By Kimena Noah.
Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired.Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel youwere writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time youwould be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into thismachine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank youwon't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening [...] Would you plugin?"The above thought experiment, known as the Experience Machine, was presented by theAmerican philosopher Robert Nozick (1938-2002). In answer to the question,'would you plugin?', I suspect (although I could be wrong) that you would decline the offer. Yet, why would youdecline? After all, the experience being offered to you seems to tick all the right boxes: youwould be happy because you would be satisfying your desires, and, importantly, there is animportant element of self-actualisation here for you would be able to fulfil what you consideredto be your potential. You might want to argue that the experience is not real, but you would notknow that whilst experiencing it. The point here is that what we consider the 'good' life, thefulfilled life is something more than just ticking the right boxes; we have to be the agent. TheExperience Machine also raises an important question that I wish to consider here:what does it mean to be happy? What constitutes the fulfilled life? The question itself goes rightback to at least the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, but is also a concern amongst moderncircles. Consider the quote from the Conservative leaderDavid Cameron:"It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just onGDP, but on GWB - general well-being. Well-being can't be measured by money or traded inmarkets. It can't be required by law or delivered by government. It's about the beauty of oursurroundings, the quality of our culture, and above all the strength of our relationships.Improving our society's sense of well-being is, I believe, the central political challenge of ourtime.” (May 2006)It may be unlikely that Cameron knew that in highlighting the importance of wellbeing, he isechoing the words of Aristotle over two thousand years ago. In fact, 'wellbeing' is not a badtranslation of what Aristotle called eudaimonia. Other suitable modern translations use suchterms as ‘flourishing’ or ‘doing-well’, whereas the more traditional translation of ‘happiness’suggests a transitory state, and a feeling or an emotion rather than something far more all-encompassing. But this begs the question, is it really possible to experience an all-encompassingsense of well-being? Aristotle certainly thought so and it was a primary concern of hisNicomachean Ethics to determine what makes human life worthwhile. Aristotle is not unlikePlato in adopting the now common philosophical strategy of challenging people’s assumptionsby addressing the ‘common sense’ view of what makes a worthwhile life (in Greek this principleis known as eudoxa, the ‘received opinions’ of most people) and then subjecting them tophilosophical analysis. The ‘eudoxa’ of the average ancient Greek would not differ from what the‘average Joe’ in any street today would retort if asked Aristotle on What It Means To Be HappyRichmond Journal of Philosophy 16 (Winter 2007)the question, ‘What do you aim for in life’? : happiness! However, Aristotle rightly does not treatthe received opinion as meaning simply an emotional state of euphoria,for most people, whenpushed, would seek to define what they mean by happiness and it would soon become evidentthat it is a rich and varied thing. Hence the word ‘happiness’ may not be the most appropriateword, although the most widely used translation of the Greek word eudaimonia.
Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired.Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel youwere writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time youwould be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into thismachine for life, preprogramming your life experiences? [...] Of course, while in the tank youwon't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually happening [...] Would you plugin?"The above thought experiment, known as the Experience Machine, was presented by theAmerican philosopher Robert Nozick (1938-2002). In answer to the question,'would you plugin?', I suspect (although I could be wrong) that you would decline the offer. Yet, why would youdecline? After all, the experience being offered to you seems to tick all the right boxes: youwould be happy because you would be satisfying your desires, and, importantly, there is animportant element of self-actualisation here for you would be able to fulfil what you consideredto be your potential. You might want to argue that the experience is not real, but you would notknow that whilst experiencing it. The point here is that what we consider the 'good' life, thefulfilled life is something more than just ticking the right boxes; we have to be the agent. TheExperience Machine also raises an important question that I wish to consider here:what does it mean to be happy? What constitutes the fulfilled life? The question itself goes rightback to at least the Greeks, and Aristotle in particular, but is also a concern amongst moderncircles. Consider the quote from the Conservative leaderDavid Cameron:"It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just onGDP, but on GWB - general well-being. Well-being can't be measured by money or traded inmarkets. It can't be required by law or delivered by government. It's about the beauty of oursurroundings, the quality of our culture, and above all the strength of our relationships.Improving our society's sense of well-being is, I believe, the central political challenge of ourtime.” (May 2006)It may be unlikely that Cameron knew that in highlighting the importance of wellbeing, he isechoing the words of Aristotle over two thousand years ago. In fact, 'wellbeing' is not a badtranslation of what Aristotle called eudaimonia. Other suitable modern translations use suchterms as ‘flourishing’ or ‘doing-well’, whereas the more traditional translation of ‘happiness’suggests a transitory state, and a feeling or an emotion rather than something far more all-encompassing. But this begs the question, is it really possible to experience an all-encompassingsense of well-being? Aristotle certainly thought so and it was a primary concern of hisNicomachean Ethics to determine what makes human life worthwhile. Aristotle is not unlikePlato in adopting the now common philosophical strategy of challenging people’s assumptionsby addressing the ‘common sense’ view of what makes a worthwhile life (in Greek this principleis known as eudoxa, the ‘received opinions’ of most people) and then subjecting them tophilosophical analysis. The ‘eudoxa’ of the average ancient Greek would not differ from what the‘average Joe’ in any street today would retort if asked Aristotle on What It Means To Be HappyRichmond Journal of Philosophy 16 (Winter 2007)the question, ‘What do you aim for in life’? : happiness! However, Aristotle rightly does not treatthe received opinion as meaning simply an emotional state of euphoria,for most people, whenpushed, would seek to define what they mean by happiness and it would soon become evidentthat it is a rich and varied thing. Hence the word ‘happiness’ may not be the most appropriateword, although the most widely used translation of the Greek word eudaimonia.
