, free of all control. "Be what you are", "Don't let others tell you how to live your life" — These words pass for wisdom these days. Well, I won't say that one should give up one's individualism, but the kind of people I see fighting for their "rights" and the intentions they carry, that frightens me sometimes. A few days back I was having a discussion with a couple of friends about morality and desirability of social control, and at some point one of them said: we have no ethical/moral obligation towards society. He even went on to say that everyone has a right to be a jerk (as long as one isn't directly harming anyone else). Oh boy!

He who says he has a right to be a jerk as long as he isn't harming anyone doesn't know the fundamentals of human world. He clearly doesn't understand what it is to be a member of the civilized society, and how our world works. No one has a "right" to be a jerk; in fact, everyone has a "duty" to live in the interest of the society. To understand how, let's look into what society is —

What Is Society?

Society is a group of interdependent individuals who have aligned each-other's self-interests to maximize their welfare. It's a thoroughly interconnected system. Therefore, any change in one part of the society affects related individuals through chain reaction. When one is sick, one goes to the clinic/hospital where someone is employed to serve one. Hadn't it been a "society", the person who is doctor could be doing something else, instead of binding himself to one profession for all his life. What we have is like division of work and responsibilities whereby we enjoy higher efficiency and higher welfare. Every person, by virtue of being human, is a party to the implicit contract that is society. If there were no doctors, no engineers, no farmers, no dairymen, then humans would not be living this comfortable a life. Dependence would be much less, but so would be welfare. Totally remove dependence and we are in a jungle! Apparently, those who believe they are "independent" don't see this.

This system is society. In society, everybody's life is so intricately interwoven (and higher welfare is the purpose) that it is everybody's responsibility to act in the common interest, that is, in the interest of the society. That doesn't preclude anyone from having fun (besides, higher wellbeing itself is fun). And granted, no one has good enough judgement to understand with total precision what is best for the society in every situation. But if there is anything that maintains order in the society, and can sustain the comfortable life that we currently have, it is cooperative and responsible behavior, and not the pursuit of selfish individual goals on the name of individualism. Society is a delicate organism. And it's a mistake to think we are not a part of the organism. We may not realize it – because we have got so used to it – but we are continually interacting with other agents of the society for our living. If the system disappeared, maybe we can't survive at all individually; or at least that survival would not be pleasant.

Now looking at society another way: Society is like a corporation whose interest is to maximize the welfare of its members. (That way we can view it as a "cooperative society" too.) Each member is rewarded according to his contribution (like employees have different salaries), but no member has a right to remain idle, much less a right to be a jerk. He who is not contributing anything to the goal of the society (which is collective welfare) is a freeloader and can be pressurized to be productive. And he who engages in activities which the effective majority in a given society views as detrimental to the social good would be punished by the society. Here, of course, I won't say that the majority in a society is always right, but nor is an individual who rebels always right. Due to the complexity of societal structure, there will always remain this tension between individual and society in many areas. However, the point of this article is that it's a good idea to understand what society is, and why social good matters more than individual good.

Society is a system of interdependence for optimum welfare; and belonging to one isn't a choice. Therefore, individual freedom is a delusion which has to be enjoyed within certain boundaries. Claiming total freedom in society is immature to say the least. A human being in civilized world is born directly into a society. To think that society is an illusion, or that one is (or can be) totally free and independent individual who doesn't have to care about social welfare (welfare of others) is a monumental error.

And here comes morality. Simply said, morality is an informal rule of conduct for healthy coexistence in a society. Therefore —

Social responsibility = moral behavior

We do have moral obligation towards the society in the form of cooperative and responsible conduct. To refuse to accept this is to refuse to be a mature, adult human being.

This brings to mind: back in my spirituality days I received many a praise for saying this: "An enlightened person lives on the tune of Nature. He doesn't need to know what is moral or immoral." Now I say enlightened my ass! One must be a narcissist of the highest rank to have such a thought!

Provocative Clothes and Rape: A Response

2012-01-24T09:51:00.001+05:30

This is in response to the comments and discussions (on this blog, other networks, and offline) that followed previous article: Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible?

In the said article my point is: when a woman wears provocative clothes knowing (and often with intention) that it is going to attract excessive male attention by appealing to sexuality it is irresponsible on her part because she is knowingly running into the risk of being harassed; and if she gets raped, she is partly responsible for the tragedy. By not wearing "provocative" (try to see the literal meaning of the word) women can at least avoid the avoidable trouble. After all, not exposing body parts excessively in a provocative way is not such a discomfort.

What I find interesting is that most people who responded to the article committed strawman fallacy. Stawman fallacy is when your originally expressed point X is misinterpreted in distorted form Y, and then that distorted interpretation Y (called strawman) is attacked, while leaving your original point untouched. If you go through the comments to the article you will see that the most repeated form of strawman is something like this:

Rape doesn't happen only with women wearing provocative clothes. It's mostly decent and weak women who fall prey to rapists. Since decent women are raped too, that means men are perverts. Women are innocent, because those decent women don't do anything to provoke rapists. Apply stricter controls and don't let rapists get away with their crime.

Well, I am all for punishing rapists. (And it was clearly said in the article itself.) But did you notice how the original point is lost? No one, not a single person who argued on the article (online and offline) seemed to understand that the article is only talking about 1) the relationship between provocative clothes and rape, and not about rape in general; and 2) the ridiculous movement for women's right to freely wear whatever men can. Since it can't be denied that there is a relationship between provocative clothes and rape, it must be admitted that it is irresponsible on part of women to wear body-exposing clothes where it is risky. As for why can't women wear what men can, the explanation is pretty clearly given.

I don't deny that decent and weak women are raped, and that the rapists must be made to pay for it. But I am not talking about those instances at all. My argument is about the instances of women wearing provocative clothes, thereby being irresponsible, and the fundamentally flawed reason they give for it, that is: if men can wear anything, why can't women. This reasoning is flawed because men and women are different biologically. (For detailed explanation, read this, and this.) Now if we must blame someone for sexism, blame Nature. But ignore the reality and we will pay the cost in varied forms.

Another argument I invariably get is that men can exercise control over their animal instincts, and they must. But since I am not talking about excusing men at all, what's the point of this objection, that I fail to understand. Of course, I agree that men must control their behavior, but the reality is open out there, and it doesn't care what you and I think men must do. What I am addressing is the reality that is, and what we can do about it. Punish rapists, I agree; but what I am interested to know (and what a sensible reader would comment about) is what can women do to avoid the possible tragedy? Do they have no responsibility towards themselves and the society at large?

If one says that there is zero correlation between provocative clothes and arousal of sexual urges in men, one needs to reconsider it. Provocative clothes produce two effects. 1) Not only do they make the wearer of those more vulnerable to sexual advances from men (at a biology level that's exactly the intention) but 2) once a man is aroused by looking at a women wearing such clothes, he may become more prone to target someone "easy"' to release his sexual energies on. Now of course, one would say it's totally the man's fault. Well, yes. So punish the man all you want. But I am still referring to the full reality. We rational beings can easily say it's the man's fault, but the reality doesn't care what we think and say. Punishing the man (which is only right) isn't going to solve the problem. Because the root of the problem is not purely society. The root of it is in the biology. While catching the criminal is a remedy at a social level, what about what happens at a biology level? How are laws going to change the natural biological processes?

