You are trying to say there is something other than pleasure, yet you concede that all of your examples cause pleasure.
If I was debating the structure of the atom, I could say that “there’s more to atoms than their protons”, and yet I would ‘concede’ that all atoms do contain protons. Or I’d say “there’s more to protons than just their mass” (they also have an electric charge), but all protons do have mass.
Why are you finding this hard to understand? Why would I need to discover an atom without protons or a proton without mass for me to believe that there’s more to atoms than protons (there’s also electrons and neutrons) or more to protons than their mass?
That is exactly my point. There is nothing we seek that we don’t expect to derive pleasure from.
You had made much stronger statements than that—you said “You think you want more than pleasure, but what else is there?” You also said “But saying we want more than pleasure? That doesn’t make sense. ”
Every atom may contain protons, but atoms are more than protons.
Every object of our desire may contain pleasure in its fullfillment, but the object of our desire is more than pleasure.
Does this analogy help you understand how your argument is faulty?
No, it doesn’t. I understand your analogy (parts vs the whole), but I do not understand how it relates to my point. I am sorry.
Is pleasure the proton in the analogy? Is the atom what we want? I don’t follow here.
You are also making the argument that we want things that don’t cause pleasure. Shouldn’t this be, in your analogy, an atom without a proton? In that case yes, you need to find an atom without a proton before I will believe there is an atom without a proton. (This same argument works if pleasure is any of the other atomic properties. Charge, mass, etc).
Or is pleasure the atom? If that is the case, then I can’t see where you argument is going. If pleasure is the atom, then your analogy supports my argument.
I am not trying to make a straw man, I genuinely don’t see the connections.
Similarly, we want things for more reasons other than the pleasure they give us.
Even if every time one of our desires is satisfied, we feel pleasure, doesn’t mean that pleasure is the only reason we have those desires. Similarly, even if an atom always has protons, doesn’t mean it doesn’t also have other components.
You are also making the argument that we want things that don’t cause pleasure. Shouldn’t this be, in your analogy, an atom without a proton?
ArisKateris should have picked electrons instead of protons, it makes the analogy a little less confusing. Desires without pleasure are like atoms without electrons. These are called “positive ions” and are not totally uncommon.
It personally seems obvious to me that we want things other than pleasure. For instance, I occasionally read books that I hate and am miserable reading because they are part of a series, and I want to complete the series. That’s what I want, and I don’t care if there’s less pleasure in the universe because of my actions.
If I was debating the structure of the atom, I could say that “there’s more to atoms than their protons”, and yet I would ‘concede’ that all atoms do contain protons. Or I’d say “there’s more to protons than just their mass” (they also have an electric charge), but all protons do have mass.
Why are you finding this hard to understand? Why would I need to discover an atom without protons or a proton without mass for me to believe that there’s more to atoms than protons (there’s also electrons and neutrons) or more to protons than their mass?
You had made much stronger statements than that—you said “You think you want more than pleasure, but what else is there?” You also said “But saying we want more than pleasure? That doesn’t make sense. ”
Every atom may contain protons, but atoms are more than protons. Every object of our desire may contain pleasure in its fullfillment, but the object of our desire is more than pleasure.
Does this analogy help you understand how your argument is faulty?
No, it doesn’t. I understand your analogy (parts vs the whole), but I do not understand how it relates to my point. I am sorry.
Is pleasure the proton in the analogy? Is the atom what we want? I don’t follow here.
You are also making the argument that we want things that don’t cause pleasure. Shouldn’t this be, in your analogy, an atom without a proton? In that case yes, you need to find an atom without a proton before I will believe there is an atom without a proton. (This same argument works if pleasure is any of the other atomic properties. Charge, mass, etc).
Or is pleasure the atom? If that is the case, then I can’t see where you argument is going. If pleasure is the atom, then your analogy supports my argument.
I am not trying to make a straw man, I genuinely don’t see the connections.
ArisKateris’ analogy is:
The reasons we want things are atoms.
Pleasure is protons.
Atoms have more components than protons.
Similarly, we want things for more reasons other than the pleasure they give us.
Even if every time one of our desires is satisfied, we feel pleasure, doesn’t mean that pleasure is the only reason we have those desires. Similarly, even if an atom always has protons, doesn’t mean it doesn’t also have other components.
ArisKateris should have picked electrons instead of protons, it makes the analogy a little less confusing. Desires without pleasure are like atoms without electrons. These are called “positive ions” and are not totally uncommon.
It personally seems obvious to me that we want things other than pleasure. For instance, I occasionally read books that I hate and am miserable reading because they are part of a series, and I want to complete the series. That’s what I want, and I don’t care if there’s less pleasure in the universe because of my actions.