There are times when what people do directly leads to a level of satisfaction that is lower than the one experienced in the present moment.
An example would be placing a hand on a stove in order to get rid of a mild discomfort caused by body posture. You think the stove is turned off and cold, but in reality, it is turned on and quite hot. Thus, you go from mild discomfort to severe discomfort. That is motion in the direction of lesser satisfaction that directly contradicts your expectation of moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Yes, that was their conversation. And yes, he [Mr. Lessans’s friend] was out to prove Mr. Lessans wrong. That much is obvious.
The question that I’m asking, and that you’re not answering, is how does Mr. Lessans know that his friend wants to eat the red apple more than the yellow one? His friend doesn’t claim that. In fact, he disagrees. He’s claiming that he wants to eat the yellow apple more than the red one.
Let’s take a look at what he’s doing:
Literally, Mr. Lessans is saying “Isn’t it obvious that you, my friend, are wrong, and I, Mr. Lessans, am right?”
Instead of demonstrating why he’s right when he says that his friend wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow one, he’s expecting it to be obvious to others.
How do you know that he wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow one?
I know you’re trying to negate these observations by calling them circular. They are tautological which is different than circular. If you think he has proved nothing you won’t be interested in any further discussion which is okay.
I am merely asking you to answer a question that I don’t think you answered so far. That question being: what makes you (or Mr. Lessans) think that Mr. Lessans’s friend wanted to eat the red apple more than he wanted to eat the yellow one? What’s your (or Mr. Lessans’s) reasoning?
In order to answer this question, you have to present something that resembles a syllogism. Your answer must be of the form “Because (A) and (B) are true, we can conclude that (C) is true as well.” It’s not enough to say “Mr. Lessans’s friend did in fact want to eat the red apple more than the yellow”. That’s not an argument, that’s an assertion. To answer in such a manner would be to merely assert the conclusion. And it isn’t enough to respond by asking “But isn’t it obvious that he did?” because it’s not obvious; that would merely be an effort to avoid presenting an argument (if it’s obvious to everyone that something is true, there is no need to convince anyone, and thus, no need to present an argument.) And you also can’t answer with “Because Mr. Lessans’s friend wanted to eat it more than not” because that would be using the conclusion as a premise.
As far as I can tell, Mr. Lessans did not present an argument in favor of this particular claim. Instead, he merely asserted that it is true. If that’s not the case, then I don’t see it and someone should help me see it.
It is true that I don’t think that Mr. Lessans presented an argument in favor of this paritcular claim. But does that mean I’m not interested in any further discussion? Does that mean I am not open to being wrong? I don’t think so. In fact, I think I am more than interested in the discussion.
Magnus Anderson: There are times when what people do directly leads to a level of satisfaction that is lower than the one experienced in the present moment.
An example would be placing a hand on a stove in order to get rid of a mild discomfort caused by body posture. You think the stove is turned off and cold, but in reality, it is turned on and quite hot. Thus, you go from mild discomfort to severe discomfort. That is motion in the direction of lesser satisfaction that directly contradicts your expectation of moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Peacegirl: Actually, it doesn’t. We can get hurt accidentally. Would you put your hand on a hot stove on purpose? Some masochists might, but most people would not find this at all satisfying and would learn from their mishap.
Yes he did.
He claims he likes to eat the yellow apple more than the red. He thinks by eating the red he is proving he is going toward dissatisfaction when, in fact, he isn’t.
He explained that in this friend’s effort to prove that we don’t move in this direction, he was proving that we do even with this example. Lessans explained the reason why.
That was his apparent proof; that he could eat what he didn’t want because he was allergic, therefore he believed he was moving toward dissatisfaction.
He wanted to eat the red apple over the yellow to prove his case. He offered this example as his proof. He failed though because it didn’t prove what he set out to do.
That’s what the friend asserted. He said he was going to eat the red apple, even though he was allergic, to show he could move toward dissatisfaction. Lessans explained the reason why his proof failed. Even though he was not thrilled to eat the red apple, he got greater satisfaction out of proving that he could choose something very dissatisfying, but this did not prove his case.
This isn’t an argument. He was demonstrating why we are compelled to move in this direction, even when it appears that we aren’t. It’s as simple as that.
Maybe someone can do a better job than him. Lessans was all for that.
That’s the issue. Mr. Lessans didn’t explain why his friend’s proof failed. Instead, he merely asserted that it failed. Mr. Lessans merely asserted his opinion that his friend wanted to eat the red apple more than than the yellow because it allowed his friend to prove his point. That is a possibility, I don’t doubt that. But at the same time, it’s also possible that his friend wanted to eat the yellow more than the red one. How did he eliminate that possibility?
