Don’t Play Cards With Jacob
[UPDATE below.]
I recently made the full circuit in my nightly Bible reading, and now I’m back in Genesis. I don’t have much profound to say in this post, except to note that yikes Jacob (son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham) was one crafty fellow.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Bible knows that Jacob first leveraged his older brother’s hunger and shortsightedness to obtain his birthright in exchange for a meal. That’s not fraudulent but certainly is a bit shady.
But then the real kicker was when (at his mother’s urging) Jacob dressed up as his brother in order to trick his father with poor eyesight that he was in fact Esau, in order to obtain his blessing. Esau comes back a few moments too late, only to learn that his younger brother is now his master. D’oh! (As a hairy, older brother myself, I can barely conceive of the horror.)
Then another major event occurs when Jacob wants to depart from the land of his father-in-law, for whom he has been working for decades (to win the hands of the guy’s two daughters–which itself is a complicated story and isn’t as weird as it sounds, so if you are atheist waiting to pounce at least read the story first).
So here’s what happens when Jacob and his father-in-law discuss the terms of his departure:
25 And it came to pass, when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, “Send me away, that I may go to my own place and to my country. 26 Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go; for you know my service which I have done for you.”
27 And Laban said to him, “Please stay, if I have found favor in your eyes, for I have learned by experience that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.” 28 Then he said, “Name me your wages, and I will give it.”
29 So Jacob said to him, “You know how I have served you and how your livestock has been with me. 30 For what you had before I came was little, and it has increased to a great amount; the Lord has blessed you since my coming. And now, when shall I also provide for my own house?”
31 So he said, “What shall I give you?”
And Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything. If you will do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep your flocks: 32 Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from there all the speckled and spotted sheep, and all the brown ones among the lambs, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and these shall be my wages. 33 So my righteousness will answer for me in time to come, when the subject of my wages comes before you: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the lambs, will be considered stolen, if it is with me.”
34 And Laban said, “Oh, that it were according to your word!” 35 So he removed that day the male goats that were speckled and spotted, all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had some white in it, and all the brown ones among the lambs, and gave them into the hand of his sons. 36 Then he put three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.
37 Now Jacob took for himself rods of green poplar and of the almond and chestnut trees, peeled white strips in them, and exposed the white which was in the rods. 38 And the rods which he had peeled, he set before the flocks in the gutters, in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink, so that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39 So the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted. 40 Then Jacob separated the lambs, and made the flocks face toward the streaked and all the brown in the flock of Laban; but he put his own flocks by themselves and did not put them with Laban’s flock.
41 And it came to pass, whenever the stronger livestock conceived, that Jacob placed the rods before the eyes of the livestock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42 But when the flocks were feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban’s and the stronger Jacob’s. 43 Thus the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks, female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.
Don’t get me wrong, the father-in-law Laban is a shady guy too, but yikes I don’t want to play cards with Jacob, that’s for sure. And if you read the whole account of Jacob’s youth and growing up, he jumps from situation to situation, deploying deception left and right and then fleeing, often because people are quite understandably upset with him.
I had already known about these stories of course, but for some reason upon this reading it really jumped out at me that this was the same guy going through his life and acting like this. Upon retrospect, that makes sense, since it’s his character.
Yet what’s interesting is that I don’t really see it jumping out how Jacob trusted in God, at least not the way Abraham did or later King David would. (Even the famous dream of a ladder “scene” is more of Jacob striking a bargain with God, as opposed to submitting to His will.) Everybody is a sinner (except Jesus), so the oddity here isn’t, “How could God choose to bless a bad guy?!”
So I imagine our atheist friends will say, “Yep, the Old Testament is one sick book not safe for kids to read,” but I’m wondering what the believers think. Do you agree with me that Jacob is a surprising person to found the nation of Israel? Is part of the point (perhaps) that God made a covenant with Abraham, and God can fulfill His promises even working with somebody like Jacob?
Or am I being too harsh on the guy, and are there events where his faith really shines through that I’m forgetting? (Admittedly I haven’t reached the part yet where Joseph gets attacked by his brothers, so maybe the older Jacob will impress me.)
UPDATE: Heh, I should have been more patient. Literally the chapter I was on (and that I read about 15 minutes after originally posting this) gave me what I had been waiting for. Genesis 32: 3-12:
3 Then Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom. 4 And he commanded them, saying, “Speak thus to my lord Esau, ‘Thus your servant Jacob says: “I have dwelt with Laban and stayed there until now. 5 I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, and male and female servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favor in your sight.”’”
6 Then the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau, and he also is coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with him.” 7 So Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed; and he divided the people that were with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two companies. 8 And he said, “If Esau comes to the one company and attacks it, then the other company which is left will escape.”
9 Then Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the Lord who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your family, and I will deal well with you’: 10 I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which You have shown Your servant; for I crossed over this Jordan with my staff, and now I have become two companies. 11 Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and attack me and the mother with the children. 12 For You said, ‘I will surely treat you well, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’”
OK, that’s what I’m talkin’ about…
For those who are confused: The Bible’s heroes (except for Jesus) are sinners. So the reason modern-day Christians (and I suppose Jews, though I don’t know exactly how they think of them) revere particular people from the earlier books in the Bible is NOT that they “lead good lives,” but rather that they trusted in the promises of God. Before hitting the above, I hadn’t seen Jacob really doing that.
Bob,
Why is it surprising, from this story, for Jacob to be a good founder? Haven been previously cheated by a contract (the two daughter thing), Jacob shows wisdom in understanding breeding and how the flock will turn out, and so strikes a deal on that. Seems like a good lesson for the Children of Israel: Learn well what you do, and trade in what you know.
It’s this Abraham guy that should strike out as a strange father of a chosen people. Abraham was such bffs with God then when he lied, the guys who heard the lie was punished. Abraham had such a cozy relationship with God he tried to haggle him down in judgment over Sodom and Gomorrah (you mentioned Jacob striking a bargain with God in the ladder scene, this runs in the family). Honestly, once you accept Abraham, then Issac and Jacob seem pretty easy.
I’d recommend some biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com, if I may. Jacob always gets read as a shady dude, but the truth is that those around him are being far more shady. God names Jacob as the “child of promise” at birth, yet Isaac apparently goes on treating Esau as the chosen one (since he was older?). Esau himself is bestial and, as you say, short-sighted, and there is even the possibility that his interest in Jacob’s soup was not healthy (“give me that ‘red stuff'”). In any event, the tricks were all to bring about that which God had promised was Jacob’s from jump. Esau got over it; so should the rest of the world reading the story 4000 years later. 🙂
“Jacob always gets read as a shady dude, but the truth is that those around him are being far more shady.”
These were my first thoughts too from what I recall of the story.
