Feinberg Psychological Egoism Summary

1. Why does Daniel Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, say that experiences might bring more satisfaction than durable goods? Do you agree or disagree?

He would have explained to me that even though some philosopher could argue that all of our acts are considered as selfish since the main source of our action is us therefore it does make sense that our only motif is to obtain pleasure for ourselves. As mentioned in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Psychological egoists cannot establish their view simply by pointing to the pleasure or self-benefit that accompanies so many actions. After all, often self-benefit only seems to be what we ultimately desire, though a closer look reveals benefits like pleasure are likely just byproducts while the proximate desire is for that which generates them” ( Psychological Egoism). Joel Feinberg would explain that the acts that are generated to help others even though we can receive pleasure for acting such way could be and should be considered as an altruistic act. Pleasure can be a byproduct of a good deed but what matters is what generated the good deed and if it’s for a good reason and to help others it should be considered as an altruistic

Material items and possessions may give temporary satisfaction, but after that fleeting moment, the cravings for more start anew. The Fisherman and His Wife and The Great Gatsby both show examples of how a person can never be satisfied with the amount of possessions they have. Satisfaction cannot be achieved unless that person is happy with themselves. Happiness should not depend on possessions, but rather self-satisfaction.

Chapter 10 is over personality. Personality is described as a pattern of enduring, distinctive thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that characterize the way an individual adapts to the world. The book goes over psychodynamic perspectives, trait perspectives, personological and life story perspectives, social cognitive perspectives, and biological perspectives.

The Ego Centric Problem states that the knowledge we have gained over the period of our lives in entrenched so deep that it prevents us from learning new things. Descartes states that “if we can only be certain of the contents of our consciousness, then how are we ever to gain knowledge of the world that lies beyond our minds. This brings up a good point, if we already have knowledge, does that knowledge have any influence on us that would hinder us to learn new things.

In Adam Grant’s essay entitled “Does Trying to Be Happy Make Us Unhappy” , in the first sentence the author claims that in the pursuit of happiness that many try to achieve, that path tends to have the inverse effect and actually make one unhappy. The author does this with the use of studies that directly correlate with a story of an individual by the name of Tom, and his struggles in life due to him focusing on trying to be happy, and that making him unhappy in due. The author starts with this to draw in readers to understand what it is that the essay will be discussing in future paragraphs.

Frankfurt suggests that desiring something often relates to only a specific moment or something that benefits oneself. He uses the example of a person who has free time and decides

Gertner claims that these mistakes in expectations can lead to making bad choices in what we think will make us happy. This is called "miswanting."

     The descriptive claim made by Psychological Egoists is that humans, by nature, are motivated only by self-interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it may seem on the outside is actually only a disguise for a selfish desire such as recognition, avoiding guilt, reward or sense of personal ‘goodness’ or morality. For example, Mother Teresa is just using the poor for her own long-term spiritual gain. Being a universal claim, it could falter with a single counterexample. And being that I believe this claim to be bunk I will tell you why!

A more compelling example Railton’s construction’s explanatory power occurs with respect to the personal satisfaction of an individual A. One can observe that what A+ would will for A appears to, prima facie, correspond to actions leading to the well-being or escape of ill-being. Consequently, one can explain A’s personal satisfaction by means of examining A’s congruence to the will of A+. If A has low personal satisfaction, it seems that it should be the result of A’s incongruence with the will of A+ and similarly for great personal satisfaction and otherwise. Consequently, A’s level satisfaction can be said to be the result of A’s degree of congruence to the will of A+ (178-9).

He states that we desire, more so than pleasure, to live a life “in contact with reality” (Nozick 646).

The passage gives the analogy of carrying a spoon of oil around a castle. If we are tasked with not allowing any oil to drop from the spoon, we may become too focused and find ourselves ignoring the beauty and wonders surrounding the castle. However, when we become to focused on he wonders around the castle, we drop the oil from the spoon, defeating the purpose of carrying the spoon. We can apply this teaching to the world when we focus on our life goals. If we try to fulfill our desires while we appreciate what the world has too offer, we will feel joy and happiness. When we become infatuated with our goals and desires we tend to push aside wonders and reasons to be happy that the world has already given us, and vice versa. When we push aside the world’s wonder we may become discouraged when achieving our goals, because it may take too long to find happiness. Little reasons to be happy may encourage us to persist our pursuit to achieve goals and discover true happiness

If one gets satisfaction from doing what they want to do, then satisfaction is one’s only goal

Freud proposes the Principle of Satisfaction when aiming to be happy, in other words "a problem of satisfying a person's instinctual wishes (Freud 263)." Consequently, he concludes that because our "appetite" can never be fulfilled, the attainment of happiness will be nothing else than pessimistic. Also, he notes, that not all pleasures or wishes can be satisfied as soon as they are conceived. Freud presents the example of a baby, who, initially, believes that all his/her wishes should be gratified, and only later learns, form the Reality Principle, the harsh truth, that the wishes can not be satisfied instantaneously. More than that, life teaches men that in order to experience happiness one must sacrifice the instant gratification of his/her desires in order to achieve happiness in future. A simple example would be when a businessman decides to work overtime in order to receive more money and, thus, receive more pleasure, of course temporary and in future.

The theory of psychological egoism is indeed plausible. The meaning of plausible in the context of this paper refers to the validity or the conceivability of the theory in question, to explain the nature and motivation of human behavior (Hinman, 2007). Human actions are motivated by the satisfaction obtained after completing a task that they are involved in. For example, Mother Teresa was satisfied by her benevolent actions and activities that she spent her life doing. As Hinman (2007) points out, she was likely to reduce in activity if she experienced any dissatisfaction in her endeavors.