It's also instructive to look into women psychology behind wearing provocative clothes, which is seldom done by anyone. The reason women love wearing provocative clothes is that they want to exercise power by being desirable. The power and attention thus gained is addictive. It's sexual politics. Now if one understands the forces involved in this power play one can see the risk of it. They appeal to man's animal nature; then it's no surprise if the animal does comes out some time. Therefore, in my opinion, it is irresponsible behavior on women's part. Consider this example: in order to appear powerful, you carry around diamonds on you, and a wad of money in your hand; and one day you get mugged. Now anyone of sane mind would tell you that it was foolish and irresponsible of you to show off your wealth that way. That doesn't mean the mugger is to be excused; but that you should be responsible too. One may shrug it off saying we are not animals and shouldn't behave like one, but as I said the reality doesn't care what one thinks. And there are costs involved in not respecting the biological reality.

The following part is an extension of the topic, going beyond the issue of rape:

I believe the urge to wear provocative clothes is fundamentally inappropriate for civilized societies, even if rapes were somehow controlled by the law.

How are laws going to change the natural biological processes? Therefore in a good society we must expect "decent" behavior from everyone. Many of the indecencies are not illegal, but they are still indecent because they are not conducive to good health of a society. Excessively bold sexual behavior, certain bad habits like drug addiction, using swear words etc may not all be illegal in society but these elements do affect people negatively. That's why we call that behavior indecent. Wearing provocative (thus, indecent) clothes for attracting male attention does have its effects. As I mentioned in the previous article, it is a maneuver coming from the animal nature to attract mating partners. In civilized societies now we have better mechanisms in place for that purpose, which suit our human nature. Behaving excessively like animal in any respect is considered indecent. That's why we expect men also to not approach women like an animal, but instead use decent, socially appropriate routes. When a man is desperate for sex his (animal) nature is to exercise bold sexual behavior, and when a woman is desperate her nature is to pull bold attraction maneuvers. So if we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. Here some people will jump up saying that I can not generalize that every woman wearing provocative clothes is desperate. Well, then not every man who stares at boobs is pervert, too! Get the point? It's naturally fun, healthy in a way, but indecent nonetheless when done excessively.

As I said above, indecency is any behavior which is not conducive to good health of a society. And indecency of wearing unusually bold, provocative clothes affects normal functioning of society by affecting mental states of men. As much as we like to believe from rational point of view that it is those men's fault for not controlling themselves, we must not ignore the full reality which includes natural processes that cause it all. Expecting everyone to operate rationally is good; punishing those who allow passion to overpower their reason and commit crimes is also right; but assuming that humans are perfectly rational is a grave mistake. That can never be, even!

Therefore, punish rapists; admonish all kinds of indecencies; but at the same time let's not forget that we all must always act responsibly and with decency if we wish to be in a good society. And "we" includes men and women both.

Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible?

2012-01-08T10:44:00.000+05:30

At the outset, let me clarify what the following article (and the next one) is about, and what it isn't about:

It's about the specific instances of rape wherein provocative clothes worn by women play a part, and not about all types of rape
Examines a link between provocative clothes and rape
Examines the psychology behind wearing provocative clothes, and how it is inappropriate and irresponsible on part of women to wear such clothes
It does not intend to blame the victim in the sense of excusing the rapist, but is my case against feminists' disregard for the biological facts and natural differences/inequality of men and women

(This introductory part is added in response to several misdirected comments. So before making a comment, please take particular note of the above points.)

--

Popular view today is that women can wear anything they like just like men do, however exposing the clothes; and if men can't control themselves then it's entirely men's fault. It's become fashionable to fight for this freedom for women. Now this is going to be unpopular, but I strongly disagree.

People who say women can wear anything that men can are ignorant of biological make up of man and woman, or at least don't want to acknowledge it, which is a grave mistake. Agree, that even burqa-clad women are ogled and raped. So I am not saying men are clean and innocent when it comes to indecency and rape. It's just that when one says women can wear anything they like just like men do, that's not wise. And especially the women crusading for this right are not only ignorant of the biological differences in man and woman, but are also hypocrites. This latter point is seldom, if ever, brought up.

Let me ask the women obsessed with provocative clothes the question: What is the need to wear clothes that expose body parts that cause male sexual attraction. E.g. a blouse showing excessive cleavage and the like. (Everybody knows the kind of clothes I am referring to, so not describing them in more detail.) Is it because such clothes are more comfortable? That can't be, and I have got at least two reasons for saying this:

The knowledge that a particular clothing is unusual and is going to attract excessive male attention itself won't allow the comfort in wearing it.
Secondly, if such short clothes were really comfortable then why only women are more obsessed with wearing them? (Do men wear shirts exposing their waistline, or deep-necks, or sleeve-less as much as women do?)

Although the definition of "unusually bold clothing" differs from culture to culture; but say if a particular culture is relatively more liberal and within it it is common to wear certain clothes that are considered unusual and indecent in other cultures, then those clothes won't be "provocative" in the first place. Because if the culture is really liberal then men as well as women are liberal, and therefore the men won't be "provoked" by those clothes. So that's alright.The hypocrite women I am referring to are those who are fully aware of the boundary of their culture and knowingly wear unusually bold clothes (within their particular culture).

The aim of modern clothing is hardly the comfort of the wearer. The aim is to look attractive. And when it comes to cleavage-showing blouse, or mini skirt or any such provocative clothing, it's about attracting attention by appealing to male sexuality.

Most of the women from this camp, I am sure, would also express problems with men staring at their cleavage and other body parts that are actually made to stand out by wearing designed-for-the-purpose clothes. Simple question then should be, why wear those clothes if you are going to have a problem with people staring? Note that I am not trying to justify the indecency of men, but am just putting the other side through scrutiny. No one can deny that body-exposing clothes for women are for attracting male attention. If they wear such clothes one can fairly assume that they want to be looked at. Upon having a closer look one finds what those women actually have a problem with is the stares of the people who they don't like. When an ugly man stares at a woman, he is pervert; and when a hot man stares at a woman, he is interested! That's what it is.

So, first of all, these women-folks need to give up their hypocrisy if they want to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Women, you show cleavage not for that blouse is comfortable for you, but for you want to attract attention of hot and attractive members of male species. (If you don't know it, do some introspection!) But by doing so you attract not-so-desirable gazes too, which makes you feel insecure and threatened. Now you don't want to take accountability for your part, therefore like a narcissist, instead of admitting your own intentions, you give entire male species the label of perverts.