Though, on second thought, I don’t think that is a good explanation, doesn’t the Bible also argue that justice etc. is for God? How shady are you allowed to be when people around you are shady? Do unto others?
Note: I am not a Christian, I just generally like (religious) stories/parables.
I bit. From their mission statement:
“Biblical Absolutism, which means that the Bible is absolutely authoritative wherever it speaks and is the sole ultimate authority for our thinking.”
Ken,
Yes. I agree with Christopher HItchens, though: the best Christians to debate are the ones who take it all seriously, rather than the ones who want to turn it all into a nice Hallmark card that just boils down to “be nice to each other.”
Jordan and his cohorts (at biblicalhorizons) are biblical inerrantists in the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition. That means they try to tie the Bible together in ways that make sense and enlighten. That project produces interesting results, no matter what your actual faith commitment.
Xon: re Hallmark. Yeah, this is partly why I pound on RPM and other harmonizers. They read into it what they want and then cite its authority!
” Heh, I should have been more patient.” Skip ahead to Job.
How accurate could anyone believe this story is…?
If the story of Hercules or Beowulf were inserted into the bible, would any of you be able to tell?
That would be easy Joe. Beowulf was the guy who spent three days in a whale, right? That would be an obvious fairy-tale no-one would allow into the Bible.
Then there is the Sumerian fairy tale story of Gilgamesh.
In this fairy tale, Utnapashtim told Gilgamesh of an occasion, many centuries earlier, when the gods were angry with humankind because they made so much noise the Gods couldn’t sleep. You know, pretty much exactly the kind of story that a typical child in a typical household with typical parents who sleep typical hours at night might carry with them into adulthood.
The chief god, Enlil, suggested that they should send a great flood to destroy everybody, so the gods could get a good night’s rest. But the water god, Ea, decided to warn Utnapashtim. Ea told Uttnapashtim to tear down his house and build a boat.
It would have to be a very big boat, because Utnapashtim was to take into it ‘the seed of all living creatures’.
Utnapashtim built the boat just in time, before it rained for six days and six nights without stopping. The flood that followed drowned everybody and everything that was not safely inside the boat. On the seventh day the wind dropped and the waters grew calm and flat.
This ancient fairy tale also would not have made it past the divine bible censors.
Seems legit.
My faith meter tells me that this story was made up.
I trust Utnapashtim’s statements, because he was there. He wouldn’t lie about what he saw.
My imaginary friend could beat up your imaginary friend!
Not when my imaginary friend is by definition the most powerful.
Oh fiddlesticks, I did it again. I took my own embarrassing desire to be the most powerful entity in the universe, and then realized I am not the most powerful entity, so to rescue that desire, I call it God and believe it exists and that someday in the future, I will absorb into that power.
I mean come on, I have to be able to sleep at night and deal with my intolerable finite existence somehow. If you deny me God, then I will only have myself and my visions of infinite power, and that’s….scary.
You see, I scare myself, and that fear often takes the form of an authority figure, probably from my childhood but I’m not sure.
I cannot explain it, but for some “strange” reason, that authority figure has an incredibly high interest in my life. Occam’s razor would suggest that that which has an incredibly high interest in me, would be me, but that wold make me feel alone and…afraid.
So because I am afraid of being alone, and because I am afraid of my power, it follows that Enlil exists, and that he can kick your, I mean your God’s, butt.
I mean come on, I have to be able to sleep at night and deal with my intolerable finite existence somehow. If you deny me God, then I will only have myself and my visions of infinite power, and that’s….scary.
Not sure if this is relevant, but your comments here directly contradict the psychoanalysis of me that Egoist has been providing. Egoist is chastising me for debasing my own desires and will and subordinating myself to another being, while you are chastising me for elevating my importance beyond its real value.
So you guys should please settle this among yourselves. I can’t be both a slave and a tyrant simultaneously.
“Not when my imaginary friend is by definition the most powerful.”
∞ + 1
∞ ^∞^∞^∞^∞^∞^∞^∞^∞^∞…
RPM:” I can’t be both a slave and a tyrant simultaneously.”
Oh Bob, you really are naive about BDSM aren’t you?
Guys stop trolling Bob. I’d rather him spend time addressing legitimate arguments instead of… well this “psychoanalytical” conjecture.
I was being sarcastic with Anonymouse about why I think people believe in God.
Egoist seems to be saying don’t put your ego in God, but keep it.
If I had to reconcile the two, I would guess that there is no contradiction, because I don’t see anyone saying you’re a tyrant.
“…So I imagine our atheist friends will say, “Yep, the Old Testament is one sick book not safe for kids to read,” but I’m wondering what the believers think…”
Doc, for a fascinating alternate read of the O.T. by a devout Christian, read the first six chapters of ‘The Controversy of Zion.’ It will take you one hour, but will be time well spent.
http://controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/reeedcontrov_chap.pdf
It was an eye-opener for me. It deepened and strengthened my bond to Christianity, while causing me to question its tie to the O.T.
In Jacob’s defense, this was prior to very much revelation. Had it occurred after the 10 commandments, he’d probably be running afoul of 2 of the commandments (lying and coveting goods) and arguably more (stealing, coveting women?).
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that Jacob had entered into his agreements with the best of intentions, but when he is cheated, he outdoes the cheater.
On another level, a consistent theme in the Bible is that the ‘first’ tends to rely upon its own strength while the ‘second’ tends to look to God. The first son, Adam, disobeys; the second son, Jesus obeys. (Some theologians claim the original sin of Adam was that he didn’t stand up for his wife against the dragon when the dragon is implying that he’ll kill her if she doesn’t eat the apple . . . which set into motion his actual ‘disobedience.’) Cain and Able. Abraham distrusts God to conceive Ishmael outside of a ‘normal’ marital relationship (which shows why in vitro fertilization is wrong even if it *doesn’t* involve killing more babies than it conceives), but makes up for it with his ‘sacrifice’ of Isaac. (Incidentally, on the same mountain a son is later made to carry wood up for a sacrifice and slain in a somewhat well known story of the New Testament.) Esau and Jacob. Saul and David. Israel and Judah. Judaism and Christianity (the latter was a subset of the former until the former would no longer tolerate the latter). This is probably meant to demonstrate that we *do* have free will . . . if we didn’t, why were there so many ‘mistakes?’ God doesn’t just set us on a course where we *must* obey . . . but it would be better for us if we *did* obey.
On an unrelated note:
Bob, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the 10 commandments, what they are (Actually enumerate them . . . there are ~15 or so clauses; which of those clauses are subclauses and which are main clauses?), what they mean, and if God ever orders that they be broken. My own thoughts on a couple: I think ‘bearing false witness’ actually means ‘causing someone *who should know the truth* to believe a falsehood.’ (gets around pesky questions about Nazis asking for Jews and 2 year olds asking about Santa Claus although it’s not 100% clear in all circumstances) ‘Graven images’ is pretty clearly a sub-clause to ‘no other gods’ because the temple was full of engravings.
