4 ms·

To me, writing has always been an exercise in utilitarianism, and is done out of necessity. I can't comprehend why having a nicer pen would cause one to write m

• xfax 14y ago
  Your argument applies to eating as well, yet people derive pleasure from food that goes beyond the act of nourishing their bodies. Beauty, as they say, is in the eyes of the beholder.
  • ruswick 14y ago
    You don't understand my point. I agree that one can try to derive pleasure from such things. I know I do. But that pleasure doesn't encourage people to eat more, and a lack of pleasure doesn't compel you not to eat. The pursuit of pleasure exists independent of necessity. Even if you couldn't afford lavish meals, you would still eat what you could afford, because eating is a necessity. You wouldn't starve yourself just because you couldn't eat at at 4 Star Michelin restaurants every night. Conversely, you wouldn't gorge yourself just because you were at a 4 star restaurant. So yes, my argument does apply to eating as well. In fact, eating is a pretty excellent example that proves my point. An obligation can also be subject to hedonistic intent. What is you point?
    • xfax 14y ago
      Well, you made two points. One is that having a nicer pen wouldn't (shouldn't) make you want to write more. Two, that a $60 pen has no value besides making you feel opulent. My response was to your second point where I assert that some people derive pleasure from things that others perceive as mundane. Eating at a 4-star Michelin restaurant for example can be loosely (very) compared to writing with a $60 pen. So it's not bizarre. To your first point, deriving pleasure from doing something does indeed encourage you to do more of it. Even eating - compare eating a mediocre meal at a food court to a scrumptious meal prepared by your mother (or whoever cooks well in your family!). Sure, writing is not an infrequent exercise, so perhaps the analogy goes only so far, but the point remains that if you enjoy it, you are likely to do more of it.
      • ruswick 14y ago
        It does not encourage you to do more of it when it is solely an obligation. I think eating is a bad example because people eat for pleasure, whereas people only write for utility. People rarely if ever write simply because they enjoy writing. They write to convey or record information, If you remove the utilitarian obligation from writing, and make it solely an exercise in enjoyment, you have to disassociate the obligatory aspect of writing, as well as the functional result. I don't know about you, but I don't really see people transcribing the alphabet 1000 in a notebook for pleasure (or other such trivial applications of writing). When people write, they do it because they have to achieve some end. This is different from fine dining, where there is no end. You don't eat because you need nutrion, but because the meal brings pleasure. My second assertion was not dismissing the pleasure found in using an expensive pen and feeling good, but merely an explanation of why I think it's silly. If one cares about having profligate writing instruments, more power to them. I, however, just want something that works well. In a pen, that is usually determined by the insert, which is why a $60 shell isn't important.
        • xfax 14y ago
          It encourages you to shift from other modes of recording information. Taking pleasure in writing using a pen presumably moves you away from taking notes on your laptop, tablet or mobile phone. Thus it does encourage you to write more, even though in aggregate you are probably storing the same amount of information.