Unregulated sexual behavior is wrong, but then equally wrong is provoking it in public places, now that in a civilized world we have better mechanisms available for finding a partner of the opposite sex. If we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, it should be clear that a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. But pervert is often the latter! What is needed to be understood is that men are caught "active" because so is their sexual biology. Since male is designed to seduce, and female is designed to be seduced, we won't find an active female. While men have to make bold advances, females just have to pull maneuvers. Indirect. That's the reason why always males are culprits. Women are passive, but in such cases equally culprits. This is nearly impossible to get people to understand because it requires more than ordinary common sense!

Now let's look at some more technicality. Being attracted to female body parts comes from our animal nature, and we call it wrong (even though it is not quite so in natural world) because we are civilized creatures. But the truth is, attracting the members of opposite sex by various maneuvers is also something that we have learned when we were apes, and therefore is the most animalistic trick to find a partner for mating. Today's women wearing provocative clothes may not be looking out for a partner for mating, but their desire to look attractive is their biology doing the job already. It is therefore improper and unwise to allow one gender to pull explicit animalistic maneuvers and blame the other gender of getting affected by it. We haven't outlawed Nature yet.

Coming back to rape. One thing is clear that women wear provocative clothes to attract male attention (mostly consciously, or otherwise at a biological level anyway) and the appeal is to sexuality. The trick is the same that many creatures in natural world employ to attract mating partners. Now take this bitter pill: Rape is likely evolved by natural selection as a secondary mating strategy. Wait, no, I will never advocate rape on this ground. However, this theory is not unfounded, and one would understand it if one understands Nature, biology and evolution mechanism. What I intend to draw attention to is the relation between wearing provocative clothes and rape as the relation between the maneuver and the result it is fundamentally intended for – mating. Since we live in a complex civilized world sometimes the result, mating, is involuntary, but in case where provocative clothes are worn the result is nonetheless invited by the maneuver; because biologically speaking, there's no other reason to expose body parts arousing sexuality.

Rape can never be justified on natural grounds. Since we are civilized we must regulate our behavior; and the breach of it must be adequately punished. But controlling male behavior is addressing only half of the problem. In fact, controlling only male behavior and giving free rein to women to wear whatever they like is not only utterly unwise, but is cruelty to men, and would likely exacerbate the problem. One must understand the powerful laws of Nature. If we need to address the problem of rape meaningfully, we must curtail excessively animalistic behavior in both genders.

Wearing of provocative clothes by women, and bold sexual advances by men are two sides of a coin. Don't make a mistake of curtailing only one. Rapists are perverts, no doubt; but it is also irresponsible on part of women to wear provocative clothes, and therefore they also deserve part of the blame.

Updates:

1) Blogger Chuck Rudd writes: A woman in short skirts or low-hanging tops – party gear – is about like a guy walking through a rough area of town with hundred dollar bills sprouting from his fists like turnip leaves with the look of a sucker on his face... If a police chief were to address a spate of robberies of people wearing Rolexes and clutching hundred dollar bills, his first piece of advice would be to hide the thing that robbers are targeting. "Don’t look like a mark," he might say. It's hard to see why the rationale behind protecting those assets would be any different than a woman who wants to protect hers.

2) Scott Adams says clothes contribute to how one is viewed and treated. And I agree. It may not fit our idealist concepts, but it's how the reality is.

Related post(s):

How Evolution Actually Works

2012-01-04T02:13:00.002+05:30

This post is an explanation (though non-technical) of how evolution actually works, in contrast to how most people think about it.

Note that I am not aware of how prevalent is the misunderstanding this post attempts to correct. It is possible that fewer people are under the misunderstanding than I think. I decided to write about it because most people around me aren't aware of the actual evolution mechanism. Moreover, I remember how it was taught to me in school, and the way it was taught was misleading. If that's how evolution is still taught then I believe this post will be useful in clarifying the mechanism.

How Evolution Actually Works

Common notion of evolution is that organisms adapt to suit their environment. Wrong!

Organisms don't adapt to suit their environment. Random mutations are always happening in organisms, but only those mutations are successful which produce alterations which are allowed to continue by their current environmental conditions. When the process of certain alteration is complete it appears as if the change of feature in a particular organism happened to suit the environment. But the fact is, mutations for that same change may have happened many times in the past, but only this time the environmental conditions were favorable for the organism with altered feature to survive, and thus for the altered feature to become normal.

Confused? Take the example of giraffe's neck. It is mostly taught in schools (at least in my school it was taught so) that giraffe's neck became long because they moved from savannah (grassland) to the areas with tall trees in times of food scarcity. A long neck was required for them to reach the leaves high up the trees. Hence, over many generations through evolution their neck became long! This is an oversimplification of the process of natural selection. It gives an impression that environmental changes precede alterations in organism's features. In reality it is not quite so.

Let's see what's happened in case of giraffe's neck. Long neck resulted in giraffes through many mutations over time. The contribution of each single mutation is understandably only slight. And such mutations take place from time to time "randomly" regardless of environmental conditions, not only for neck but for all sorts of alterations in an organism. With respect to the above hypothesis, here's what must have happened considering how evolution actually works: When giraffes were living in savannah they did not require long neck. Rather, long necks might have posed danger to their survival by making them noticeable to predators from a distance. So, whenever the random mutation for long neck happened, the giraffe with newly acquired slightly longer neck would be hunted down by the predator (owing to its long neck) and the mutation thus would go unsuccessful since the animal wouldn't pass on its genes for long neck! Now, say, the giraffes have shifted from grasslands to the forests with tall trees. Random mutation for long neck happens again. (Mutations always keep happening randomly!) This time the giraffe with slightly long neck survives, and reproduces! Because in their new environment, long neck doesn't attract predators' notice. And with further random mutations for long neck, over many generations, the neck goes on increasing as long as the environmental conditions don't restrict it by putting the giraffe at a disadvantage for survival and/or reproduction. Moreover, in the areas with tall trees those giraffes with short necks become disadvantaged because they can't get food easily. The disadvantaged giraffes wouldn't be able to pass on their genes (of short neck) because they would starve and die before reproducing. It is thus said that giraffes with long necks are selected by natural selection. Of course, this process happens over long time period. (Note that this is the simplest of the hypotheses about giraffe's neck. Even if it may not be quite true in giraffe's case, it's nonetheless valid as to the point being explained.)

Let's have a look at another example. You must have seen albino people. Albinism also has emerged by random mutation, without the environment demanding it. But albinos are not common in population precisely because they are at a disadvantage in survival and reproduction. Albinos being vulnerable to harmful ultraviolet rays, and thereby skin cancer, and faring poor at finding a mate to reproduce with, restricts the genes of albinism to spread. If in the future, say, Earth's environment so changes that we no more face ultraviolet rays then randomly born albinos will have better chances of survival, and it is possible that in the long term albinism will spread enough to become a normal feature of human species! Likewise, we have every reason to think that many other alterations in human species are happening from time to time by way of random mutations, without the environment requiring it. But only those changes which don't put the bearer of the change at a disadvantage in his/her environment pass further on and become a normal feature after many generations of evolution.