“On another level, a consistent theme in the Bible is that the ‘first’ tends to rely upon its own strength while the ‘second’ tends to look to God. ”
There is an interesting discussion of why in The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstain & Silberman.
> I think ‘bearing false witness’ actually means ‘causing someone *who should know the truth* to believe a falsehood.’ (gets around pesky questions about Nazis asking for Jews
This is essentially Benjamin Constant’s view where he says people only have a duty to tell the truth to people that have a right to the truth. Immanuel Kant responds in “On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns”
“Everybody is a sinner (except Jesus), so the oddity here isn’t, “How could God choose to bless a bad guy?!””
I am not a sinner, because I do not delude myself into prostrating under your biblical morality, indeed under anyone’s morality. You can view me as a sinner, as you view yourself a sinner, but I am not a sinner. I am me. My standard that is me is final, absolute, and unequivocal. Your opinion of me is akin to a dog barking. I will use or not use you for my own utility according to how I see it fit for myself.
“For those who are confused: The Bible’s heroes (except for Jesus) are sinners. So the reason modern-day Christians (and I suppose Jews, though I don’t know exactly how they think of them) revere particular people from the earlier books in the Bible is NOT that they “lead good lives,” but rather that they trusted in the promises of God.”
You mean you believe that modern day people who put their trust in some concept called God would revere other people who put their trust in the same concept called God?
And this is something other than modern day people just revering themselves…how exactly?
It’s just another form of nationalism, racism, and genderism: imbeciles congratulating themselves on the basis of what others do in the name of the same conceptual banner. They revere people of old who enslaved themselves under the same mental delusion, because they enslaved themselves under the same mental delusion. This is the true calling of Christianity. Deny your own uniqueness, and let your ego burst forth through “God” coming to Earth in the form of Jesus.
While in the real world “society” overpowers you in preventing you from being the final judge of life and death, and of creation and destruction, you let loose your ego through conceiving of “your” God outside yourself, that owns these powers, and you ask that others put their ego in the same concept. And for what? So that you can satisfy an unsatisfiable urge for Earthly egos to be smashed, where the only “valid” ego is beyond our reality, to be touched in some indefinite future, beyond your temporal reality, rather than being that which you actually begin with and is temporal and finite in nature, but you just refuse to accept it.
What you believe in is the world’s greatest lie ever told.
“I am not a sinner, because I do not delude myself into prostrating under your biblical morality, indeed under anyone’s morality. You can view me as a sinner, as you view yourself a sinner, but I am not a sinner.”
And we all know, it is our own delusional self-understanding that decides what is real and what isn’t!
And we all know, it is our own delusional self-understanding that decides what is real and what isn’t!
My own reality is not an illusion. You’re deluded into believing your ego rests in something outside yourself.
Anonymous wrote:
Your opinion of me is akin to a dog barking. I will use or not use you for my own utility according to how I see it fit for myself.
You forgot to add, “Resistance is futile.”
You forgot to add, “Resistance is futile.”
I’m sorry, but isn’t that what you are preaching to me? In Christianity, humans are to think and act alike in relation to your God. All humans are called to be alike in their morals, their thoughts, in accordance with your God. There is no room for individual uniqueness in Christianity. You obey God’s will, you do what God commands, and you are rewarded and punished accordingly. That is the very foundation of the Borg. You either consent to God-Borg, or you’re annihilated, or sent to hell. Resistance is futile in Christianity.
You’re telling me resistance is futile, and here I am telling you that you as an individual have the power to resist.
What I am saying is the exact opposite of the Borg. It’s billions of individual Queen/King Borgs, each in full ownership over their own lives, and in control of the maximum over everything outside themselves to the maximum of their power.
Here, no individual reduces themselves underneath any Borg-like generality, no concept of God.
In my argument, resistance is not futile. You have it in your power to prevent me from doing what my ego desires. So do all others.
The only reason there’s the state, is that far too many people have tried to put their egos outside themselves in some magical land, which always manifests in social control in the form of theocracy or statism. You give up your individual ownership, and you’re doomed to be controlled by egos that have not given up their desire to own.
Just look at statesmen. They kill. They torture. They rape. They mutilate. They do this because you and millions of others have let them. They are the social result of you and millions of others trying to give up your self-ownership. You refuse to take what is yours, and so others have taken from you.
The poor have created the rich.
The weak have created the powerful.
Those who believe themselves sinners have created those who control by sinning.
Resistance can only come from you. Your freedom can never be given. It can only be taken.
Hang on a second Anonymous. Are you saying I was supposed to take this as a ringing endorsement of my worth as an individual, when you told me:
Your opinion of me is akin to a dog barking. I will use or not use you for my own utility according to how I see it fit for myself.
I’m not being sarcastic. (I admit I was before.) Is your point, that I in turn can view you as a dog, and use you for my own ends, and in that way we each express our individuality?
The rest of your initial comment I understood, though I disagreed with it. It was the part of you saying I was akin to a dog, that you felt bound by no morality, and were going to use me (your verb) as you saw fit, that struck me as odd.
My reading was that he would use your barking as he wishes (as a warning for danger or ignore it if he knows you just bark when the crickets chirp) not actually use your person as he wishes.
It’s actually the latter.
I will use him, and I will use you if we were to meet, to my own benefit. I expect you to use me to your own benefit as well, if you so desire. I will not delude you with any religion, morality, ethic, logic, mathematics, under which you are to prostrate yourself. I make no illusions. Your ego is unique and above all generalities.
Is your point, that I in turn can view you as a dog, and use you for my own ends, and in that way we each express our individuality?
Yes. You are the center of the universe as is inherent in your reality, as am I.
You use me, and I use you. We each enjoy life by consuming that which is around us, including other people.
It was the part of you saying I was akin to a dog, that you felt bound by no morality, and were going to use me (your verb) as you saw fit, that struck me as odd.
It is no less odd than what you attribute to God. You attribute to God the property that makes myself and everyone else dogs to be created, manipulated, and destroyed according to His will.
I recognize that the ego you say is in God, is really your ego.
“You use me, and I use you. We each enjoy life by consuming that which is around us, including other people.”
It’s possible to get utility from something (or someone) without consuming it. Symbiosis is productive, not consumptive.
It’s possible to get utility from something (or someone) without consuming it. Symbiosis is productive, not consumptive.
Enjoyment of something is by definition consumption of that something.
Of course consumption can be DELAYED, so that one can devote one’s time to symbiotic production, so that one can consume and enjoy more in the future.
