It is preferable to be unsatisfied like Socrates rather than content like a fool since Socrates is more intellectual and can discover methods to be satisfied. A higher standard. When juxtaposed to Socrates, a fool’s ambition is nothing. Mill argues that it is for no reasonable cause that a human would want to become a swine to become comfortable. It is sometimes difficult being human, and at times it is hard accepting that a pig does not have to deal with other stress. This is much similar to the concept of a happy fool. A satisfied fool may not have to stress about wanting to give up their brain for comfort and sometimes would wonder why one has not tried otherwise. The only freedom a Socrates would desire is pursuing their goodwill in their way.
Mill’s ‘evidence’ for the notion that cognitive pleasures are superior in type to other pleasures, on the other hand, is exceedingly questionable. He does not make a purely intuitive argument in this instance. Instead, he contends that individuals who have had both positive and negative experiences are more likely to consider the higher superior than the lower. Who would want to be a happy oyster who lives an extraordinarily long life than a human who lives a regular life?
Perfectionist inferences impacted the mill’s hedonism to achieve this goal. There are certain pleasures more appropriate for some occasions than others. For example, a greater, superior kind of enjoyment exists between humans and animals compared to pleasures obtained by purely sensuous means alone. According to others, this implies that Mill was not a hedonistic utilitarian in the traditional sense. His conception of the good is opposed to other philosophers’ conceptions. According to Bentham, however, the good continues to be defined by pleasure; it is still a mental condition. There is undeniably a resemblance between the two. Furthermore, the fundamental structures of both theories are identical. Although it is evident that Mill is more acquainted with concepts such as ‘rights,’ this may not imply that he has renounced utilitarianism in its entirety. The utilitarian principle serves as the foundation for all of the rights he acknowledges.
There is a counter-argument that many people capable of greater pleasures do so occasionally, under the impact of enticement, to pursue lesser pleasures. Nonetheless, this is perfectly consistent with a complete understanding of the inherent supremacy of the higher-order. Men often choose the more convenient option because of a flaw in their personality, despite the obvious fact it is less valued. This is true no less because a decision is between two physiological pleasures than when the decision is between physical and cognitive pleasures. They engage in sensual pleasures at the expense of their health, even though they are well conscious that wellness is the better outcome. It may also be argued that many people start with young excitement for it all great, as they get older, fall into self-indulgence and greed.
According to Mill, intellectual pleasures would score higher than satisfactions on various dimensions, and this may offer us a cause to choose those pleasures over sensuous experiences — but it is a quantifiable rather than a qualitative reason to do so. Mill describes happiness as the combination of pleasure and liberation from suffering. The optimal life, according to Utilitarianism, is free of suffering and rich in pleasures to the greatest extent feasible. Mill’s argument for hedonism is found in his examination of Utilitarianism, specifically in his so-called “evidence of the principle of utility” argument. He asserts that the only way anything is appealing is if people truly want it. Mill says that since happiness is the only substance we seek only for its purpose, we may be certain that it is very valued.
It is arguably clear that those that prefer the lower aspects of pleasure are possibly uninformed; a fool can only be satisfied if he cannot imagine what it is to be like Socrates. But, on the other hand, the experience of being like Socrates, who knows what to choose, is probably a critique of mills’ views since it is reasonable that the higher pleasures of the intellect could rely on so much to offset alienation and sadness or dissatisfaction. Ideally, when intelligence connects with performance, we think beyond the concept of short-sightedness in life.
I agree with Mills’s concept of philosophy by trying to understand that a fool only needs his world to exist. A fool would be in a state of oblivion of a higher reality and rather be satisfied with it. Like a pig, they would rather eat their stool and get satisfied. It is better to be an unsatisfied Socrates than a satisfied Socrates since it is better to avoid dirt in the name of satisfaction. Dirt is likened to self-satisfaction, but it takes self-realisation to know what we truly need, and by that, we refer to it as higher pleasures.
Work Cited
Mill, J. S. (1879). Utilitarianism (1863). Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government, 7-9.
write