I was going to title this writing as 'sociology of pleasure', then I thought it might be 'psychology of ...' or 'philosophy of ...', or none of them.
Once a famous academic told me that although he has published hundreds of papers, he is still enjoying publishing papers. It was not surprising for me, as if he was not getting joy and pleasure from publishing, he would not this in the first place; at least to that extent. If someone does not like an activity, s/he may do it for the sake of obligations, but this will be in a limited extent. The thing would be done, as long as the obligations could force it. When someone is doing something beyond the external expectations, there should be internal forces around.
So in one term, 'you are what you enjoy of it!'.
It is on the one hand a practical realistic logic. If you enjoy of something you would do this more and more, and that will constitute your personality. Whether it is an academic activity, or a basic biologic act, such as eating. On the other hand, there are more deep explanations there.
An important point here is the fact that enjoying of something is different from doing it. One might enjoy violent media, without doing anything violent. Based on my previous stated philosophy, it does not make a difference. The person is as violent as the criminal who is really violent. Although legally there is a huge difference between those two people, I am suggesting that morally and philosophically there is no difference between those two.
People might have never been dictators in their lives, while they might be 'dictators' inside, if they enjoy or admire the power to control.
People might have never been engaged in sexual acting outs, but they might internally enjoy illegitimate seductions.
Legally nothing could be done for the intention of people, but this does not mean the aforementioned argument is just a philosophic statement or a spiritual advice. There are some practical implications. At the moment, many institutions are advocating 'wrong' pleasure-seeking habits. I would not argue about media, which directly advocate such wrong habits, but also it is about moral advices, that do not challenge the attraction inside things, but only advocate keeping away from it. For example, "don't do it, it is a sin", as if there is no argument about the pleasure that exists in the sin. While the fact is, one particular thing do not bring equal pleasure for everybody. People should know this and in addition to controlling their actions, they should notice the source of their pleasures. If they found a 'sin' pleasurable, something is wrong. This is a helpful hint indeed. The problem of many people, like addicts is denial and telling lies to oneself. Pleasure is a very good guide to one's condition, and will remind the person that there is a potential problem that could lead to actual problems at any time, and cautious should be exercised. If gradually during the time one could change his source of pleasure, then he has been able to cure himself. In contrast, when one perceive getting pleasure from wrong sources to be normal, he would ignore many warnings, and justify many actions.
The other fact is people could not equally enjoy from different sources, if they used to one particular source, it means they are off from other sources. Therefore, if in a society getting pleasure from 'right' sources is advocated, people would automatically go away from 'wrong' sources. While if in a society people are forced away from wrong pleasurable sources, the fact that those things are pleasurable would not be challenged, and no matter what are the behaviours, there would be moral failures, in both existence of wrong attractions, and not having right attractions.
A final remark is that 'right' sources of pleasure might be difficult to enjoy from in the first instances. For example, running or other sorts of physical activities could be difficult for people who do not used to them. Therefore it is crucial to advocate them with support and ease them via encouragement and positive approaches. When initial obstacles are overcome, then people could start getting pleasure out of them and everything would be on the right path then. This is somehow similar to the 'secret' and 'power' theories, or the positive psychology in general.
In summary, 'you are what you are getting pleasure from it'; so if you are not something (dictator, violent...) you should not get pleasure of it; if you want to be something, that should brought pleasure for you.
Once a famous academic told me that although he has published hundreds of papers, he is still enjoying publishing papers. It was not surprising for me, as if he was not getting joy and pleasure from publishing, he would not this in the first place; at least to that extent. If someone does not like an activity, s/he may do it for the sake of obligations, but this will be in a limited extent. The thing would be done, as long as the obligations could force it. When someone is doing something beyond the external expectations, there should be internal forces around.
So in one term, 'you are what you enjoy of it!'.
It is on the one hand a practical realistic logic. If you enjoy of something you would do this more and more, and that will constitute your personality. Whether it is an academic activity, or a basic biologic act, such as eating. On the other hand, there are more deep explanations there.
An important point here is the fact that enjoying of something is different from doing it. One might enjoy violent media, without doing anything violent. Based on my previous stated philosophy, it does not make a difference. The person is as violent as the criminal who is really violent. Although legally there is a huge difference between those two people, I am suggesting that morally and philosophically there is no difference between those two.
People might have never been dictators in their lives, while they might be 'dictators' inside, if they enjoy or admire the power to control.
People might have never been engaged in sexual acting outs, but they might internally enjoy illegitimate seductions.
Legally nothing could be done for the intention of people, but this does not mean the aforementioned argument is just a philosophic statement or a spiritual advice. There are some practical implications. At the moment, many institutions are advocating 'wrong' pleasure-seeking habits. I would not argue about media, which directly advocate such wrong habits, but also it is about moral advices, that do not challenge the attraction inside things, but only advocate keeping away from it. For example, "don't do it, it is a sin", as if there is no argument about the pleasure that exists in the sin. While the fact is, one particular thing do not bring equal pleasure for everybody. People should know this and in addition to controlling their actions, they should notice the source of their pleasures. If they found a 'sin' pleasurable, something is wrong. This is a helpful hint indeed. The problem of many people, like addicts is denial and telling lies to oneself. Pleasure is a very good guide to one's condition, and will remind the person that there is a potential problem that could lead to actual problems at any time, and cautious should be exercised. If gradually during the time one could change his source of pleasure, then he has been able to cure himself. In contrast, when one perceive getting pleasure from wrong sources to be normal, he would ignore many warnings, and justify many actions.
The other fact is people could not equally enjoy from different sources, if they used to one particular source, it means they are off from other sources. Therefore, if in a society getting pleasure from 'right' sources is advocated, people would automatically go away from 'wrong' sources. While if in a society people are forced away from wrong pleasurable sources, the fact that those things are pleasurable would not be challenged, and no matter what are the behaviours, there would be moral failures, in both existence of wrong attractions, and not having right attractions.
A final remark is that 'right' sources of pleasure might be difficult to enjoy from in the first instances. For example, running or other sorts of physical activities could be difficult for people who do not used to them. Therefore it is crucial to advocate them with support and ease them via encouragement and positive approaches. When initial obstacles are overcome, then people could start getting pleasure out of them and everything would be on the right path then. This is somehow similar to the 'secret' and 'power' theories, or the positive psychology in general.
In summary, 'you are what you are getting pleasure from it'; so if you are not something (dictator, violent...) you should not get pleasure of it; if you want to be something, that should brought pleasure for you.
0 یادداشت خوانندگان:
ارسال يک نظر