The important, and often misunderstood, point about the process is this: Changes in environmental conditions don't precede alterations of features in organisms. Random mutations are always happening, and environment only allows or disallows the genes of altered features to go further. When the alteration is allowed by the environment the newly evolved feature is spread further through reproduction in the organism. When the alteration puts the organism to disadvantage in its current environment, the organism wouldn't survive and the altered feature would therefore never become normal.

In short, environment doesn't bring about the change in features. It only approves or disapproves the changes that happen on their on randomly!

Comment Policy

2012-01-03T21:55:00.001+05:30

All comments are moderated.

Comment only if you have further thoughts to share on the topic of the post that might add more value to the article.

Criticisms are welcome, but mere criticisms are unlikely to be published. A criticism must be accompanied by a detailed alternative point of view and/or explanation of your own.

Don't comment only to express appreciation and/or agreement.

Don't use Anonymous mode of commenting unless it is absolutely necessary. The option is only kept available for special cases where the comment author might not want to make his/her identity public on the Internet. However, anonymous comments are less likely to be accepted.

Comments containing abuse, swear words, harsh and insulting language will be rejected.

If you remove your comment after it has been replied to by the blog author, or anyone else, you will be permanently banned from commenting on this website.

If you have anything to say that doesn't meet the criteria of the comment policy, do not use the comment option. Use instead the contact form.

My Answer to "Do You Believe In Love?"

2012-01-01T09:35:00.001+05:30

Randomly reading my views on love in different posts on this blog one understandably gets confused as to what I actually stand for with regards to love. I am often faced with the question, "Do you believe in love?" to which most of the times I have to respond with just a smile. Next time I will instead give the link of this post!

To answer this question 500 Days of Summer style (My rating of the film: 6/10, Not recommended): "It's love. It's not Santa Claus!" You can't believe or not believe in love. It is certainly not a fantasy. Superman is a fantasy, but love actually makes you fly. It isn't just one's imagination. Imagination isn't that powerful.

Does that mean love exists for real? Well, let's not get carried away. The answer is not so simple, because this is actually a disguised query. In a disguised query one isn't really asking what the question appears to be about. Say, person A defines love as a combination of respect-empathy-compassion (which for me is "true love"), and for person B love is the classic symptoms of "romantic love", i.e. obsession-attachment-euphoria. Now when they ask "Do you believe in love?" they are not really asking the same thing. It's a disguised query in that person A actually wants to know whether you believe that sharing of respect-empathy-compassion between two persons is possible for life, while person B's query is about the obsession-attachment-euphoria kind of romantic love.

For the moment let's focus on person B's query. It can be further looked into to see whether he is asking if romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) exists at all, or he is asking if it lasts for life. If the query is the former then as I said above, love certainly exists. (Who denies that those feelings exist?!) If the query is the latter, i.e. whether romantic love lasts for life, then the answer is negative. And if one believes that it lasts for life then that's a fantasy! That's the reason why I often speak against mass media (TV, Hollywood, fiction books) feeding people with "fantasy ideals" of love and thereby raising their expectations from life to unrealistic level which makes them end up in misery.

Mostly I see two types of people when it comes to love. Those who don't believe in love and therefore advocate only casual relationships. (Enjoy till it lasts, they would say.) And those who totally believe in fantasy ideals of love. In my opinion both are misguided. Now you must wonder why I am calling enjoy-till-lasts a misguided approach, for I just said that romantic love doesn't last for life. Well, that's true, but romantic love (or romance) is not all there is to love. In fact, true love isn't romantic. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT. True love consists of respect-empathy-compassion. Similar to what best friends share, only much more in degree. That's the love our "human nature" craves. Romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) pertains to our "animal nature", and it's there for the purpose of enabling "mating". (More on romantic love.) We don't have full control on our animal nature. That's the reason we are pretty much powerless when romantic love is on.

Autonomy is the hallmark of being human. That part of one's behavior on which one doesn't have autonomous control pertains to one's animal nature. Since we are fundamentally animals we can't disown our animal nature which serves biological goals (or natural goals). Therefore, we can't not develop romantic love, by choice, and be in a relationship. But importantly, when romantic love wanes (and it does), that's not the end of a relationship. If one believes that romantic love is the thing then one is utterly misguided. For, such life would never be fulfilling. It would, if we were just animals; but as more-than-animals we have more sophisticated needs from a relationship. Trust, sincerity, devotion, solidity, consistency, cooperation... These are essentially human qualities on which our social world is founded. Striped of these qualities we would be living in a jungle! Enjoy-till-it-lasts is a denial of these human qualities! That's what is wrong with this mindset. A human being can never have fulfilling life with this mindset.

Enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset is animalistic and out-and-out narcissistic. Who would decide if it's still enjoyable? There are two parties in a relationship. What if one person stops enjoying it while the other still wants to enjoy it? (And that's the case most of the times!) See? That's why it's narcissistic. To say enjoy-till-it-lasts is to say: I am in only till I enjoy it.

Talking about love and not acknowledging the impermanence of romantic love isn't going to lead to a meaningful conclusion. Because then believing in love would be to believe that romantic love lasts "forever" (meant-to-be, soul mates etc) – which is not true and will only bring misery if earnestly expected; and to not believe in love is to carry enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset (or to completely keep away from a relationship) which isn't conducive to fulfillment in human life.

Do I believe in love?

If given only two choices, I would live with a suited person for life without romantic love, sharing only true love (respect-empathy-compassion); but would be wary of making a decision to be with someone carrying the enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset. Fortunately, in a serious lifelong relationship one can maintain some romance (not extreme passion and euphoria) throughout life of a relationship by conscious measures. One must only give up the fantasy ideals of romantic love and learn the importance of true love, and live like a mature human being rather than taking to infantile rambling for romance and passion.

All that said, I am aware that sometimes the natural forces take the better of us. Agree that seduction is really a fun game whether it's boldly played with sexual intent or by subtle way of romantic love; but that's not the best way for humans to be in love. In any case, a clear understanding is important so that there's no disconnect between what you were looking for and what you ended up with.

For me love is more than romance. As much as I am vulnerable to romantic love, I know what romantic feelings are for; and as much as I am open to enjoying the magic of romantic love, I value true love (which emerges when romance subsides) more than romantic love. I can't conceive a serious committed relationship with a woman who doesn't have this understanding.

Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility

2011-12-28T08:53:00.000+05:30

Determinism has no bearing on moral responsibility.

Determinism is linked to moral responsibility by some people in a sense that if determinism is true then we don't have free will, and if we don't have free will then how can we hold someone responsible for what he does?