When I say enjoy and consume, I do not mean constant, perpetual consumption with zero delay and zero productive activity.
If the ego wants to consume more, it may find it beneficial to periodically refrain from destroying or otherwise overpowering another ego, and allowing its property to spontaneously produce and then engage in exchanges.
If on the other hand the ego stands to benefit more by destroying them, or taking their property and making it their own, then the limitation of their might is the only thing that legitimately prevents it from gaining in these “immoral” ways.
For example, if the ego is face to face with another that offers a substantial sum of money, which enables the ego to gain in ways beyond what might allows, then the ego might refrain from exercising might, and allow the other to maintain control over their property, so that they can continue to provide the ego with benefits.
This is why wealth generation is typically a major impetus for “peace” for future generations.
“Enjoyment of something is by definition consumption of that something.”
Incorrect. Enjoyment and consumption are separable. One can enjoy a sunset without consuming it. Likewise, one can consume broccoli without enjoying it.
Consumption is a use which degrades its object, rendering it less serviceable toward a given end.
“Incorrect. Enjoyment and consumption are separable. One can enjoy a sunset without consuming it. Likewise, one can consume broccoli without enjoying it.”
1. Enjoying a sunset is a consumption activity, because it is a final action whereby you are deriving direct utility. You consume the Sun’s rays, after which they cease providing you with any direct utility.
2. Consuming broccoli, willingly, is an enjoyment, even if you say “blech” whilst eating it. Being enjoyable does not mean is has to taste good. The effect can be enjoyment in the health benefits you receive.
You are treating the words “consume” and “enjoy” far too narrowly.
“Consumption is a use which degrades its object, rendering it less serviceable toward a given end.
That’s exactly what is happening with you consuming the Sun’s rays. The Sun is somewhat degraded, somewhat older, somewhat closer to extinction, somewhat smaller in mass. These quantities are very, very small, but they are definitely there. The problem is that right now the Sun is not an object of economic action, so it’s tricky to apply economic concepts to it. Typically it is treated as a given, as a “free” good.
“1. Enjoying a sunset is a consumption activity, because it is a final action whereby you are deriving direct utility. You consume the Sun’s rays, after which they cease providing you with any direct utility.”
Fair enough. In the case of a sunset, the rays are consumed, but what about enjoying looking at something else? You’re still consuming the light bouncing off it, but not the thing itself.
“2. Consuming broccoli, willingly, is an enjoyment, even if you say ‘blech’ whilst eating it.”
If you want to say that you can derive utility from broccoli without enjoying eating it, that’s fine, but it’s silly to claim that not enjoying broccoli is the same as enjoying it.
“Being enjoyable does not mean is has to taste good. The effect can be enjoyment in the health benefits you receive.”
Let’s say you eat the broccoli because your mother tells you to and you don’t care about the health benefits, or there are no benefits, or the benefits are not noticeable. In that case, you merely consume the broccoli without enjoying or deriving any secondary utility from it.
“You are treating the words ‘consume’ and ‘enjoy’ far too narrowly.”
If that’s true, why do you agree with my definition below?
Consumption is a use which degrades its object, rendering it less serviceable.
“That’s exactly what is happening with you consuming the Sun’s rays. The Sun is somewhat degraded, somewhat older, somewhat closer to extinction, somewhat smaller in mass.”
That’s fine, but you may recall that your original point concerned consuming humans, not rays of light. If you sit next to a person and enjoy being in their company, in what way are they degraded or diminished?
“Fair enough. In the case of a sunset, the rays are consumed, but what about enjoying looking at something else? You’re still consuming the light bouncing off it, but not the thing itself.”
I would argue you are, the same way you are consuming a work of art on your wall, or the books on your shelf. The period of consumption of the object might be a very, very long time, and the object might be very, very durable in the physical sense, but the object is still being consumed, in that the actor is deriving direct utility from the object, and the object is not being used to provide indirect utility by being a means to a future end that does provide direct utility.
“If you want to say that you can derive utility from broccoli without enjoying eating it, that’s fine, but it’s silly to claim that not enjoying broccoli is the same as enjoying it.”
I do not place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the physical broccoli itself, as if the broccoli has inherent value, but rather I place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the ends that eating the broccoli serves. I place the center of all utility and enjoyment on the individual ego.
The enjoyment of the broccoli is the ends that eating the broccoli serves, which can be many different things, taste, health, or like you said below:
“Let’s say you eat the broccoli because your mother tells you to and you don’t care about the health benefits, or there are no benefits, or the benefits are not noticeable. In that case, you merely consume the broccoli without enjoying or deriving any secondary utility from it.”
I would say that the ego does get enjoyment from eating the broccoli in this case, because it attains the end of getting one’s parents to refrain from getting testy. That is an end that generates enjoyment. To the child who eats the broccoli for this reason, they may enjoy their parents shutting up.
In this sense, eating broccoli for biological health benefits, or eating the broccoli for quiet parent benefits, or two types of what I would consider to be “enjoyment.”
Me: “You are treating the words ‘consume’ and ‘enjoy’ far too narrowly.”
You: “If that’s true, why do you agree with my definition below?”
“Consumption is a use which degrades its object, rendering it less serviceable.”
Because you are treating degrading of the object as too narrow, as if the degrading has to be easily visible, rather than what it could be, which is very slow and almost unnoticeable, as in the example of the Sun.
You do consume things that last even beyond your lifetime, such as homes. Everything consumed degrades to a positive degree.
Me: “That’s exactly what is happening with you consuming the Sun’s rays. The Sun is somewhat degraded, somewhat older, somewhat closer to extinction, somewhat smaller in mass.”
You: “That’s fine, but you may recall that your original point concerned consuming humans, not rays of light. If you sit next to a person and enjoy being in their company, in what way are they degraded or diminished?”
They are aging, i.e. slowly dying.
If you owned them, and you replaced their dead cells with new cells, if you engaged in productivity activity on that person, then you can bring about a net production. You would be consuming some resources (whatever you consume when replacing dead cells with new cells) for the purpose of producing other, more valuable resources to you, like a rejuvenated friend.
If you just sit there and look at them, and you enjoy being in their company, then over time they are slowly degrading, getting closer and closer to death every second.
The egoist consumes to enjoy life. Every direct enjoyment, every direct utility, makes it impossible during that time to delay direct utility by being productive so as to derive greater direct utility later on.
@Egoist
I’ve moved our discussion to the bottom of the page…
“What I am saying is the exact opposite of the Borg. It’s billions of individual Queen/King Borgs, each in full ownership over their own lives, and in control of the maximum over everything outside themselves to the maximum of their power.”
Given you’re perspective how is “ownership” of ones own life anything more than an arbitrary moral as well?
