“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.  And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question . . . [Utilitarianism] enjoins and requires the cultivation of the love of virtue up to the greatest  strength possible, as being above all things important to the general happiness.”
-John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

After reading some of Mill’s work, I find myself much more appreciative of utilitarianism.  Although I’ve only read portions of this theory, I think, perhaps, that the essence of this ethical system has been popularly misrepresented as, “the ends justify the means”.  The proponents of utilitarianism might have well ended up at that conclusion, but the central point of utilitarianism seems to involve something else:  general and particular happiness as the end of existence.  Mill proves that every human pursues happiness as their end.  Mill counters the argument of animalistic hedonism by pointing out that human beings are capable of greater pleasures due to their “superior faculties”.  The more virtuous one is, he reasons, the more capacity one has for greater happiness.  Pigs can be happy, in other words, but not as happy as a human being.  Because utilitarianism says that we should all promote as much happiness in the world as possible, that means promoting the capacity of men and women to be even more happy than they already are.  This is done by training in “noble character” and “virtue”.

Nice idea in theory, but even Mill admits that most men give up on noble character and virtue for the sake of bodily health and material power.  Further, he conflates happiness with feelings rather than following Saint Aquinas’ contention that happiness is what perfects us as human beings - what is truly good for us.  Ultimate happiness, then, isn’t ultimate feelings of pleasure, but an ultimate ‘good’, a treasure that we possess and that perfects us.  Pleasure, of course, follows from having attained such a good.  But happiness is distinct from pleasure.

Because Mill is unwilling to make this distinction, he never really defines what are the highest pleasures.  He only says that those with superior faculties are those who are most capable of judging what are the highest pleasures.  When utilitarianism hits the masses - those without ’superior’ faculties, let us say, it becomes an ethics of pigs and fools.  Utilitarianism works well with the virtuous, because they already know what is good for them.  The failure of Mill to account for what is good or not doesn’t affect those who already know what is good.  But for the rest of us, those who struggle to find happiness, who never seem to know where happiness comes from, utilitarianism ends up reinforcing our deluded ideas of what makes us ‘happy’ - in other words, whatever mud we happen to be laying in, feeling quite pleasurable in.  Utilitarianism couldn’t handle the onslaught of subjectivism and relativism, where one could claim that happiness, as a feeling of pleasure, is equal in both pigs and saints.  Poor Mill!  If only he hadn’t disconnected what makes us happy from what is truly good for us!  But then you run into questions that lead smack right into meaning and essence - what does it mean to be a human being?  Are we mere carbon machines, evolved out of goo randomly?  Or are we designed by a source that stands outside of time and space - a source that is not only reason itself, but love itself?

I was reading an article today about the lost art of conversation. From my own experience, I know that I find it very difficult to have a productive conversation with a stranger. On the one hand, I want to ‘bond’ and ask them general and specific questions about everything and anything. On the other hand, I don’t want to be bored with simply mundane details, so I often will ask them why they acted/felt a particular way. This, or so I’ve been told by WEF7, makes them feel put on the spot and uncomfortable. So either there is silence, because no one else is particularly good at conversing with strangers either, or I make them uncomfortable in my attempts to learn about them without dying of boredom. I saw no clear solution to this problem, and then I read this article about the lost art of conversing.

I promptly googled something along the lines of ‘the art of conversation’. The pointers I have picked up are as follows.

1) Everyone have a family, occupation, educational history, and recreational activities they participate in. Thus these are all solid chit-chat or opening themes of conversation.

2) Questions starting with ‘are’ or ‘do’ are closed questions, generating yes or no answers. These are bad. Questions starting with ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘which’, ‘who’ and ‘when’, are open questions, which need fuller answers. These are good. If you want to end the chit-chat and actually have an interesting conversation you can ask questions starting with words like ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘in what way’. But, as I mentioned earlier, everytime I’ve attempted to do this it ends with people being uncomfortable. I’ve also noticed honesty seems to make other uncomfortable, particularly if that honesty is in anyway at odds with their own opinions. It’s all very odd.

Thoughts? Have we truly lost the art of conversation? Was it ever an art (think Jane Austen)? If so, is it worth attempting to regain?

Since we received a request for more pictures, here’s the flyer that went out to announce WEF1&2’s Anniversary Party at the Embassy :

>>

WEF6 will recognize the picture on the flyer as one she took during our cruise last March.

The Anniversary Party was a lot of fun and we got a pretty good crowd that came out. Here’s a picture of us near the end of the night with some of the more die-hard partiers:

Here we are just today at the Rasheed Hotel. It’s easier for Iraqis to enter here rather than the Green Zone proper so it’s where we meet a lot of our Iraqi contacts

Only #3? You can tell I’m not posting enough.

Way back in April, in Rant #1 I mentioned that I was only three out of four on my criticisms of our new president : Anti-American, Socialist, Racist and a Fraud. I’m not particularly happy to point out that I’m now four for four. Of course, I haven’t been paying much attention lately so I might have missed a lot before now.

Barry told us he didn’t know anything about the Cambridge PD arrest of the black Harvard professor (and I use the term loosely — ethnic studies?) Then he immediately said that the police were stupid to arrest him and that it’s an example of evil racist police actions. Gee, what would he have said if he did know something about the incident?

Even with all the criticism he’s facing, he then goes for the standard, “I regret that the press is making a big deal over what I said, and that people are upset,” rather than admitting he was just wrong. At this point, he’s gone as far as saying that there were mistakes on both sides. Wrong again, but that’s probably the best we’ll get. Anyway I think our “post-racial” president knee-jerk judgement on this incident qualifies as racism. Of course on the other three, the evidence keeps piling up.

On another topic,

The Obama Supreme Court Screening Tool:

(From the Website The Nose on Your Face: News so Fake You’ll Swear It Came From the Mainstream Media)

Do I want Obama to succeed? Hell, first tell me what he’s trying to do.

Comments?

“Picture It:  A game you’ll never forget”

This is the latest from The Wildermuth Game-Works.  By the way, there is now an open-invitation to join The Wildermuth Game-Works.  It is a worker-owned worker-run venture.  We currently need both human and financial resources to make our first official game a reality.  We need artists, playtesters, storytellers, marketers, and production staff.  But on to the real show - Picture It! Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s a picture of WEF1&2 a few weeks ago at an night Embassy barbecue. You can probably tell it was at least 90 degrees at the time:

Ok now. Take this how you will, but I have been spending an inordinate amount of time contemplating time travel these last couple of days, and I have come to the conclusion that a “TIME MACHINE” (ie: a machine that sends an object through time, and nothing else) Would be among the most useless inventions ever created. As an intellectual exercise, what would be gained by sending an object though time (and time only?) What could be proved?

I have a couple already,  but what can you think of?

You are in a hot-air balloon with a fellow traveler.  You have been blown off course and are now over the ocean.  It is quite clear that you don’t have enough fuel left to get back safely to land.  The only way to save your life is to lighten the balloon by throwing off the other person.

Is it moral to throw the other person off the balloon?  Why or why not?