To begin with, I will declare my position on both determinism and free will. I do believe determinism is true. As for free will, I think determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. However, the answer to the question of free will isn't so simple in that it depends on the level from where we are looking at life. (Read my case for free will for detailed account of my view.) If we look at life from the point outside of (or prior to) our consciousness then we are but passive atoms and molecules in motion subject to the laws of physics, and hence we can't be said to have free will. But I believe that since we exist (as an autonomous ego-entity, with the ability to see itself as distinct from the universe) only in post-consciousness realm, this question is only relevant after the point where we came to exist, because it's about "us" having or not having the will. We exist only through our consciousness, and therein we do have free will. (That's why I can even think about it now!) Saying that free will is an illusion would be to say that we (the "autonomous" beings) too are illusions; and if everything is illusion then we must accept that that's the only way things are, and that automatically renders everything real. Therefore, I lean towards the position that we do have free will.

[Comments on my stance on free will must go to this post and not on the current one, as the main topic here is different.]

Are you thinking that this is the argument I am going to use for unlinking determinism from moral responsibility? Well, No! Rather, I am going to concede for this post that we don't have free will. And still I have a case for moral responsibility! Not that I am afraid that the people linking determinism and moral responsibility are going to be taken seriously, but still just for the sake of discussion, here I present my case for moral responsibility in absence of free will.

A Case for Moral Responsibility in Absence of Free Will

We don't have free will. That means whatever action one takes is caused by myriad other factors, not by one's own will, thus making the agent free of responsibility of that action. According to these people, if someone commits a crime, we can't hold him morally responsible. It follows that there's no question of punishment. Appalling that would be! Right?

Well, hold on, says I. Okay, we don't have free will. Now say, Mr. X has raped a woman, and you are saying that he is not responsible for it on account of lack of free will. But when you tell me to not punish him, aren't you assuming that I have free will to take the decision whether to punish him or not? If there's no free will, no one has free will. So, you can't blame me for punishing Mr. X, the rapist, any more than you can blame him for his crime! You can't even ask me to consider it because I don't have free will to consider it with, man! I will punish him, and that punishment might well be "caused" by his criminal action quite in accord with determinism! See the point?

To consider whether we should hold someone morally responsible for his bad actions, referring to the lack of free will, is itself an act that requires free will, whether real or illusory. Since I have already agreed for this post that we don't have free will it must be illusory. So, let's say using an illusory free will, you decide that the rapist should not be punished because he doesn't have free will; but still the decision to not hold him accountable or punish him is itself arrived at using free will (however illusory)! And if you think we could use our illusory free will to consider whether or not to hold him accountable then why except him from the use of the same illusory free will? Do you see the implication such thinking will have on the society? Disastrous! So, why not instead by using the illusory free will take the decision of punishing him and thereby save the society of the doom!

Actually, there's no need of free will to punish an action which is detrimental to one's survival. Our instincts are enough to make us take the counter actions. For those people, to act otherwise, i.e. to defend someone because there's no free will, is to use one's (illusory, yeah?) free will in taking the decision, and thereby acting against their own position; or otherwise, insane – for choosing to run into disaster when the better decision could be taken just as well!

Hence, to those intellectual perverts (yes, that's what I call them who "seriously" live with such absurd views – and there are quite a few around me, if you're wondering!): As long as humans haven't totally lost sanity whether we believe we have free will or not, people will still be held morally responsible and accordingly be punished as well.

How Non-Critical Thinkers Create Problems

2011-12-19T20:46:00.000+05:30

It's a sad truth that most people in the world are non-critical thinkers. By non-critical thinkers here I mean non-philosopher type; those who aren't interested in understanding about life, the human nature, etc.

Something happened at my home this morning that I thought I could use as an example of how non-critical thinkers are good at creating problems in their (and other people's) lives without having the ability to realize that they are doing so. By the way, the non-critical thinker in this case is my mom!

So yes, in our residential society there's this garbage man who cleans the building premises, staircases, etc, and collects garbage from every house every morning. He collects garbage simultaneously while cleaning the stairs and the floor around the doors. To optimize his time, what he does is ring a doorbell and goes back to the cleaning job; because obviously no one opens the door right at the moment the doorbell rings. And if he waited at each door, say, on average 30 seconds, then for collecting waste from four doors he would, on average, be wasting two minutes (30 seconds X 4 homes). Two minutes, by the way, is also the average time he takes to clean the entire area of one particular floor. (Time figures are taken for the example such that it makes the explanation simple.) Yes, so what he does is this. He would ring a doorbell and get back to continue his work. And when the door opens he would take the waste bin and empty in into the big waste bucket he slides along with him.

Now looking closer into his working. Since it's his every day job, after many days of experience he would get used to the whole timing thing. For example, he knows that on average it takes 30 seconds for our door to open; also, it is best for him if our door opens when he has cleaned a certain area of the floor, after which he has to change the direction and angle from which he sweeps his broom. (It's like his task is divided into parts, and it's better if the task is interrupted after the completion of parts than at any random moment.) So, he would ring a bell at the time such that till the door opens he has completed that part of the task which I mentioned. For that's optimizing his time and efforts and gives him highest efficiency. (Of course, since there are four doors the actual efficiency management job is more complex, but it is achieved by this very process which I stated in a simplified form.)

Continuing the scenario, since he has to (or he is determined to) maintain his efficiency thus achieved, if my mom takes less than average time to open the door, she won't find him at the door when she opens it, and therefore will have to wait a few seconds till he completes the part (that I stated above) of the task and comes to collect waste. If, on the other hand, on some day my mom takes a few seconds more than the average time to open the door then he would have had to wait a few seconds, causing him a loss of efficiency. If this "deviation" from the average time to open the door is little (and of course, little deviations naturally happen everyday but that's fine), there isn't a problem. But if the deviations are large, i.e., the amount of time taken to open the door increases far more than the average time it takes, and if that is repeated day after day then it is understandable that the garbage man isn't going to like it; and he would have to work out his "most efficient strategy" of time management all anew!

That's what happened today. Actually, since last two days I have changed my morning routine somewhat and so the time of my having lunch has shifted. Consequently, the time of mom's cooking has shifted, to coincide with when the garbage man usually comes. A day before yesterday when the doorbell rang, my mom was cooking and so it took her far more than average time to open the door. About 1 minute, which is double of the average time. I was eating my lunch (Yes, I already start eating while the food is cooking, and it arrives into my plate in installments!) and getting restless while mom was stuck with the chapati she had to finish before rushing for the door. When the door opened, the man, as expected, was waiting at the door. Again yesterday the same thing happened. This time around the man grumbled something at mom out of displeasure. Seeing it, this thought flashed through my mind: "From tomorrow this poor man should ring the doorbell a minute in advance so that he doesn't have to wait long like this." Ringing the doorbell by taking the average time as 1 minute (instead of 30 seconds) he could make the completion of his that part of the task and the opening of our door coincide again.

This morning, surprisingly, I think, that's what he did. But sadly, when the doorbell rang, mom was free and she took hardly 5 seconds to open the door carrying a waste bag. And then – and this is the proof that he had recalculated the time – she had to wait for about 55 seconds till he came to the door. (If he hadn't recalculated the time, mom would have had to wait only 25 seconds.) At this, mom got real angry at him for keeping her waiting at the door for almost a minute while she had other things to do! This time around he was prepared with a verbal attack of his own. And you imagined right what happened. A squabble followed. Not going into the immaterial details, but at the end of the fight none of the parties, obviously, were pleased. (I hope there's no after-effects of this event to be faced in the future.)