Ownership is not an ethic. It is based purely on might. No matter how much power you exert over me, you cannot ever destroy my self-ownership, without destroying me and eradicating any and all ownership concerning me.
Ownership is above all morality.
If you exert your power to exclusively control an object, you are the owner. Not because of any morality, but because of your power. If I were to overpower you and take control of that object, I become the owner of that object. Again, not because of any morality, but because of pure power.
Morality is a rule that I as an individual am supposed to serve, as a duty, as a calling, as something that I am to obey, not because I consent to it, but because I am expected to consent to it. I do not consent to any morality. Whatever morality you tell me I am supposed to follow, I will say “It’s not my morality, ergo I transcend it according to my might.”
I may not be able to control very much, my might may be overpowered by other individual mights, but I do not delude myself into any notion that humans as such ought to obey a universal code of conduct.
Terry Pratchett said something along the lines of, “We have to get people to believe the little lies, like the Tooth Fairy, so they can get ready to believe the big lies like Justice. If they ever stop believing in the big lies we could get into a lot of trouble.”
I’m paraphrasing from memory, maybe someone said this before he did.
Not sure at whom that is pointed, Tel, but if anybody cares, I don’t tell my son about Santa or the Tooth Fairy, because I don’t want to lie to him. I tell him about God and justice, though, because I think those are real things and extremely important for a parent to teach his child.
Do you tell him about Adam and Eve?
Not yet.
“I don’t tell my son about Santa or the Tooth Fairy, because I don’t want to lie to him.”
Oh ye of little faith…
Do you talk about god matter-of-factly, as if its existence was uncontroversial, or do you explain to your son that you suspect it exists due to math, universal constants, and some paranormal experiences?
Anonymouse wrote:
Do you talk about god matter-of-factly, as if its existence was uncontroversial, or do you explain to your son that you suspect it exists due to math, universal constants, and some paranormal experiences?
I am very careful to make sure he realizes this is a controversial area. I very often say things like, “This is what I believe. But other people would say such-and-such, and still other people don’t even think there is a God.”
I will say this, my handling of the atheist position with my son is infinitely more respectful and tolerant than your guys’ discussion of me, here. I’m not pouting, just stating a fact.
“I am very careful to make sure he realizes this is a controversial area. I very often say things like, ‘This is what I believe. But other people would say such-and-such, and still other people don’t even think there is a God.'”
I like that. At least you’re not trying to suppress his ability to use reason and work things out for himself.
“I will say this, my handling of the atheist position with my son is infinitely more respectful and tolerant than your guys’ discussion of me, here.”
Well, you have to understand that your implicit position is that we are all evil and deserve to suffer for eternity. And, given the dearth of supporting evidence for such an extreme position, we’ve actually given it substantially more respect than it deserves.
“Well, you have to understand that your implicit position is that we are all evil and deserve to suffer for eternity. And, given the dearth of supporting evidence for such an extreme position, we’ve actually given it substantially more respect than it deserves.”
Wow, you perfectly made Dr. Murphy’s point.
“Wow, you perfectly made Dr. Murphy’s point.”
Pointing out how extreme his position is equates with disrespect and intolerance?
That’s not his position, so yes.
@Dan: Not so clear. Here’s Bob’s position:
“To reiterate, I’m not trying to evade what Jesus’ plain words were. I’m pointing out that His own words suggest that there are ways to be saved without believing the standard thing that modern evangelicals prescribe.” Bob wonders about muslims, but there’s never a suggestion that atheists can be saved. So, not so clear.
Ken, Anon said Dr. Murphy believes all atheists are evil and deserve to suffer for eternity. That isn’t accurate, plain and simple. If you believe that is what Murphy thinks then you clearly don’t understand his position. Do you honestly believe Murphy thinks you and all other atheists are evil? Also his position isn’t that atheists deserve to suffer for eternity it is that they are choosing to suffer for eternity. So again, Anon, and you if you agree with him, is a perfect example of Murphy’s point above.
Dan:
“Ken, Anon said Dr. Murphy believes all atheists are evil and deserve to suffer for eternity. That isn’t accurate, plain and simple. If you believe that is what Murphy thinks then you clearly don’t understand his position. Do you honestly believe Murphy thinks you and all other atheists are evil? Also his position isn’t that atheists deserve to suffer for eternity it is that they are choosing to suffer for eternity. So again, Anon, and you if you agree with him, is a perfect example of Murphy’s point above.”
To the atheist, the difference between the notion that someone deserves to suffer for eternity, and the notion that they choose to suffer for eternity, collapses into the same notion of “I believe and I support the notion of you suffering for eternity.”
The theist cannot possibly NOT support the notion of the atheist suffering for eternity, since that is a part of the theist’s belief itself. If he were truly against it, then he would reject God’s word, and that would make him an atheist, not a theist.
It would be like an atheist not supporting a theist being annihilated after their body dies. It would be like the atheist saying “I am against annihilation, I reject annihilation, I think annihilation is wrong.” It makes no sense. It contradicts the view of the atheist.
If Murphy believes atheists are going to hell, what difference does it make that one uses the word “evil” rather than some other word that means the same friggin thing?
Evil people, to Christians, are just people who go against the Christian God, for the Christian God is all that is good. Going against all that is good makes one evil. Sinning is evil. Atheism is a sin, hence atheists are evil.
To the Christian, renouncing the holy spirit is considered the worst evil one can commit, and all atheists renounce the holy spirit, hence all atheists are evil to the Christian.
Stop sugar coating what Murphy is writing and stop trying to act as some sort of fairness judge. You’re being highly unfair.
Dr. Murphy did you write this to stregthen your point? If so, well played.
Dan, you are unwilling ot incapable of seeing when you’re wrong about what Murphy said, and when you’re wrong.
I am not Dr. Murphy.
“Ken, Anon said Dr. Murphy believes all atheists are evil and deserve to suffer for eternity. That isn’t accurate, plain and simple.”
Murphy thinks his god is just, yet it is not just to punish someone undeservedly. Therefore, since atheists are destined to go to hell, they must be deserving of punishment. And what could make them deserving of infinite punishment other than being evil?
I know his view about people “choosing” to suffer for eternity, but it flies in the face of what is written in the NT and basic economic reasoning.
Bob, I respect your economic views but have to admit I stopped reading this blog when it became apparent that you are a creationist. I suggest you reasses your logic on this topic. Plenty of Christians now willingly accept evolution as reality which seems prudent given both the overwhelming plethora of data and religious history of stiffling scientific progress.
I’m not defending creationism per se, but the actual history of Church-science interaction is way more complicated than this. For instance, the medieval church attempted to stifle Galileo not because it was anti-scientific progress, but because it had already sided with an earlier school of thought. Scriptural passages and theological doctrines had already been interpreted and presented in a way to harmonize with Aristotle.
