Essay on Robert Nozick's Experience Machine

In Virtue Ethics, the author Richard Taylor goes into detail when explaining the basis of happiness involving pleasures. Taylor felt that most people were not interested in finding out what happiness truly is because they already possess an idea of what it entails. People appear unwilling to examine their own misconception of happiness, so they often look to pleasures as a form of happiness. Happiness and pleasures may seem similar because people often relate them, but they are ultimately different. Happiness is complicated because of all that it takes to reach its end.

During this essay written by Walker Percy, it is clear that his overall opinion of experiencing new things is in the eye of the beholder and/or the hands of those around them and their social status. Percy uses many examples in his writing including that of an explorer, tourist, and local all seeing things for the first time either literally or in a new different light. In this essay, I will play on both sides of regaining experiences, seeing things on a different level then before or the first time. Regaining experiences is a valid argument brought up by Percy as it is achievable. While criticizing each side of the argument, I will also answer questions as to the validity of Percy's argument,

Many theorist believe that happiness is the only important in people's life, and all that should matter to a person is being happy. The standard of assessing a good life is how much or quantity of happiness it contains. This openness of happiness, its generosity of spirit and width of appreciation, gets warped and constricted by the claim pretending to be its greatest friend—that only happiness matters, nothing else. Robert Nozick does not on the side of hedonistic utilitarianism, he gives several examples to show that there are other elements of reality we may strive for, even at the expense of pleasure. In this essay, I will focus on Nozick's opinion of the direction of happiness and the experience

Nozick suggests, “why should we be concerned only with how our time is filled, but not with what we are?” The truth is humans are not only concerned with what they do in life, but also with whom they become and are. The human personality develops by experiencing true and real events that are not resulted from a man made machine. We as humans have the ability to reason and understand life differently than everything else in existence. Because of this understanding of life, we understand that pleasure is not the only important thing to us. As human we have real life goals which need to be experienced through reality, not through some stimulation of our brain. Nozick makes it clear the pleasure is not intrinsically good because by denying this thought experiment, we are also denying that all we need is pleasure to live a good life.

In sum, life is supposed to be about more than happiness. We are supposed to do something important, adhere to some ethic, and serve a greater good. We live for a goal, a principle, or a destiny—not just for pleasure.1

In her book Meaning in Life and Why it Matters, Susan Wolf does not focus on this perennial question people have been asking over the vast confusion of human history rather she gazes her view at the question of how people seek and maintain meaningful lives. Seeking of meaningful life poses the question of motives that has driven us to engage in. Wolf judges the answer from philosophical point of view. Utilitarianism, a paradigm of teleological theory, accepts pleasure as the ultimate meaning of life. J. S. Mill argues, ‘pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends, and that everything that is desirable at all is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain’ [1863:10] Man demands and pursues the supreme good which comprises both virtue and happiness. Mill’s uses of the term pleasure confined it only in this physical world. Kant, on the other hand, uses it even after death. Virtue and pleasure, duty and inclination, are, according to Kant, heterogeneous notions. Their unity cannot be achieved within the narrow span of our life in this world. We, therefore, conceive immortal life for us. Hence, we seek pleasure not only in this material world, but also in the super sensible world as it is

In the essay “The Loss of the Creature”, Walker Percy highlights his observations on how people perceive the world. He argues that we have lost original, self-driven learning because people only measure their experiences based on other people’s expectations. He states how these preconceived expectations of our experiences give way to a symbolic complex. This complex is set by what people or “Layman” believe the experts have set. Therefore, their experience is only validated if people feel that they have met those criteria. He believes that people can only have a true experience if they forgo all those preconceived expectations and biases. Only then can people truly experience something at face value.

In this essay I shall discuss how the film, 'The Matrix' (1999), engages in a form of cinematic philosophy. Specifically, I will discuss how the film can be seen as making an objection to the position held by Sidgwick (1907), who asserts that, positive states of consciousness, or, pleasure, is ultimately the only thing inherently valuable, which in turn becomes the basis of his utilitarian ethics. In doing so, I consider The Matrix to be a cinematic adaptation of Robert Nozick's (1974) 'experience machine' thought experiment, which the film-makers bring to life, developing it into a narrative that pulls heavily on our moral emotions. However, although the film-makers skilfully elicit the appropriate emotional responses from viewers, ensuring

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences between the desire-satisfaction theory of value and hedonism. I will also discuss the most successful theory and defend my argument by explaining how the theory

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

Many feel that pleasure is a way for people to express their feelings in a way that is animalistic or savage. Krista Lysack, author of Come Buy, Come Buy, has a different interpretation as to what pleasure is. She views pleasure as simply “that which exceeds the norms of usefulness,” not as a greedy grab for something one desires. Pleasure is not something that really needs to be justified or explained because it possesses value within itself. Explaining why you get pleasure from specific objects or tasks is something that seems very difficult to do, other than saying that you do it because you like it. Lysack later goes on to theorize that shopping becomes less and less about what is useful, and more about what allows us to be distracted and entertained. Pleasure to her is a state of being that is anything but stagnant and instead moves around to a variety of different areas. People’s interests are bound to change over a lifetime as few people at age twenty are likely to get the same joy from tasks they performed when they were five.

The rhetorical factors in the article “Buying Experiences, Not Things” written by James Hamblin are clear and easy to decipher. The article discusses the psychological factors in a human of being happy. Psychologists and scientists are constantly doing research and studies trying to determine how the brain works, and how people’s minds function every day of their lives. Whether its sleep, knowledge, substance abuse or functions of each part of the brain, every little piece of information gathered helps complete the bigger picture. Emotions are a popular study in psychology. Psychologists are trying to find a way to measure the emotions of people that occur on a daily basis. Research is also being done in search of a form of measurement to measure people’s happiness. Happiness is considered to be an important factor in life.

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

Robert Nozick is a philosopher who seeks to disprove the utilitarian notion of hedonism through a thought experiment that he has entitles “The Experience Machine” (Nozick 646). I will first explain the concept of utilitarianism and hedonism, then the experience machine before I give a reply about the inclusion of a third category of pleasure which I have called “meta-pleasure”. Finally, I will show how technology may be disproving the entire experience machine thought experiment altogether.