Antonio T.
asked • 03/10/24Philosophy related question
In one of his more memorable statements, Mills says that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Do you agree that some kinds of pleasure (e.g. attending a Mozart symphony) are qualitatively higher than other kinds (e.g. watching professional wrestling on television)? Short response on why this would be
More
1 Expert Answer
Jay V. answered • 03/27/24
Tutor
0
(0)
Experienced Philosophy Tutor, Interlocutor, Writing Coach
From a more contemporary perspective, pleasure is subjective and can vary greatly among individuals based on their preferences and experiences. While some may find attending a Mozart symphony to be a higher form of pleasure due to its intellectual and cultural stimulation, others may derive equal satisfaction from watching professional wrestling on television. Each person's definition of pleasure is unique, shaped by their personal interests, values, and background. Therefore, it's essential to recognize that the quality of pleasure is not universally fixed but rather contingent on individual perspectives and inclinations. Additionally, from Mill's perspective as a philosopher, his statement suggests that intellectual fulfillment, even in the face of dissatisfaction, holds greater value than mere contentment without intellectual growth. This aligns with the notion that pursuing higher forms of pleasure, such as those derived from intellectual pursuits, may lead to a more meaningful and fulfilling life.
Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.
Ask a question for free
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
OR
Find an Online Tutor Now
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Matthew O.
I believe this is Mills rebuttal to the utilitarian belief that things can be simply grouped into pleasant and unpleasant things, with the pleasant things applied to the maximum amount of people in order to be considered "moral". In the line directly preceding "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied" he says "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied; ... ". So to me, Mills is drawing a line in regards to the utilitarian simplification of happiness or pleasure; and he says as much with what he describes as "higher and lower pleasures". Pleasures such as eating until we get fat like a pig would then be considered a lower-pleasure; but enjoying something like a rock concert would be considered a higher pleasure. The emphasis I'd like to make is that a pig wouldn't ever choose to attend a rock concert - but a human may choose a rock concert over stuffing their faces; no matter who the main act is the pig would still choose the lower pleasure, and no matter what the human is offered to feast on they'd likely still choose seeing their favorite artist. So that is what seems to delineates humans from animals: our ability to enjoy "higher pleasures". What he is getting at is that human pleasure isn't a binary experience - a zero being unpleasantness and a one being pleasant, like many animals seem to view things. In humans there exists a quality or scale to these feelings: some pleasant things are better than other pleasant things, and some unpleasant things worse than other unpleasant things. I'd say Mills is on to something with this line of thought, because I too agree some "good" things are better than others - it's too broad a simplification to generalize things into good and bad when speaking about humans. But I'd also argue that animals too have a scale to their feelings of pleasantness - my cats will choose the wet food over the dry food any time. But no matter how many times I make them listen to Ozzy Osbourne they refuse to attend a concert with me. lol.03/11/24