A World Where Everything is Provided For

[QueSi]

I take this from brightlight's fascinating thread, as well as Wiccan_Child's fascinating reply.

Imagine a world where everything -- absolutely everything -- is provided for. Every single moment of pain is nonexistent, all our wishes are provided for, no work is necessary, ad infinitum. Assume for a contradictory moment that we're still as we are now in terms of human nature, etc.

Would you want to live in this world? Why or why not?

If I wanted a Lamborghini in this world, would it just appear or would someone buy me one or what?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What if my pursuit is to kill others? Suppose I like nothing more than causing pain and suffering?

In the OP's hypothetical, there is no pain or suffering. Therefore, you would not be allowed to satisfy your bloodlust on beings that could actually suffer or feel pain. Maybe philosophical zombies will be provided for your statistician?

But since this world lacks pain and suffering, you likely couldn't comprehend the concept of pain, let alone wish to inflict it. A fish isn't just unable to walk (certain exceptions notwithstanding), it has no concept of it.

If I earn my way into this fictional paradise, all the while denying my true nature, will I be rewarded with whatever I choose? If so, it seems like poor deal for those who must share this heaven with me.

Lobotomies are available upon request.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Imagine a world where everything -- absolutely everything -- is provided for. Every single moment of pain is nonexistent, all our wishes are provided for, no work is necessary, ad infinitum. Assume for a contradictory moment that we're still as we are now in terms of human nature, etc.

Would you want to live in this world? Why or why not?

No, I certainly would not.

Such a world would be counter-flourishing. It would be very difficult for anyone to self-actualize and fulfill their natures as human individuals. I don't equate the human good with mere feelings, such as the absence of pain or suffering. As Aristotle had wisely pointed out, eudaimonia is an activity.

As I see it, there is something fundamental to our natures that requires that we create values -- that we "work" (not necessarily in paid employment) -- in order to be fully human. We ought to "follow our bliss", not live in guaranteed, effortless bliss.

This world sounds to me like the emotionally shallow World State of the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where immediate gratification infantilizes people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

No, I certainly would not.

Such a world would be counter-flourishing. It would be very difficult for anyone to self-actualize and fulfill their natures as human individuals. I don't equate the human good with mere feelings, such as the absence of pain or suffering. As Aristotle had wisely pointed out, eudaimonia is an activity.

As I see it, there is something fundamental to our natures that requires that we create values -- that we "work" (not necessarily in paid employment) -- in order to be fully human. We ought to "follow our bliss", not live in guaranteed, effortless bliss.

This world sounds to me like the emotionally shallow World State of the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, where immediate gratification infantilizes people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This. I was also reading the Nichomachean Ethics last night, on the passage regarding unrestraint and dissipation, where A-dawg points out how people are "soft" who intentionally try to avoid pain. Pain is an essential ingredient in virtue -- at least the virtue of temperance.

That said, I wouldn't understand an alternative world where pain wasn't an ingredient of being-at-work, which is the main ingredient of flourishing or Eudaimonia or happiness for people. Which is why I can't fathom another nature than our own.

 

[Received]

If I wanted a Lamborghini in this world, would it just appear or would someone buy me one or what?

Sure, just happens, abracadabra.

 

[QueSi]

Sure, just happens, abracadabra.

Hmm, seems like people would fill the world so full of there wants and desires that there wouldn't be any room to breath, I'm out.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm, seems like people would fill the world so full of there wants and desires that there wouldn't be any room to breath, I'm out.

Need room to breath? Bam, the world is bigger

 

[QueSi]

Need room to breath? Bam, the world is bigger

Hmm, I don't know if I would like the increased gravity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm, I don't know if I would like the increased gravity.

Local gravity is customised for your convenience. Golf may need new rules

 

[QueSi]

Local gravity is customised for your convenience. Golf may need new rules

Local gravity?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Local gravity?

You may want low gravity, others may want high gravity. Everyone gets their own gravity.

 

[QueSi]

You may want low gravity, others may want high gravity. Everyone gets their own gravity.

Oh, physics do not apply in this world, interesting. Yeah, I'm down then.

 

[quatona]

Sure, just happens, abracadabra.

And this is a world you would understand?

 

[Received]

And this is a world you would understand?

Not exactly.

