1

I'm viewing this from a nihilistic standpoint, as in nothing in life has any inherent value, there is no meaning in life, and furthermore there's no reason to have one. So following this line of "logic" I dismissed logic as being contradictory, for what is there to say just because something pertains to this set of axioms it is worth more to the world, when virtually the world doesn't care. So delving deeper I thought that we primarily act on satisfaction. Why I still do what I think is logical is because I gain satisfaction from connecting separate pieces of knowledge and observing it's beautiful structure. But satisfaction is always satisfying, so is it absolute? Without concerning further attributes and how eventually through thought we think linearly in a infinitely dimensional structure and can not imagine the true nature of anything, is satisfaction absolute, as it is always 100% relative, meaning since it is 100% conceived and created as pertaining only towards your positivity, you can't disprove it. You can't argue "I hate satisfaction".

It is the only thing I can't imagine as arguing negative, presuming it's nature entails it to be 100% good

  • 1
    If all is relative (no value, no meaning, no truth), there is no "absolute". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 30 '17 at 7:14
  • 1
    What about the idea that it is 100% good? (to the individual) – TheAutomaton Aug 30 '17 at 8:31
  • 1
    If all is relative, relativity is absolute. Absolute is whatever is free of dependencies. – John Am Aug 30 '17 at 9:58
  • Being unable to imagine the true nature of things would not entail not being able to know it, and I'd suggest that genuine satisfaction is out of reach unless and until we do. Satisfaction would be fundamental if we call it bliss, or this is what they say we discover when we realise the true nature of things. . – user20253 Aug 30 '17 at 11:49
  • 1
    Satisfaction is not absolute because it depends on dissatisfaction. – John Am Aug 30 '17 at 14:28
1

You've taken an aesthetic position it sounds like to me. It's a matter of taste. You are satisfied. How can I argue with this? I cannot. Your tastes may change. You are a minimalist art lover now, we might say (as an example). You may fall in love and go through a baroque stage before settling down to a sort of middle class style of decorative art; on the other hand you may stay in a strictly minimalist mode for the duration of your life, with occasional pit stops in surrealist automatism.

The aesthetic dimension is a uniquely human dimension. What satisfies you cannot be argued against, even Kant would agree, your current automaton ideation (way of life) is unassailable. For instance, if you like cheese, how can I argue against your taste?

The laws of society still apply though. I may love wine and that no one could argue with, but if I steal wine and I get caught, then I may still go to jail.

0

I would suggest that satisfaction is just an emotion and no emotion is absolute, because our emotional state changes as soon as we fully experience the emotion.

Satisfying your hunger is not an absolute good because you could imagine holding out three seconds longer and having more hunger and therefore more satisfaction in the same food. By not partaking in any given satisfaction you could generally have more satisfaction. Then again, you could just pass out and die of hunger while waiting for the optimal point to be happiest about eating.

Mental satisfaction similarly stales unless you constantly find more beautiful complexity, so pursuing the problem before you will eventually leave you bored. At the same time, you can be satisfied with a solution and then later find some niggling detail that makes it no longer satisfactory. Then was the original satisfaction ultimately good? Was it better to enjoy your illusion, or to have the problem to attack in a new way?

So although satisfaction itself may be good as an abstract goal, any real act of satisfying a need eliminates something potentially better, and prevents something potentially worse. That means that the individual act is both good and bad. Satisfaction is itself internally contradictory. It constitutes an elaborate illusion.

If something is always potentially good, but never actually entirely good, and may not ultimately be real, how can it be an absolute value?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.