So, some might think that the proper lesson from the medieval church is that Christians should not try to be “OK” with any particular scientific theory. When everybody in your culture starts pressuring you to adopt some new scientific theory (and they did it with Aristotelian natural science in the classical period, with Galileo in the 17th century, and with Darwin today), the appropriate Christian posture should simply be “That’s interesting, but I’m not tying the Bible in with any particular scientific theory that will probably be different 200 years from now.”
Well you have your time periods a bit confused Xon, but, yes, the relationship is much more complicated than ‘religion stifles science’.
It seems more likely that science grew mostly in the west due to the christian notion of a comprehensible rational god. The stifling came only after the results disconfirmed dogma. This mismatch surprised people.
Rational ‘higher’ biblical criticism is a nice example!
Religion in itself doesn’t stifle science; it’s religious zealots who interpret conflicts with scientific findings in the bible. Anyone who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old for instance. Another example is Bill Nye (you know, the science guy) being booed in Texas for pointing out the moon’s light is the reflection of the sun (apparently in the bible there is some passage referring to god creating two lights in the sky). The rejection of evolution (not a specific strand but the underlying concept of strategic mutation) cannot be arrived at in a logical manner. My point is that science and relgion should not conflict, and if they do, religion should change it’s outlook (the Dalai Lama said this almost exactly and I admire him for it).
Xon, there is a key factor being overlooked in your example. Prior to Galileo, the all important scientific method was not in place. Aristotle simply assumed that, e.g., heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones and never bothered to test it. Nobody should be “OK” with any theory in it’s entirety, you’re right. Skepticism is the critical point in that. The gravitational force may differ by somethign other than exactly the square of the distance but I’m still held to the ground.
Nye was not booed. http://www.examiner.com/article/reporter-of-bill-nye-moonbat-story-speaks
Skepticism is a two-way street.
–“No,” Woods says, “More of a low murmur.”
excuse me, they “low murmured” and “some left”. Aside from completely missing the point, are we to argue about what characterizes “booing”?
No, ledst’s argue about cherry picking quotations.
“There was some mischaracterization of what happened,” Woods says. It seemed like the story was always construed in such a way to make his hometown look like backwoods idiots. “The one that always floors me is they say, oh, he was booed. No, he wasn’t booed. I’ve gone back through the story, and nowhere does it say he was booed.”
Ken, I suppose you missed the part where I say you missed the point entirely. It wasn’t a point about Bill Nye, it was one about the rejection of evolution.
@Sean: I got the point I only dissented from the part you got seriously wrong.
I’m just being fair and consistent here: what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. No way would I let Bob slip some bogus story about say skeptics baking puppies as a hobby to make us look bad.
The Galileo story is much more complex than that, Sean. He was what we’d now call a literalist, maybe even a fundie. His concern was reconciling his observations with the words in the Bible, specifically all the references to things like “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.
The problem with Aristotelian thought was that it proposed that different laws applied to celestial objects than the laws that applied here on earth. Scientific consensus at the time was that heliocentrism violated Ockham’s Razor, since it multiplied the distances to the stars in order to explain parallax.
Theology should have been firmly behind Galileo’s view, but as Xon pointed out, they were supporting the current view of science, both intellectually and financially.
@Egoist
“…the object is still being consumed, in that the actor is deriving direct utility from the object…”
Psychic utility can be derived without degrading or diminishing the source of the utility.
“I do not place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the physical broccoli itself, as if the broccoli has inherent value, but rather I place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the ends that eating the broccoli serves.”
OK, but I have a quibble with your use of the word “enjoyment”. I take that to mean the experience of joy, which is only one type of positive emotional outcome. There are others.
“I would say that the ego does get enjoyment from eating the broccoli in this case, because it attains the end of getting one’s parents to refrain from getting testy. That is an end that generates enjoyment.”
To continue with my semantic point above, I would differentiate between the utility of avoiding a negative emotion and the experience of joy. Avoiding a negative has utility just as realizing a positive does. Saying that all utility is “enjoyment” is too imprecise and will lead to confusion.
“In this sense, eating broccoli for biological health benefits, or eating the broccoli for quiet parent benefits, or two types of what I would consider to be “enjoyment.”
I think your use of quotes above implicitly recognizes my point. Terminology is important in these types of discussions. Without accuracy and precision it becomes difficult to get your point across or figure out what the other person is trying to say.
“To the child who eats the broccoli for this reason, they may enjoy their parents shutting up.”
OK, let’s say they experience joy, or relief, or avoid frustration. You have yet again pointed out a flaw in my example. Your attention to detail is highly admirable. However, you still fail to see the forest for the trees. All I need do is continually refine my example, and you will eventually be at a loss to find any flaws therein.
To continue with the broccoli example, let’s say a boy is sleeping under a “broccoli tree” with his mouth open. A piece of broccoli falls in and travels through his digestive system. Unfortunately, it’s the type of broccoli with no health benefits and it’s contaminated, so the boy gets sick.
This is an admittedly odd example, but the point is to show that consumption does not necessitate utility.
“Because you are treating degrading of the object as too narrow, as if the degrading has to be easily visible, rather than what it could be, which is very slow and almost unnoticeable, as in the example of the Sun.”
I beg to differ. I’m making a distinction between objects that degrade as a necessary consequence of use and objects that degrade for other reasons.
“They are aging, i.e. slowly dying.”
Deriving utility by being in someone’s presence does not cause them to age (they age on their own). To the contrary, two people in a mutually beneficial relationship may live longer as a result, not shorter.
“If you just sit there and look at them, and you enjoy being in their company, then over time they are slowly degrading, getting closer and closer to death every second.”
As much as I respect your attention to detail, I would warmly suggest that you devote an equal amount of scrutiny to your own arguments. Because we can not always have a debating partner to point out the flaws in our thinking, the responsibility primarily falls upon us to criticize and vet the views we hold.
The key thing you have overlooked in your example above is that aging occurs regardless of whether anyone else is present and regardless of whether they derive utility through their presence or not. Looking at someone does not necessarily cause them to age – nor does enjoying their company.
This all probably sounds condescending, but I think you have a lot of potential as a thinker, and will make great progress as long as you remember not to miss the forest for the trees. I would also like to pass on a couple of beliefs I hold. One is that it is much worse to believe something that is not true than to lose an argument. The second one is that losing an argument or a single point is something to be celebrated, because it means you’ve learned something new. So, there should never be a fear of losing or of changing your views, as long as you replace them with better ones.
To sum up:
1. Utility does not necessitate consumption (e.g. looking at something).
2. Consumption does not necessitate utility (e.g. bad broccoli).
3. Mutually-beneficial human relationships are productive, not consumptive. The involved parties are enhanced, not degraded, through their association.