Maybe that's an unconscious point of this thread: an ideal world (i.e., one where God gives the best possible) is not a reasonable one.

 

[quatona]

Not exactly.

Maybe that's an unconscious point of this thread: an ideal world (i.e., one where God gives the best possible) is not a reasonable one.

It shouldn´t be unreasonable to God. It´s what used to be there prior to creation.

Not to derail this thread, but in the end all these ideas and god redefinitions always lead me back to the most basic problem I have with understanding theology:
What would be the point - for a perfect spiritual entity living in spiritual perfection - in creating a physical world...creating conscious beings (like himself) - into a situation that (unlike his own) necessarily comes with systemic problems?

 

[Received]

It shouldn´t be unreasonable to God. It´s what used to be there prior to creation.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about God. You know, God is supposed to be super-duper (maybe infinitely, whatever that means) smart. But we're really not, and it's our attempt to find rational justification in things related to God's existence that's problematic.

Not to derail this thread, but in the end all these ideas and god redefinitions always lead me back to the most basic problem I have with understanding theology:
What would be the point - for a perfect spiritual entity living in spiritual perfection - in creating a physical world...creating conscious beings (like himself) - into a situation that (unlike his own) necessarily comes with systemic problems?

That's a huge question, quatona, and I don't really think it's fair to use this as a pivot point determining the intelligibility of theism. It might be like a non-physicist coming along to a physicist and saying "well, I don't get how on earth the world could exist with quantum mechanics, so I'm just not going to believe in it." That is: rational incredulity about how something works warrants its rejection.

But perhaps the systemic problems are a function of our finite intelligence failing to understand different aspects of a higher intelligence (perhaps even one that works on a fundamentally different realm, like from eternity, whatever that means).

What I don't understand from the opposite stance is how a world without God and thus one that has none of the pluses of an afterlife, a benevolent force that sustains the cosmos, and other positives that come with spirituality is somehow more acceptable (better) than a world with God but no clear reason how certain evils can be understood in the grand scheme of things. That, I think, is the (not too often) opposite tangle from the stance of atheism. And I struggle with both stances, btw.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, but I'm not talking about God. You know, God is supposed to be super-duper (maybe infinitely, whatever that means) smart. But we're really not, and it's our attempt to find rational justification in things related to God's existence that's problematic.

Sure. But if there´s no problem whatsoever explaining something without introducing a certain god concept and the introduction of a god concept creates a huge amount of explanation problems the god concept (unless it´s very good at explaining something that can´t be explained without the concept) the god concept is..well, not helping with anything.

That's a huge question, quatona, and I don't really think it's fair to use this as a pivot point determining the intelligibility of theism. It might be like a non-physicist coming along to a physicist and saying "well, I don't get how on earth the world could exist with quantum mechanics, so I'm just not going to believe in it." That is: rational incredulity about how something works warrants its rejection.

Yes, except that this was not my argument.
It´s more like I was under the impression that your updated god concept was meant to add to intelligibility, and I was telling you that it didn´t - as far as I am concerned.
As for quantum mechanics: I gotta admit that I have no clue whatsoever about. However, if the same had to be said about quantum mechanics as has to be said about god (i.e. that the concept doesn´t help explaining anything but simply adds logical problems where there were none without it) I would have the same issues with it.

But perhaps the systemic problems are a function of our finite intelligence failing to understand different aspects of a higher intelligence (perhaps even one that works on a fundamentally different realm, like from eternity, whatever that means).

I´ll never swallow an explanation that by its very nature appeals to it´s inability to explain anything. Sorry.

What I don't understand from the opposite stance is how a world without God and thus one that has none of the pluses of an afterlife, a benevolent force that sustains the cosmos, and other positives that come with spirituality is somehow more acceptable (better) than a world with God but no clear reason how certain evils can be understood in the grand scheme of things. That, I think, is the (not too often) opposite tangle from the stance of atheism.

