Saturday, December 23, 2006

of Absolutism and Happiness

I won't believe that Plato's absolutism fundaes hold good for human psychology. Thoughts and ideas and opinions are changing always. Again, whats the correct decision for one person might look as a blunder at a different time or in another guy's shoes . So the definition of right and wrong gets blurred in most cases. As our race is developing, our lives are getting more and more complicated. Decisions that were really simple(because there were no options) have become intricate. During our evolution we developed the frontal lobe in our head, which our previous version lacked. This growth was morphological also, due to which was can imagine or extrapolate into future. This is very important is making decisions and leads to happiness. But this power is growing everyday because it is a part of the evolution. One who are not able keep up in this race are left out to perish. It a scientifically proven fact that if we have more options to decide from, we will not be as happy with our decision compared to when we don't have any option. So coming back to my argument, I feel the global average happiness is decreasing with generation. This is the price we have to pay for our evolution I guess. This reminds me of Huxley's 'Brave New World' where the only happiness people have artificial and there is no limit to that. That is the other extreme of the spectrum.

Which option is better? I don't think anyone can answer this satisfactorily. A different and pertinent way of asking that same question is how to define "better"? We again enter the domain of relativism. So I would to propose an absurd idea(not novel though), say we make two strata. One for those who enjoy the advancements and are driven towards artificial happiness. And the other would be living life as a cave man, not literally (what I mean is being laid back and keeping things simple. Any development in life will be a taboo in that society). This is a black and white situation. So people like me who like to hide in the grey areas have to decide a side. Which side will you chose in this hypothetical situation?..

Me thinks.....

2 Comments:

At 10:22 AM, Blogger Alok said...

It's interesting: your post is an example of the point you are trying to make in it. You now have the option to think about the philosophical question of whether one should have too many options or not. In that sense, I would say that you have the option to debate that choice, which (I am sure) a caveman did not.

Although, I would also say that it is a combination of "evolution" and where one is in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Where to I stand? The bottom of the pyramid :-).

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger Sakya said...

exactly... totally argreed.. a caveman won't have that pyramid at all or never thought of all these things at all...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home