4. The term “enjoyment” should generally be reserved to cases involving the experience of joy.
I’ll have to leave it at that for now, but I’ll be back in a few days in case a follow-up is called for.
“…losing an argument or a single point is something to be celebrated, because it means you’ve learned something new.”
E.g. you taught me that two of my examples were flawed. That was helpful, so thanks!
Anonymouse:
“…the object is still being consumed, in that the actor is deriving direct utility from the object…”
“Psychic utility can be derived without degrading or diminishing the source of the utility.”
Impossible. Psychic utility is enjoying one’s own state of mind. The source is therefore oneself, not the physical object. When you view a colorful sky and consider it pretty, and you enjoy that experience, you are enjoying your own ability to see pretty colors.
However, enjoying one’s own state of mind carries with it a degradation of one’s mind, since one’s mind is then one step closer to its death. Only if you engage in some productive activity that delays this degradation of your mind, can you say that utility isn’t carrying with degradation.
Me: “I do not place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the physical broccoli itself, as if the broccoli has inherent value, but rather I place the enjoyment of the broccoli on the ends that eating the broccoli serves.”
You: “OK, but I have a quibble with your use of the word “enjoyment”. I take that to mean the experience of joy, which is only one type of positive emotional outcome. There are others.”
I also take enjoyment to mean that. A child that eats broccoli that tastes bad, carries with it an experience of joy in the parent’s reaction. That’s why the child eats the broccoli in your example. He doesn’t have to like the taste of broccoli to enjoy the experience of eating it, any more than one does not have to like working out to enjoy the experience of getting fitter.
Me: “I would say that the ego does get enjoyment from eating the broccoli in this case, because it attains the end of getting one’s parents to refrain from getting testy. That is an end that generates enjoyment.”
You: To continue with my semantic point above, I would differentiate between the utility of avoiding a negative emotion and the experience of joy. Avoiding a negative has utility just as realizing a positive does. Saying that all utility is “enjoyment” is too imprecise and will lead to confusion.”
I don’t see how it leads to confusion.
Joy cannot be had unless “negative joy” is avoided. This is why people act in the first place. To turn the world away from what would have been absent action, which would have led to personal uneasiness, to a different world with action, which leads to personal uneasiness being avoided, and thus making room for positive enjoyment to flow through.
I would not distinguish between positive joy, and avoiding “negative joy”. I hold them as two sides of the same coin.
Me: “In this sense, eating broccoli for biological health benefits, or eating the broccoli for quiet parent benefits, or two types of what I would consider to be “enjoyment.”
You: “I think your use of quotes above implicitly recognizes my point. Terminology is important in these types of discussions. Without accuracy and precision it becomes difficult to get your point across or figure out what the other person is trying to say.”
Agreed.
Me: “To the child who eats the broccoli for this reason, they may enjoy their parents shutting up.”
You: “OK, let’s say they experience joy, or relief, or avoid frustration. You have yet again pointed out a flaw in my example. Your attention to detail is highly admirable. However, you still fail to see the forest for the trees. All I need do is continually refine my example, and you will eventually be at a loss to find any flaws therein.”
“To continue with the broccoli example, let’s say a boy is sleeping under a “broccoli tree” with his mouth open. A piece of broccoli falls in and travels through his digestive system. Unfortunately, it’s the type of broccoli with no health benefits and it’s contaminated, so the boy gets sick.”
“This is an admittedly odd example, but the point is to show that consumption does not necessitate utility.”
OK but then this an example of a person consuming time resting under a tree, degrading his body, and deriving enjoyment from that. You are now switching the focus to something in addition to the direct utility concerned, by making the broccoli now a subsidiary, unintended component of the primary enjoyment of resting under a tree. In your example, the person intended to derive enjoyment from resting under the tree, but something went wrong. He experienced something that he did not intend.
Well, this is no different than me consuming an apple pie, enjoying it, but then getting sick because I didn’t expect the apples to be rotten. I made a mistake. The mistake I made was putting myself in a position where my body absorbed a material that I did not intend.
Of COURSE there are countless examples of people making mistakes, of having foreign objects becoming internalized, to the person’s detriment. But then you’re moving this discussion away from the original one, which is whether or not consuming and utility carry with a degradation, and whether or not direct utility carries with it consumption.
If this focus is retained, then your example of resting under a tree is still consistent with the above. You are deriving utility by resting under the tree, and this utility carries with it a consumption activity. Your body is degrading, the nice weather is not being harnessed and stored for future use, the Sun’s rays are forever gone, the grass is aging towards death, the tree is slowly dying without being regenerated by you planting a new one, etc, etc. There is consumption activity in your direct utility enjoyment. In this example, the broccoli is no longer the primary end of deriving utility, but an accidental subsidiary component, much like there being a sudden tornado and your body consumes a flying shard of glass, or there is a sudden rainstorm that ruins your leather jacket, or whatever.
Me: “Because you are treating degrading of the object as too narrow, as if the degrading has to be easily visible, rather than what it could be, which is very slow and almost unnoticeable, as in the example of the Sun.”
You: “I beg to differ. I’m making a distinction between objects that degrade as a necessary consequence of use and objects that degrade for other reasons.”
Ah, but even if you had full control over the Sun, and could control its mass, its chemical composition, its potential future age, etc, and you enjoyed its light if only for a moment, then the Sun is still being degraded because you spent time enjoying the light under the tree, rather than delaying your enjoyment of it and ensuring that the hydrogen in the Sun is replaced, that the Sun stands to give greater future utility than it otherwise would have given, etc.
Me: “They are aging, i.e. slowly dying.”
You: “Deriving utility by being in someone’s presence does not cause them to age (they age on their own). To the contrary, two people in a mutually beneficial relationship may live longer as a result, not shorter.”
They age on their own? So do you! Your sitting there carries with it a degradation of you. You are not being productive in delaying your death, or the death of your friend. You are consuming, you are enjoying your life and the presence of your friend. Your lack of being productive to delay the annihilation of your friend is why your action is a consumption.
Your lack of sustaining their life, of delaying their death, by just sitting there and enjoying each other’s company, is consuming your existence, and it is consuming their existence. Instead of doing something productive to prevent their aging, and your aging, towards death, either through choice or your lack of power, is still a consumption activity.
You might at this point object in saying that you lack the power of delaying death to whatever you want. That nature overpowers you. OK, but then let’s suppose you did have the power to delay death. It would still be the case that just sitting there enjoying their presence is not at that time the same thing as being productive in delaying their death. As soon as you stop delaying your death or the death of your friend, by enjoying the moment, of consuming, even if it lasts but a fraction of a second, it is forever lost, and you will, have a smaller pool of consumption material left moving forward, all else equal. If you then suddenly stop enjoying the moment, and forever after in your life you work to delay death, you will never get that past consumption moment back, you will never be able to do what you could have otherwise done, had you delayed your consumption and always worked to delay death the whole time.
