5 ms·

"Unnecessary" is such an odd category: humans could live in caves, for example. Who determines what is necessary? Is art necessary? Music? Nice food? This seems

"Unnecessary" is such an odd category: humans could live in caves, for example. Who determines what is necessary? Is art necessary? Music? Nice food? This seems often tangled in some odd moral/theological origin, i.e. possessions are frowned upon. I like to be shown new things to try, for example. So some advertising I actually like. Is my life planned by large corporations? From my work there I would say not, as most campaigns tend to fail even in the short term.

DangitBobby 5y ago
The author seems to indicate that what makes something "unnecessary" in this context is when it very temporarily scratches an itch but does nothing to meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm. What would really improve your life is less money, fewer purchases, and more free time.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Again, why is short-term pleasure wrong? My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily.
  - meiraleal 5y ago
    Nobody said it is wrong, but a life optimized for work and short-term pleasures is the lifestyle corporations have carved for you. Many people enjoy it, nothing wrong with that. But for some, it is meaningless.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      People have been pleasure seeking long before corporations existed, so I think the causal chains runs the other way: corporations exist because they cater to that. My life does not revolve around work, so that part isn't for me. I'd be happy not to work at all.
  - codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
    > Why is short-term pleasure wrong? This is a great question, and firmly in the realm of philosophy, so there will never be a definitive answer, only ones which you might find useful. I prefer the Stoic's attitude toward pleasure. To (very loosely) paraphrase Marcus Aurelius: For each evil characteristic a man can have, the gods gave also a counteracting virtue. For dishonesty, honesty. For fear, courage, etc. To counteract pleasure-seeking, self-control. How can it be good if we are given a virtue counteracting it?
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      I am more a proponent of some forms of hedonism. An emperor talking about indifference to pain or not seeking pleasure isn't someone I could follow philosophically.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        Epictetus was a slave.
        codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
        Agreed, but there are certain people I've experienced who simply can never acquiesce to stoic doctrine. To poorly paraphrase Epictetus (from "Against followers of the academy"): When a man had hardened himself against what is manifestly clear, what argument, what flaming sword can I bring to bear against him?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Perhaps pleasure-seeking is instead the virtue to counteract self-control?
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Short term pleasure is not wrong. The entire premise boils down to the belief that the 40 hour work-week means you are sacrificing long-term and short-term pleasure for superficial short-term pleasure, and that the inherent dissatisfaction arising from the arrangement is the only thing supporting the economy and resulting lifestyles as they exist, perpetuating dissatisfaction, for, practically, the sake of dissatisfaction. > My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily. If the entire economy were not designed to suck money out of your pockets (and thus time out of your life), you might feel differently.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Let me put it this way: people have been spending on pleasure since ancient times (including people without any need to work). So that type of economy has existed for a long time. The sacrificed long-term pleasure seems rather mythical to me and very different from person to person.
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        I think free time allows you to seek long term pleasure. That was my experience when I was younger, penniless, relatively un-obligated, and much more free. I would (and do) describe my current 9-5 existence as largely joyless.
        RandomLensman 5y ago
        Fair enough. I tend to feel most free with a lot of resources at my disposal and just enjoying my life and the world. And I'd agree that a lot of work is joyless. I think the difference is more that I tend to enjoy things "locally" and not "globally".
  - read_if_gay_ 5y ago
    It’s not wrong per se. But things that provide instant gratification tend to be destructive, and deep satisfaction seldom comes from things that are easily obtained.
  - hoseja 5y ago
    Well for one, because it's very inefficient.
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      Why would efficiency be a relevant measure for how to live my life?
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    A million things that do meaningfully improve our lives also provide short-term pleasure. They just don't provide profit for others to siphon off. Then there is the "pleasure" that is just really a temporary relief from pain that was induced to sell the temporary cure. E.g. people feeling inadequate for not looking like actors and fashion models. And it's not about anyone's specific life, it's about the world we make for ourselves and its sustainability. > The greater the pressures upon the individual to conform to safe and accepted social standards, the more does he tend to express his aspirations and his individuality in terms of what he wears, drives, eats- his home, his car, his pattern of food serving, his hobbies. These commodities and services must be offered to the consumer with a special urgency. We require not only “forced draft” consumption, but “expensive” consumption as well. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing pace. We need to have people eat, drink, dress, ride, live, with ever more complicated and, therefore, constantly more expensive consumption. -- Victor Lebow, 1955 > The relatively new trouble with mass society is perhaps even more serious, but not because of the masses themselves, but because this society is essentially a consumers’ society where leisure time is used no longer for self-perfection or acquisition of more social status, but for more and more consumption and more and more entertainment… To believe that such a society will become more “cultured” as time goes on and education has done its work, is, I think, a fatal mistake. The point is that a consumers’ society cannot possibly know how to take care of a world and the things which belong exclusively to the space of worldly appearances, because its central attitude toward all objects, the attitude of consumption, spells ruin to everything it touches. -- Hannah Arendt, "Between Past and Future" > But when the last war has come and every man has been provided for, no ultimate peace is established on earth: the power-accumulating machine, without which continual expansion would not have been achieved, needs more material to devour in its never-ending process. If the last victorious Commonwealth cannot proceed to "annex the planets," it can only proceed to destroy itself in order to begin anew the never-ending process of power generation. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
- weregiraffe 5y ago
  >meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm In the longterm quality of life decreases until life is over. Quality of life after death is 0.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    You'll have to explain what that has to do with the discussion about having a fulfilling life. It sounds like you're saying there's no point in improving your life because you die eventually anyway.
    - weregiraffe 5y ago
      You have to spend your investment at some point. You can't take it with you.