His friend had two options in front of him and for each of the two options he perceived certain pros and certain cons. For example, eating the yellow apple he perceived as having a single pro (getting the nutrients that he needs) and no cons (no apparent costs); on the other hand, eating the red apple he perceived as having two advantages (getting the nutrients that he needs, proving his point) and a single con (allergic reaction.) This information of how many pros and how many cons each of the options under consideration is perceived as having is not enough to tell us which of the two options is perceived as more preferrable for the simple reason that we know nothing about the weight of each pro and each con. In fact, if we assume that every pro and every con has an equal weight, then the two options are equally preferrable (the preference of eating the yellow apple would, in that case, be equal to: 1 pro - 0 cons = 1; the preference of eating the red apple, on the other hand, would be equal to: 2 pros - 1 con = 1.) Mr. Lessans seems to be assigning a lot of weight to the incentive to prove a point – for a reason that is unknown to me.
It’s not about Mr. Lessans assigning a lot of weight. He’s not the one that set up the thought experiment. The meaningful difference that compels one choice over another (in the direction of greater satisfaction) can only be made by the individual making that choice, no one else.
No, his friend was making the claim that eating the red apple instead of the yellow one was proof that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Not true.
Yes, his friend wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow. It was what the friend told him he was going to do to prove Lessans wrong. You said Lessans “claimed” that his friend wanted to eat the red apple over the yellow. I don’t consider that a claim; his friend told him.
We can’t move in the direction of greater dis-satisfaction although it may look that way from an outsider. The choice is usually the lesser evil but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. I was hoping to move onto Chapter Two. If not, it’s too bad because this chapter will help clarify any confusion. People are free to come to their own conclusions but it should be done after careful examination, not before.
Yes, his friend told him he was going to eat the red apple in order to prove his point. But he didn’t say he wants to eat the red apple more than the yellow one. In fact, he said the opposite.
The bolded part is where he [Lessans’s friend] clearly states that he wants to eat the yellow apple more than the red one.
It is Lessans who claimed that his friend wants to eat the red apple more than the yellow one. Here:
Lessans is saying that his friend actually wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow one and that he did so because it allowed him to prove his point. In other words, even though eating the red apple had a perceived negative (allergic reaction), it also had a perceived positive (proving a point) that was so positive that it made the choice of eating the red apple look better than the choice of eating the yellow apple.
My question is: how did Lessans know that the perceived positive (proving a poiint) was that positive?
Yes, that’s what he said but that’s not what he did. This means even though he didn’t like eating the red apple, he WANTED to eat it to prove a point [in the direction of greater satisfaction]. We don’t always choose what we would like more, for various reasons. I want to eat at a 5 star restaurant, but I don’t want to spend the money, so I’ll go to a carry out instead.
He did want to eat the red apple more than the yellow or he would not have eaten it. It’s not important whether his choosing the red apple over the yellow one was extremely positive, or just a little positive. The point here is that any time there is a “meaningful” difference (e.g., should I eat the red to prove a point and maybe get sick, or should I eat the yellow like I normally do?), he was compelled to pick the one that he perceived to be the best choice under the circumstances. I hope that makes sense.
The argument put forward by Lessans is based on the premise that his friend assigned a lot of weight to the incentive to prove a point. My question is merely how does Lessans know how much weight his friend assigned to this particular incentive?
If I remember right - the friend (in the story) admitted that he was doing it to prove a point. And it is only a single allegorical example incident anyway - the author could list a dozen more. The point was made that if you go back in order to change something - when you change it - you were doing so for greater satisfaction by the changing. I don’t think anything is in need of being proven regarding that.
His friend said that he can prove Lessans wrong by first discovering (via introspection) which of the two options he prefers the most and then choosing the other one. He said “I want to eat the yellow more than the red but I’m going to eat the red one instead. See? I am eating the red one. In other words, I chose to do what I did not want to do the most.”
Lessans responded by saying “No, you actually wanted to eat the red apple more than the yellow one. And you did because it allowed you to prove a point.”
Lessans is basically saying that his friend had an incentive to prove a point that was strong enough to make the choice of eating the red apple more preferrable in spite of its negative consequences (allergic reaction.). But how does he know that it was that strong?
He wanted to show that this type of experiment cannot prove him wrong.
I don’t remember the story perfectly (and don’t want to read it again) but didn’t the friend agree with him afterwards? -saying “you’re right”? It doesn’t really matter - the point is taken.
I don’t think he was wrong about that one issue - for whatever reason you choose to do something your own perceptions of hopes and threats will dictate your response. To me that isn’t the relevant issue - that aspect can be proven by other means - but is irrelevant to the final conclusion to the narrative.
I just meant the changing of the decision to eat differently.
The whole thing is just as I first suspected and mentioned - it is just a communist ploy - remove all incentives for doing anything and paradise will come - [size=85]along with stagnation and death.[/size]
The real outcome - proven over and over again - is that a selfish dictatorship is setup (the CCP) in order to maintain order and gain luxuries for themselves because no one else matters (anymore).