What I gathered from this? I think it was unreasonable of my mom to get angry at him. Here's why: Since for past two days she (or I should say "we") had been spoiling the poor man's time management, today he came with a correction in his time management strategy, which was only right and rational on his part; but because of our varying deviations from the average time to open the door, things didn't go as they should have and mom got "punished". If we look at it justly, she got punished for what she did in the past two days. She deviated from the usual pattern, for two days in a row, which forced the man to reformulate his plans, and she deviates again today and gets punished. Twice the man got punished (about 30 seconds each time), and once mom did (55 seconds). On the whole it had got automatically even.

If mom was a critical thinker she would have seen this whole thing through and applied the necessary corrections in the following days instead of getting unnecessarily angry at the man. If I was in my mom's place, I would, in the following days, simply open the door taking less then average time and the man would automatically adapt his plans to match both our time. After that all I had to do is avoid large deviations from the average time, and in any case not repeat it, which is only fair. I think this understanding is necessary.

One has to know the human nature, and understand and respect everybody's desire and tendency to act for one's wellbeing, which in this case was the efficiency the man got through his time management. As long as possible, we should try to cooperate with each other in achieving that state which is most advantageous for everyone.

But ah, who thinks so much! Aren't you also wondering why I am making such big deal out of an incidence which no one looks into this closely? (Well, I just thought there was some lesson in it.) What mom thinks is that it's alright to make him wait at the door, after all it's his job; but how could he ring the doorbell and then not be there when the door is opened! Yes, she's got a point. But look what happened when she acted on that point.

In the world there arise myriad types of problems where critical thinking can be used to the common advantage. This example was far from excellent or comprehensive, I know. (Rather a clumsy one.) The incidence, however, shows an important point: There are so many cases happening in life where problems and miseries are caused because people don't understand life well. Humans don't understand other humans. Neither do I understand everything perfectly, but perfection is never the point. The more we understand life and the human nature, the smoother our transactions get.

Philosophers and critical-thinkers see life much more closely than ordinary people do. They see things not seen by others. And so their actions are often likely to be more efficient and yielding in terms of human well being. I am not saying that all philosophers and critical thinkers use their best judgement in every situation; but they certainly have the ability to act in a much more amicable way than the ordinary people who don't understand life. This is true especially of the thinkers who have well developed ethical and moral sense, which by the way is a function of critical thinking. Hence, we need more people to be interested in philosophy and critical thinking and, in general, understanding life.

Related post(s):

Why Choose Philosophy Over Mindless Living

Freedom Always Trumps Social Control – Right or Wrong?

2011-12-14T20:58:00.000+05:30

A blogger friend (who I respect) wrote an article Change Is a Choice in which she says:

Freedom always trumps social control. (By social control she means legal enforcement against people doing what they like as long as they are not harming others.)
Laws prohibiting terrorism are moral and just, while laws prohibiting drug use are not so. (The reason she gives is that, unlike a terrorist, a drug-doer doesn't harm anyone else but himself.)
Morality can't be externally imposed. That which is outside the domain of choice is outside the domain of morality. (This I don't disagree with, by the way.)
Even if it means having to live with problems, or wait long for betterment, freedom to live as one likes is a must. The "do-gooders" – even well-intentioned ones – have no right to decide for others what is right.

The reader can learn her point of view by following the original article and the comments thereof linked above.

My objection: "Freedom always trumps social control" sounds very wise and nice, but I have a problem with the word "always". My stance: Controls are necessary to the extent people are ignorant. The following post is my case against the statement "freedom always trumps control" with regards to the objection I stated.

I think that it is a very delicate and complex issue and must not be dealt with as black and white. I don't largely disagree with her, but I don't fully agree too, because the use of the word "always" indicates that she treats it as black and white. By doing so, she suggests a solution to social problems, which is less or no control by the government, while I am at a loss for perfect solution. I do not think that this issue can be resolved so simply without doing more harm than benefit. I would be satisfied with having no perfect solution but would be wary of suggesting a black and white solution.

My arguments

When a child is fascinated by fire and is running into it, doesn't a parent have a right to stop or control it? The child would then cry and scream, perhaps, for being thwarted. But so, should it be allowed to run into the fire saying that it has a right to learn for himself that fire is hot, and that that would be a lesson better learned? The child might get severely burned, right? Similarly, we put control on terrorists; impose our moral standard on them. Isn't that desirable?

The instinct to control collective social behavior isn't wrong in itself. I also tend to think the instinct to control has an evolutionary significance. Like, if parents didn't feel an instinct to control their children's behavior, the infants might not survive. At larger, social, level too a similar arrangement is at work.

If one agrees that a parent can control a child, then why can't a government control its people? Let's view the family as an organism and an individual as one of the cells that make the organism. The society is exactly the same kind of organism as the family but of a much bigger size. The instinct to control is the instinct to increase the survival and well being of the organism. The organism itself is of prime importance and not its individual cells. Because individual cells can only exist if the organism itself is there! So, each and every cell's primary interest should be to maintain the existence of the organism which houses them, and not their own interest alone because that would in principle lead to tragedy of the commons, killing the organism and with it all its cells. If all cells want to exist then they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the organism as above their own.

Now, all cells do want to exist. Removing the metaphor, all people do want to exist and thrive. (Who doesn't?) So they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the society as above their own individual interest. Because human societies are such that all humans are interdependent. No one can survive alone on one's own. A human being in a civilized society is, by birth, a part of the society. Any person thinking of himself as a distinct, independent individual who can think only for himself, is committing a fallacy that in principle would lead to "tragedy of the commons", as I mentioned above. Hence, if one believes that one wants to have a good life then one is automatically obliged to not act in a way that only serves one's own selfish interests, without benefiting at all to the society. Because just by existing, one is a cost to the society.

Assuming that we have immaculate and infallible mechanism to measure moral judgement, I would go so far as to say that any human being who is able-bodied and able-minded, but isn't contributing to social well being, and thus is only a cost to the society can be imposed external morality by those whose judgement is better. The problem (which I am fully aware of) is in the measurement of who is right and wrong. We don't have immaculate and infallible capacity or mechanism of judgement. And for that there is no solution. That is what makes the issue grey. And there I don't see black and white answer. There is no solid line which divides grey from black and white. So all through the grey continuum, we can't tell for sure where control is right and where it is wrong because it's subject to subjective judgement of people.

What my friend suggests here is: Treat the grey as white ("always freedom"), precisely because it is grey. On the other hand, the position of "always control" would be like saying: Treat the grey as black. What I am saying is: Treat the grey as "grey"!