DangitBobby 5y ago

The author seems to indicate that what makes something "unnecessary" in this context is when it very temporarily scratches an itch but does nothing to meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm. What would really improve your life is less money, fewer purchases, and more free time.

RandomLensman 5y ago
Again, why is short-term pleasure wrong? My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily.
- meiraleal 5y ago
  Nobody said it is wrong, but a life optimized for work and short-term pleasures is the lifestyle corporations have carved for you. Many people enjoy it, nothing wrong with that. But for some, it is meaningless.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    People have been pleasure seeking long before corporations existed, so I think the causal chains runs the other way: corporations exist because they cater to that. My life does not revolve around work, so that part isn't for me. I'd be happy not to work at all.
- codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
  > Why is short-term pleasure wrong? This is a great question, and firmly in the realm of philosophy, so there will never be a definitive answer, only ones which you might find useful. I prefer the Stoic's attitude toward pleasure. To (very loosely) paraphrase Marcus Aurelius: For each evil characteristic a man can have, the gods gave also a counteracting virtue. For dishonesty, honesty. For fear, courage, etc. To counteract pleasure-seeking, self-control. How can it be good if we are given a virtue counteracting it?
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    I am more a proponent of some forms of hedonism. An emperor talking about indifference to pain or not seeking pleasure isn't someone I could follow philosophically.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      Epictetus was a slave.
      - codemonkey-zeta 5y ago
        Agreed, but there are certain people I've experienced who simply can never acquiesce to stoic doctrine. To poorly paraphrase Epictetus (from "Against followers of the academy"): When a man had hardened himself against what is manifestly clear, what argument, what flaming sword can I bring to bear against him?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Perhaps pleasure-seeking is instead the virtue to counteract self-control?
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Short term pleasure is not wrong. The entire premise boils down to the belief that the 40 hour work-week means you are sacrificing long-term and short-term pleasure for superficial short-term pleasure, and that the inherent dissatisfaction arising from the arrangement is the only thing supporting the economy and resulting lifestyles as they exist, perpetuating dissatisfaction, for, practically, the sake of dissatisfaction. > My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily. If the entire economy were not designed to suck money out of your pockets (and thus time out of your life), you might feel differently.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Let me put it this way: people have been spending on pleasure since ancient times (including people without any need to work). So that type of economy has existed for a long time. The sacrificed long-term pleasure seems rather mythical to me and very different from person to person.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      I think free time allows you to seek long term pleasure. That was my experience when I was younger, penniless, relatively un-obligated, and much more free. I would (and do) describe my current 9-5 existence as largely joyless.
      - RandomLensman 5y ago
        Fair enough. I tend to feel most free with a lot of resources at my disposal and just enjoying my life and the world. And I'd agree that a lot of work is joyless. I think the difference is more that I tend to enjoy things "locally" and not "globally".
- read_if_gay_ 5y ago
  It’s not wrong per se. But things that provide instant gratification tend to be destructive, and deep satisfaction seldom comes from things that are easily obtained.
- hoseja 5y ago
  Well for one, because it's very inefficient.
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    Why would efficiency be a relevant measure for how to live my life?
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  A million things that do meaningfully improve our lives also provide short-term pleasure. They just don't provide profit for others to siphon off. Then there is the "pleasure" that is just really a temporary relief from pain that was induced to sell the temporary cure. E.g. people feeling inadequate for not looking like actors and fashion models. And it's not about anyone's specific life, it's about the world we make for ourselves and its sustainability. > The greater the pressures upon the individual to conform to safe and accepted social standards, the more does he tend to express his aspirations and his individuality in terms of what he wears, drives, eats- his home, his car, his pattern of food serving, his hobbies. These commodities and services must be offered to the consumer with a special urgency. We require not only “forced draft” consumption, but “expensive” consumption as well. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing pace. We need to have people eat, drink, dress, ride, live, with ever more complicated and, therefore, constantly more expensive consumption. -- Victor Lebow, 1955 > The relatively new trouble with mass society is perhaps even more serious, but not because of the masses themselves, but because this society is essentially a consumers’ society where leisure time is used no longer for self-perfection or acquisition of more social status, but for more and more consumption and more and more entertainment… To believe that such a society will become more “cultured” as time goes on and education has done its work, is, I think, a fatal mistake. The point is that a consumers’ society cannot possibly know how to take care of a world and the things which belong exclusively to the space of worldly appearances, because its central attitude toward all objects, the attitude of consumption, spells ruin to everything it touches. -- Hannah Arendt, "Between Past and Future" > But when the last war has come and every man has been provided for, no ultimate peace is established on earth: the power-accumulating machine, without which continual expansion would not have been achieved, needs more material to devour in its never-ending process. If the last victorious Commonwealth cannot proceed to "annex the planets," it can only proceed to destroy itself in order to begin anew the never-ending process of power generation. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
weregiraffe 5y ago
>meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm In the longterm quality of life decreases until life is over. Quality of life after death is 0.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  You'll have to explain what that has to do with the discussion about having a fulfilling life. It sounds like you're saying there's no point in improving your life because you die eventually anyway.
  - weregiraffe 5y ago
    You have to spend your investment at some point. You can't take it with you.