2 ms·

Thanks very much for the recommendation, I've been looking for a factual treatment of something like this. For a philosophical defense of something similar, yo

Thanks very much for the recommendation, I've been looking for a factual treatment of something like this. For a philosophical defense of something similar, you might be interested in capabilitarianism. Crudely put, it's a version of utilitarianism which argues utility arises not just from happiness and lack of pain, but from capacity - the ability to plan and act and change the world as we desire. Capability and purpose aren't the same, of course, but it certainly looks like the first is a condition of the second - without some amount of agency, purpose tends to be nonexistent or painful unreachable. The general idea that intent and action must be combined with happiness fits my intuitions nicely, and provides an elegant answer to issues like wireheading. Rather than adding some complex epicycle, we can simply observe that maximizing happiness in that way surrenders too much purpose.

smallnamespace 8y ago
This echoes Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which can be viewed as people intuitively focusing on longer and longer-term needs. The bottom of the hierarchy, food and water, if not fulfilled, will kill in a matter of days to weeks. Immediate physical safety follows, then social belonging, then higher-order psychological needs (love, esteem) that promote success over longer time scales. Note that these needs aren't necessarily competing, but are ultimately compatible: e.g. being in a position where you are loved and esteemed by your community will ensure that your lower-order needs are likely to be fulfilled indefinitely into the future. In this context, a 'will to power' makes a lot of sense. Your mind instinctually models that not only is it necessary to have your immediate needs today fulfilled, but that you have a guarantee that your immediate needs can be fulfilled in the future. And the best way to guarantee that is to have the personal ability to ensure that outcome, e.g. 'power' or 'capacity'. If you drag this discussion out a bit further, one can immediately see the limitations of a proposal like UBI, or the anger coming from largely right-leaning communities hit by downsides of globalization. You can promise people benefits (or tax transfers) and feed them today, but there is no psychological sense of safety. If you know that ultimately you play no useful economic role in your society, and are really living at the largesse of society of large, what guarantee is there that that state of affairs will continue indefinitely?

smallnamespace 8y ago

This echoes Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which can be viewed as people intuitively focusing on longer and longer-term needs. The bottom of the hierarchy, food and water, if not fulfilled, will kill in a matter of days to weeks. Immediate physical safety follows, then social belonging, then higher-order psychological needs (love, esteem) that promote success over longer time scales. Note that these needs aren't necessarily competing, but are ultimately compatible: e.g. being in a position where you are loved and esteemed by your community will ensure that your lower-order needs are likely to be fulfilled indefinitely into the future. In this context, a 'will to power' makes a lot of sense. Your mind instinctually models that not only is it necessary to have your immediate needs today fulfilled, but that you have a guarantee that your immediate needs can be fulfilled in the future. And the best way to guarantee that is to have the personal ability to ensure that outcome, e.g. 'power' or 'capacity'. If you drag this discussion out a bit further, one can immediately see the limitations of a proposal like UBI, or the anger coming from largely right-leaning communities hit by downsides of globalization. You can promise people benefits (or tax transfers) and feed them today, but there is no psychological sense of safety. If you know that ultimately you play no useful economic role in your society, and are really living at the largesse of society of large, what guarantee is there that that state of affairs will continue indefinitely?