Not all people know what is in best interest of the society. And quite a few these days blatantly declare that they don't even care. This blatant class doesn't deserve to live, frankly. Not that I am going to shoot them, don't worry! It's just that their life is a waste, and a contradiction in itself. They want to exist, but they don't care whether the society that keeps them alive exists. Myopic! These people need strong controls. Then there's the class which means well, but hasn't the right judgement as to what is the best interest of the society. These need good education first. But if education doesn't work because of whatever reasons ("weakness of will" being a major one) then legal controls are of help. Some of them might feel it's unjust, but in the end it's for their betterment only. The rights that they feel they are deprived of are the rights that they never actually had! They are those myopic rights that will do harm to them without them being aware of it. These days TV and certain class of films are giving people the ideas of rights (through propagating individualistic philosophy) that never should exist. Not if the organism, the society, has to exist.

My position

I think this is not only my position but is what actually happens, and will happen anyway.

I will use my best judgement in weighing each case separately to decide whether I want to vote in for control, or for freedom. It seems to be the most logical way to me. Because I can't act against my better judgement. Acting against one's better judgement is by definition immoral, isn't it?

If, say for example, the government comes up with a ban on porn, I will weigh it with my best judgement, and if I think the ban is right, I will vote in for the ban. If, in another example, the government plans to ban the whole of internet, I would probably vote in for freedom. Which side I will be, that I can not decide by some fixed rule, as my friend suggests in her article. I will use my best judgement in every situation.

I think if one puts an individual above society, then one would put freedom above control as a rule. If one puts society above individual then one will opt for using one's best judgement. And that judgement is not as a rule meant for individual, but for the greater entity which includes all individuals. It could be in favor of control, and it could be against control. Depends on the case. The focus is on social good, and not individual (personal) good alone. There will be exceptional cases where my moral standing will be put to test, and on occasions I may fail the test, since I am not perfect. But in general, this is the view I endorse.

An individual's best judgement is not always the right judgement, I know, but nor is the rule "freedom always trumps social control" always going to lead to best outcome. Besides, I just explained how the maxim is fallacious. The issue remains unsolvable. I will never claim that there is a perfect solution to this problem. I have just tried to justify my stance and my method.

Finally, another wise friend of mine gives his input which I agree with, and which quite nicely sums up my arguments:

Many people do not think of long term consequences, and not everybody is wise enough to do so. Moreover, people expect the society to pay for the consequences of their short-term thinking. It is society which has to keep a drug addict in an emergency room. It is society who has to take care of the kids of a fool who became a vegetable because he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.

As long as society is providing and is responsible for an individual and for the consequences of his acts, the individual cannot claim total freedom to do whatever he wants, even if it is to harm only himself.

Update: My saying that we should put the society above individual may seem like I am suggesting one should die if it benefits the society. No, that I don't mean. Let me make it clear that the very concept of morality is to enjoy higher well being. So "self-sacrifice" defeats the purpose of moral behavior. What I am saying, in essence, is that an individual must align his/her self interest with the interests of the society, so that well being has to necessarily increase. If one thinks for oneself alone, and if all of us did that, alienation and chaos would naturally result, which would reduce the well being of all. That's what Tragedy of the Commons explains.

External links:

Sex – Love or Expression of Love

2011-12-07T12:29:00.001+05:30

Sex is neither love nor an expression of love. It's a quasi-voluntary indulgence of animal nature. Give it a status higher than that and prepare to be miserable.

That love which depends on sexual act for its expression (e.g. romantic love) is but a sexual desire in disguise of love. Romantic love is a joke.

The strict definition of "love" in this regard is: Respect, empathy, compassion. Nothing else. Because in the end only those are the things that give us deepest satisfaction from inter-human relationships. Sex is an important element of man-woman relationship, but all along it is serving to our animal side, while the human side only craves love (strictly) as defined above.

That sex is an expression of love is a widely prevalent notion. Here's my explanation against it: Love is respect-empathy-compassion. Three cases: One feels love for one's 1) mother, 2) sister, and 3) girlfriend. Meaning, one feels respect-empathy-compassion towards one's mother, sister and girlfriend. In the first two cases this love is perfectly expressed without using the channel of sex. One hugs and kisses one's mother and sister, but it isn't accompanied by sexual arousal. Hence, hugging and kissing are not by themselves sexual acts. (We do that to babies too.) So, if we say that sex is an expression of love, aren't we saying that while one can express respect-empathy-compassion towards one's mother and sister through various other means without sex, but with girlfriend the same thing love, i.e. respect-empathy-compassion needs an additional channel of sex for its expression? That doesn't make sense as to why. That means in the girlfriend case there's something else, in addition to just love i.e. respect-empathy-compassion that is being transferred between the persons, which essentially requires the channel of sex. That something else, I would say, is "mating package", which contains romance plus sexual desire.

In the girlfriend case, in contrast to the other two cases, now we have two things. Love, which is respect-empathy-compassion, and "mating package". Now this is important: Interestingly, mating package creates in one's mind an illusion of love. Meaning, when the mating package is active, one feels respect-empathy-compassion for the person one is fixated on, but it is not genuine.

Proof: When one is in "romantic love" one feels respect-empathy-compassion for the person one is fixated on, but wouldn't feel the same respect-empathy-compassion for someone else carrying the same qualities. One becomes biased. And that bias is due to romance, or the active mating package. That's the reason one feels strongly even towards a person who doesn't carry similar ideology, or continually hurts one, and is always in conflict of one kind or another. Still love! That's actually an active mating package. Hadn't it been for mating package, one wouldn't be stuck on that person, much less feel any respect-empathy-compassion.

In an ideal case it might be that one genuinely has respect-empathy-compassion for one's partner, accompanying the active mating package. But if we look at the mating package in isolation, separately, it is clearly not a sign of genuine respect-empathy-compassion.

Reminding at this point that mating package is romance + sexual desire.

Now, mating package originates out of our animal side. Because one does not have control over it. In ordinary cases when one stops liking someone one can say to oneself: "Okay, that's enough. I can't respect, empathize, feel compassion for this person anymore for so and so reason". One is done. But in case where mating package is active, that is not possible. In the former, the love is originating out of the "autonomous" part of the person, while in the latter, the illusion-love is originating out of the heteronomous part of the person. Heteronomous part is the same in us as in other animals which are more-or-less fully heteronomous. Hence, anything happening due to mating package pertains to animal nature. The genuine love, which is respect-empathy-compassion comes out of the autonomous, human part of us.

I am not talking about disowning the animal part of us. It's as much a part of us as the human part, and has to be entertained for a wholesome experience. But since the animal part is heteronomous (hence quasi-voluntary) and is governed by the universe, and human part is autonomous, there are often conflicts of goals between the two. So, in the event of conflict, if one knows what belongs to which part, then only one can make a right decision of choosing one's human goals, instead of tilting towards the universe's goals and bruise the human within. Universe is barbarous. Autonomy is the hallmark of being human. That part of one's behavior on which one doesn't have autonomous control pertains to one's animal nature.

