Robert Nozick's The Experience Machine Or Pleasure Machine

Nozick briefly discusses the nature of pleasure, as it is clearly an important element of happiness. There are pleasures of the body and mind, as well as pleasures of the emotion. They are all valued for their felt quality that what they have in common That is what a pleasure is, and is different from something like Equality, which is not valued for good feelings , but pleasure is something valued for its felt qualities.

Zadie Smith explains to you that pleasure can be more of a temporary feeling that can only satisfy readers at that moment or for a little bit of time. Reading this short story by Smith makes the readers realize that there is a difference between two words that can also be so similar but so different at the same time. And that joy can sometimes be similar to pleasure but it’s more than a feeling. You enjoy “joy” and you live during

As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming

There are certain things that are in the control of the humans, at the same time there are several things, which are not under the human’s control. Thus, to persist a happy life, the humans are required to put an end their desire such that the satisfaction of

The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Bentham’s idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ‘levels’ of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are

In addition, Kupperman evaluates the value of pleasure through the Buddhist Argument as well as Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” argument. Although it may seem that since we want more pleasure in life, that value of pleasure may depend on how much

The most successful theory is the desire satisfaction theory. The theory is clear on the things that make us happy. The hedonism theory only focuses on pleasure as the only value that can make our lives comfortable. The theory does not prove how pleasure only can make one’s life better. The desire satisfaction theory blends in well because it does not consider pleasure as the only source of good life.

“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

For this essay, I will be examining the article “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” written by Joel Feinberg. I will be pinpointing the central conclusion of this article, as well as the argument’s premises and the article’s central argument. I will also explain how the article relates to the film Being John Malkovich, and finally the school of philosophy, which we call “existentialism” and three of its central tenets.

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.

According to hedonism, pleasure is the most important good and the ultimate goal in life. Epicurus states that pleasure is in intrinsic good. Mill agrees with him, but along with Kazez, says that happiness is also an elemental good. In Epicurus’ theory, he defines pleasure as the absence of pain. Mill also uses this definition, but applies it to happiness as well. Therefore, we can agree on a definition for the two terms that makes sense: happiness and pleasure are both the absence of pain. According to Mill, happiness and pleasure are correlated. He says that happiness is the existence of pleasure. This is what drives all of our actions and desires. We desire things because it will bring us pleasure in some way and we avoid things because

Nevertheless, the objections to the theory are not true as they point out that the theory has two major flaws. In which the Objective list theory does not require someone to have pleasure all the time, such as the “bite the bullet [approach]” (Findler, PowerPoint). Which states that people have to endure pain or unpleasant situation which are unavoidable, but by going through these situations you are able to gain more pleasure from the situations you are able to gain more pleasure from the situations you are able to control. This contradicts the statement that the Objective list theory that people have certain experiences, even if they do not want to enjoy them. But by experiencing these unavoidable situations you gain more pleasure from the situations that you enjoy and actually want to experience.

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.

Society today possesses an over-reliance on technology. Advancements in technology paved the way for the formation of new applications and forms of social media that potentially lead to the loss of the intimacy of communication and personal relationships among users. As a result of the ease of communication through technology, face-to-face interaction rarely occurs anymore. Long before technology began advancing at a rapid pace, authors used their medium of writing to comment on the dangers of relying on technology too excessively. E.M. Forster’s short story, “The Machine Stops,” written in 1909, highlights a dilemma that society’s over-reliance on technology created between virtual connectivity and face-to-face interaction. That over-reliance, perfect for the futuristic, dystopian society in “The Machine Stops,” also serves as a cautionary tale for the technological culture of today.

We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is