So let me try to explain. The world as it is is as it is. I have to accept it. Without the idea of a god the answer to existential "why"- questions is simply "because that´s the way it is". No intention behind it. That doesn´t make the world more convenient or pleasant but it doesn´t even prompt me to ask "why" (in the way a theist would ask it with his assumed intentional force behind everything).
The difference shouldn´t be too hard to see.
Imagine you have fallen into a deep hole in the ground without any hope to escape it.
Now imagine your feelings when you start entertaining the idea that someone intentionally has dug this hole as a trap for you to fall in.
That´s the difference between "that´s just the way your situation is" and "that´s the situation someone intended you to be in". [And in the latter case, the explanation that the explanation of the motives of the person intentionally locking me in the hole lies beyond my intelligence is not really an explanation. I don´t expect a tortured lab rat to accomodate with her situation just because a fellow tortured lab rat "explains" that the higher purpose is unknown to him and "perhaps" beyond both their imaginative and cognitive powers, and "perhaps" helps the "higher beings´" (humans´) purposes in a way that isn´t intelligible to both of them.]

And I struggle with both stances, btw.

Don´t you see how one of the stances comes with no problems whatsoever - unless you superimpose the paradigms of the other stance upon it? There is no meaningful "why?"- question - unless you preassume there to be an intentional power.

 

[Received]

I´ll never swallow an explanation that by its very nature appeals to it´s inability to explain anything. Sorry.

This is my ADHD side-post collection.

How far does this reasoning go? You don't accept something that you can't understand? Does this include things you can understand that are connected to things that are, if you plug deeper and look at other connected causes (e.g., quantum mechanics, the basic question of why there's anything rather than nothing, etc.), really mysterious?

Our power to explain things eventually reaches a point where we can't explain anymore. That's just part of us being finite beings, who because of evolution have both limits and scope, which means by definition that things are at some point beyond our understanding -- analogously how a kitten doesn't get mathematics. I don't understand how you can't apply this to something else, like God.

 

[quatona]

This is my ADHD side-post collection.

How far does this reasoning go? You don't accept something that you can't understand?

No. I don´t accept something to be an explanation that doesn´t explain anything.

Does this include things you can understand that are connected to things that are, if you plug deeper and look at other connected causes (e.g., quantum mechanics, the basic question of why there's anything rather than nothing, etc.), really mysterious?

As I said, I am completely clueless when it comes to quantum mechanics - but if it´s true that quantum mechanics tries to explain why there´s anything rather than nothing, and actually doesn´t help explaining it, my refusal would indeed include quantum mechanics (as an explanation why there´s something rather than nothing).

Our power to explain things eventually reaches a point where we can't explain anymore.

Yes. That´s the point where a simple mind like me would summarize the state of affairs as "I/we don´t know"). Alternatively, I would consider the possibility that the question is loaded.

That's just part of us being finite beings, who because of evolution have both limits and scope, which means by definition that things are at some point beyond our understanding -- analogously how a kitten doesn't get mathematics.

I have no problem whatsoever with assuming that there are thing beyond my understanding. I´m just not willing to invent things or entities that are - by definition - beyond my understanding in order to not explain the stuff that´s beyond my understanding.

I don't understand how you can't apply this to something else, like God.

The answer has to parts.
Firstly, I don´t know that there´s such a thing as God. (This is a very huge point, that actually should have to be solved before we even go to the next step).
Secondly, if I knew there were a God (an entity beyond my understanding), I find it unreasonable to be asked to be concerned with his - to me - unintelligible problems, any more than I would expect a kitten to be concerned with me solving my mathematical problems, or expect my cat to accept the statement "Well, Klaus has mathematical problems (you don´t even know what that is!)" as a satisfactory answer to the question "Why is there no food in my bowl?".

Maybe God exist and God has his problems (which are beyond our understanding). That, however, would not be an explanation (on our terms). An "explanation" that explains stuff on God´s (to us unintelligible) terms may be an explanation on God´s terms. But it doesn´t explain anything to me.

 

[Received]

I don't think (or I don't intend to think) that God is completely beyond our understanding, or else you wouldn't even be able to have an intelligible discussion. You could say that God's activities are beyond our comprehension, or that part of God's nature is beyond our comprehension, and that there's a difference between saying God is completely beyond our understanding and that God is *mostly* beyond our understanding, but that doesn't mean we can't accept him as a sort of ontological hypothesis.

But I've got to push the QM analogy: we know that QM, basically, fits, given all sorts of complicated mathematical equations that tell us over and over that it does. But we don't know how it works, the "reason" for it being the way it is. Like God. We don't know how He works, but we can make a statement about his fittedness theoretically, because *some* parts of his existence make sense whereas others (most?) don't, such as how he justifies evil. Something like that.