It should be clear that I am not against having a mature relationship with romantic love and sex. And no, I don't have romanticism attached to abstention! Here's what I am for: Enter into a relationship with perfect understanding of romantic love mechanism and the place and function of sex. Romantic love can't be bypassed, so it will develop. Enjoy it, but don't get carried away by it (as in don't develop unrealistic expectations following it). Also, of course, indulge in sex to the fullest, but be aware of what it is, so as to not give it undeserved status, which might cause tragedies. Example: If one thinks of sex as sacred union and things like that, then one can't bear it when one learns that one's partner sometimes fantasizes about others. Another example: if one considers sexual gratification as a sign of it being a "true love" then sexual dissatisfaction would induce one to break the relationship. I could give many tragic examples with different reasoning people hold with respect to sex and romance. The idea is to understand what is what, so that one knows what is really important. It is not sex and romance, but love i.e. respect-empathy-compassion that matters in the end.

Eudaimonia as the Purpose of Human Life

2011-12-06T08:08:00.000+05:30

I recently got introduced to Aristotle's idea of the purpose of human life, and it resembles very much my own view. It gave much clarity and refinement to my thoughts. According to Aristotle, Eudaimonia is the ultimate human goal. Eudaimonia is a Greek word meaning Happiness or human well-being. For this post I will stick to "happiness".

A few months back I wrote an article titled Happiness as the Goal of Life — Right or Wrong? in which I said that happiness should not be the purpose of life. It might seem that I am changing my mind on it now, but that's not the case. The reason is that the goal-happiness which I then said should not be the purpose of life is not the same happiness meant by Eudaimonia. So, let's understand what Eudaimonic happiness is (with my own thought inputs).

What is Eudaimonic happiness?

Eudaimonia means happiness. However, this happiness is not fun or pleasure, but the feeling of having lived a good life. At the end of one's life when one looks back on life and feels totally satisfied with the way one's life has been, that means one has had a happy life, or one is happy in Eudaimonic sense. It is more akin to contentment. In Eudaimonic sense, happiness is a long term project, and can't be attained by short term fun and pleasure alone. Most people mean happiness as fun and pleasure. When they are having fun they say they are happy. The happiness which should not be the goal of life is "fun and pleasure".

In the aforementioned article I also wrote: "Having a satisfactory life over a long period of time (not in moment to moment evaluation) is also generally called a happy life. In that sense if one means that the goal of life is to make a "happy life" then it's fine. But if the goal-happiness means every moment one has to pounce on what brings one the greatest pleasure, without any regard for anything or anyone else but oneself, that's a myopic and naïve approach to happiness."

A satisfactory life over a long period of time, is exactly what Eudaimonic happiness is.

Pleasure can be a bodily pleasure like sex, tasty food etc. Fun can be when you are partying with your friends, dancing with DJ and activities like that. According to the idea of Eudaimonia, when you are pursuing fun and pleasure, you are not necessarily pursuing happiness. That means when you are having fun or pleasure, you are not necessarily happy.

To understand this more clearly, Eudaimonia is the ultimate goal of life, and thus should be pursued as a final end. Whereas, all other activities, including fun and pleasure, should be pursued as means to the end which is Eudaimonia. Meaning, fun and pleasure are not to be pursued as ends in themselves, for their own sake; they are to be pursued because and to the extent they contribute towards the goal of "good life". Fun and pleasure do not always contribute towards Eudaimonic happiness, and that's where it becomes imperative to take a closer look.

Fun and pleasure, and Eudaimonic happiness

You must have heard some simpletons say it with certain air of superiority: "My philosophy of life is simple. Have fun! If you're having fun doing something, it's right." Really?

A simple example suffices to debunk this feel-good, myopic idea. Smoking is fun. So, going by the principle of this philosophy one should smoke. Now think, in long term would one be better off if one smokes a lot, and thereby has a lot of fun, or if one doesn't smoke? Not difficult to answer. One is better off by not smoking. That means a rational-intelligent person would not have short term fun of smoking, and will thus have a better life. And better life is a happy life in Eudaimonic sense. We saw how the have-fun philosophy is faulty in principle.

The idea is this: Having fun and pleasure is not wrong, but it is only right to the extent it contributes to the goal of Eudaimonic happiness. Those fun and pleasurable activities that don't contribute towards making a good life are not to be pursued. The example I gave reaffirms the statement that fun and pleasure are not to be pursued as ends in themselves, but as (and to the extent they are) means to the end which is Eudaimonia.

How to achieve Eudaimonic happiness?

Now we know what Eudaimonic happiness is and why it should be the ultimate purpose of human life. The next big question is how to go about it. What are the things and activities that actually contribute towards the Eudaimonic happiness?

Revisit the smoking example I gave above. We saw that a rational-intelligent person would make a good life by not having short term fun of smoking. What did he do, in principle, to achieve Eudaimonia? By using his reason and analytic capacity he evaluated the quality of fun from smoking vis-à-vis the desirability of overall good life. Instead of being directed by his base nature (desire for fun) alone, he made use of his intellect.

Fun and pleasure appeal to our base nature. An animal would not feel dissatisfied in life by indulging only in bodily pleasures, because that's its nature. Human beings have that animal nature too; but in addition to that, humans also have much higher and sophisticated capacities like thinking and reasoning. Therefore, just by indulging their base nature (having fun and pleasure) human beings can't be fully happy and satisfied. Because that way they would not have a full human experience.

That clears the cloud. Those activities which are done making full use of human capacities provide the most gratifying human experience. It does not say that acting out of base nature is wrong per se, but such acts should be rationally analysed to see whether they are in accord with the long term purpose of good life.

Let's test this idea with examples. We take two extreme activities, respectively, involving acting on base nature, and acting against base nature, i.e. using rationality.

First activity is sex. Imagine you having sex with many attractive people and it's extremely pleasurable. Since sex has no use of reasoning capacity at all, you are totally acting out of your base nature. The second activity is sharing your meal with a hungry poor person. By sharing your meal (let's assume it is delicious too) you would be having less of bodily pleasure. You may even not fully gratify your own hunger. But the reasoning mind would tell that feeding the hungry poor is worthwhile because perhaps he needs food more. Now, when the years have passed and you are looking back on your life which of those two activities will make you feel good about the life you have lived? The answer, I hope, is not difficult. One doesn't think of orgasms one has had in life and feels good about life. Instead, one remembers the good and virtuous deeds one has done and feels that one's life has been good and worthwhile. Those are the things that make one take pride in oneself.

Enter virtue. Virtue is a central idea of the concept of Eudaimonic happiness. Since virtue is essentially human construct, it can only be cultivated using our human capacities – reason and intellect. In the original Aristotelian concept the term "virtue" is broadly covered (for which you may follow this piece) but for this post I am limiting its expounding.

If being virtuous means having less fun, then the purpose of life must not be having fun. That is so, precisely because Eudamonia is a function of virtue, not of fun. Virtue does not preclude fun, but it's not centered around it. Virtuous life is a way to Eudaimonia.

Finally, I would say if there is anything like true happiness or perfect happiness, it is Eudaimonia.