Me: “If you just sit there and look at them, and you enjoy being in their company, then over time they are slowly degrading, getting closer and closer to death every second.”
You: “The key thing you have overlooked in your example above is that aging occurs regardless of whether anyone else is present and regardless of whether they derive utility through their presence or not. Looking at someone does not necessarily cause them to age – nor does enjoying their company.”
I vehemently disagree. I recognize that I can purposefully, and successfully, have power over my lifespan by adopting particular nutritional, environmental, and workout habits. If I enjoy my life through drinking heavily, smoking, taking dangerous drugs, being a couch potato, living next door to a smoky factory, and eating good tasting but nutritionally poor foods, my life will be shorter than it otherwise would have been. I am consuming my life away, rather than delaying utility, and being productive with my own body to bring about a delay in my death. Yes yes, we can always say that I could just as well be struck down by lightening, or getting run over, but my chosen productive means, if they are not interrupted, will be successful.
Yes yes, we also lack the power to live forever, so at some point, our deaths will occur, and so in this sense, aging is “out of our control.” But that doesn’t mean that a person enjoying the company of another, and deriving direct utility from it, is somehow no longer consumptive.
If you paid attention, I never said that aging is “caused” by you enjoying the company of another, in the sense that enjoying another’s company brings about a physical law in 2012 that humans are mortal.
No, what my position is, which I suppose I didn’t make clear, is that by you enjoying the person’s company, you make it impossible to avoid the degradation associated with that action even if you had the technological and physical power to have otherwise engaged in productive activity and delaying your consumption, so that you can avoid that person’s degradation.
What you are saying is that because humans in 2012 are mortal by physical and technological limitations, that the act of enjoying each other’s company somehow no longer carries with it any degradation. But it does. It does because the degradation is associated with that consumption whether we have the power to avoid it or not.
One can’t derive direct utility through consumption, and derive indirect utility through delaying consumption and being production instead, at the same time, at the same place, concerning the same materials and people. This is a logical truth that no technology or human power can transcend.
Now, whether you want to constrain yourself to logic is entirely another matter, because it is possible to derive enjoyment through illogical thinking and acting (but don’t tell this to a Misesian!). If you want to argue that you derive direct enjoyment from delaying your consumption and being productive, then I cannot say this is impossible. I just assumed at the outset that consumption activity, and productive activity, are two different types of activity where only the former carries with it direct utility, whereas the latter carries with it indirect utility.
In fact, if you pressed me, I would say that there is only one kind of utility, one kind of action, and only one kind of activity, consumptive, utility deriving activity. While we can extend the length of consumptive activity, by producing better material resources that extend life, and by producing better bodies that extend life, and here one could call this “productive activity” if one wants.
But for me, it’s all consumptive activity, because it’s all about utility in the here and now. Where I exist. Where I am. Throughout this enjoyment of life, material resources are being used up over time, and one’s body is being used up over time.
“This all probably sounds condescending, but I think you have a lot of potential as a thinker, and will make great progress as long as you remember not to miss the forest for the trees.”
I think in all honesty that you are not the judge of that. I think in all honesty that I am not about potential, but about the here and now, where my utility is derived by my power over the world. I do not consider myself a thinker, because thinking is contingent on past thinking, which means I am nowhere in this chain. Thinking is a tool that I use for my benefit. I do not beholden myself to it. I do not prostrate myself under it. I am primary. I am the owner of all that is thought. Thoughts only exist when they are mine. I do not have any potential that is above me and what I do to derive utility. I use my property that are thoughts to my benefit. If a thought does not benefit me, then that thought is nothing to me. Yes, even if a thought is “true”. Even “truth” is no master to me. I am master over truth and lies, and use them both to my benefit when it suits me.
You can tell me that my thoughts are incorrect, you can tell me that my thoughts are not in conformity with conventions, laws, duties, morality, and truth. Beholding oneself to truth is beholding oneself to a Lord. I am servant of no Lord. I am owner.
“I would also like to pass on a couple of beliefs I hold. One is that it is much worse to believe something that is not true than to lose an argument. The second one is that losing an argument or a single point is something to be celebrated, because it means you’ve learned something new. So, there should never be a fear of losing or of changing your views, as long as you replace them with better ones.”
It is much worse to believe something that is not true than to lose an argument? According to what? According to who? If you say anything other than MY own utility, then I will spit at it.
For what if I am in an argument with someone who is threatening to kill me if my answer is not to his liking, and he had the unique talent of discerning when someone is lying? If I followed your Lord, I would be lead to my own death, because I would have to choose losing the argument and thus getting killed, rather than believe something that isn’t true and having my life spared.
I do not adhere to any general maxim of truth or morality. I use these silly superstitions as tools for my own benefit. I use truth and lose an argument when it suits me, and use lies and win an argument when it suits me.
Having said that, I will say that in this discussion, I have no interest in lying to suit my interests, because here telling the truth suits my interests, as it just so happens that telling the truth and winning the argument coincide, and at this moment, I enjoy telling the truth.
“To sum up:”
“1. Utility does not necessitate consumption (e.g. looking at something).”
“2. Consumption does not necessitate utility (e.g. bad broccoli).”
“3. Mutually-beneficial human relationships are productive, not consumptive. The involved parties are enhanced, not degraded, through their association.”
“4. The term “enjoyment” should generally be reserved to cases involving the experience of joy.”
“I’ll have to leave it at that for now, but I’ll be back in a few days in case a follow-up is called for.”
I reject all 4 points.
Point 1 is wrong, because direct utility through consumption makes indirect utility through delayed consumption and productive activity impossible.
Point 2 is wrong, because the bad broccoli is no longer the direct utility in the example of you sitting under a tree resting. The direct utility is you resting under the tree, which does carry with it consumptive activity. The accidental broccoli is not the consumption in question.
Point 3 is suspect, because mutually beneficial direct utility activity makes delayed consumption, productive activity impossible. However, a major caveat here is that because I hold all activity to be consumptive, there is potential room for agreement, as long as I know how far you are willing to go in this respect.
Point 4 is wrong, because a child who eats broccoli to shut his parents up, is an enjoyment.
“…losing an argument or a single point is something to be celebrated, because it means you’ve learned something new.”
“E.g. you taught me that two of my examples were flawed. That was helpful, so thanks!”
And now that I know you worship a Lord, called truth, I will seek to use you to my benefit when truth is called for, where I happen to lack the power to discern it without your use. If the truths you speak have no benefit to me, then they are nothing to me.