Paste your essay in here..Nozick’s “Experience Machine” describes a scenario in which there exists a device, called the Experience Machine, which allows the user to enter a preprogrammed reality of their choosing. Once they enter this machine, the outside world no longer exists to them and all of their wildest dreams can come true. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily have to be limited to what is “good,” to that person, it can be whatever they want to experience, without limitations. There is also no time limitation on the experience machine. Someone who decided to use the machine can theoretically stay in forever, or for a mere 5 minutes. One could even preprogram their entire life away. All in all, there are no boundaries, no rules, and no limitations. Nozick proposes this machine originally as a counterargument to hedonism, which is a philosophical school of thought stating that what is good for a person is simply the balance of pleasure over pain in one’s life. In his text, Nozick asks a couple of questions concerning this situation.
The first of these questions is if someone should plug in to this machine. Simply put, Nozick is asking if it is intrinsically good for a person to plug into this machine. Logically, a hedonist would regard the experience machine as an easy way to gain unlimited pleasures, so they would of course spend as much time in the machine as they could. Other philosophers, however, wouldn’t be so quick to agree. That is one of the topics that will be addressed through the content of this paper. Another question that Nozick poses to the reader is “would you plug in.” These two very basic questions are very simply worded. There is no trick to them. But if this were to be proposed to a room full of the greatest philosophers of all time, such as Aristotle, or Socrates, they would surely cause a great debate. Each philosopher that have been studies this semester would undoubtedly have different stances on each of these questions.
The first philosopher that these questions will be applied to is Aristotle. Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher who bases most of his philosophical arguments on the criteria for Eudaimonia. While he was alive for some 2000 years before Nozick even proposed the idea, it can easily be seen that Aristotle would not approve of this machine. As it was mentioned before, Aristotle believed in the idea Eudaimonia which means “flourishing,” with an emphasis on development and movement. Using this as the basis for his arguments, Aristotle established a few criteria for Eudaimonia. One of the main criteria is that one can only be happy by the good actions that he performs. “…it is clear that happiness is one of the most divine things, even if it is not god-sent but attained through virtue and some kind of learning or training. For the prize and end of excellence and virtue is the best thing of all, and it is something divine and blessed” (Aristotle; Nicomachean Ethics, 22). This quote clearly shows the stance Aristotle takes when addressing the issue of how happiness is acquired. While it is truly a divine gift, it is not just some sort of palpable substance that can be bought at the store, one must go out and perform some sort of good action. This action must also be of the intransitive sort, a second criteria for Eudaimonia, meaning that the action performed must make the performer of the action good. So, one must not only perform an action to be happy, but this action must be beneficial to that person in some sort of palpable way.
Aristotle would most likely argue that this decision to be placed in a tube filled with some kind of liquid to float there for two years daydreaming would not benefit himself or anyone around him. In fact, after time had expired and he was made to leave his experience machine, the user would not have changed at all. One might argue, however, that he was performing some kind of action when he entered the experience machine. That by choosing to take part in the experience machine, he was making some kind of conscious decision that might improve himself through his predetermined experience. This person would be making a wrong assumption. Aristotle’s Eudaimonia clearly states that this person would not have fulfilled the necessary intransitive quality of this action. When he entered the machine, he did have some good experiences, but he did not benefit himself or anyone else around him. Only would have experienced something new.
Another way Aristotle would argue against this method as a viable means to happiness would be that anyone who used this device would be in isolation, which violates one of the conditions of Eudaimonia. On page 15 of Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethic it is read, “We do not mean a man who lives his life in isolation, but a man who also lives with parents, children, a wife, and friends and fellow citizens general, since man is by nature is a social and political being.” From this excerpt it is clear that a man for to be truly happy, according to Aristotle, he must not live his life without forming any kind of relationships. If a man were to spend his days fantasizing about an alternate reality in a tank, he would not have any time to form any of the good relationships necessary to Aristotle’s definition of happiness. This further proves the statement that Aristotle would not approve of any sort of happiness claimed from the machine.
A philosophical school of thought that is perhaps contrary to Aristotle’s is the Epicurean school of thought. Epicureans, led by Epicurus, is a school of thought based upon the acquisition of pleasure, specifically the psychological kind, as well as the avoidance of any kind of pain. This stems from the fact that the Epicureans believe that all that exists is matter and void, and matter is made up of atoms. In fact, our perceptible world is only made up in our consciousness as the result of the collision of atoms. All of what see, hear or feel is only the continuous collisions of atoms against each other. Using this as his base, Epicurus and the Epicureans developed a few theories about pleasure, one of them being Epicurus’ Four Part Cure for happiness. These four criteria are this: do not fear God, do not fear death, all pleasure in life is easily attainable, and all pain in life is easily avoidable or endurable. As stated before, the Epicurean school of thought is chiefly based upon the ultimate balance of pleasure over pain. Not only this, but all kinds of pain should in fact be avoided. Even a kind of pleasure that requires too much physical or emotional strain is viewed as a burden and should be let go because it then becomes a pain.
With this in mind, one can start to see that an Epicurean would believe in the Experience Machine as a viable way to achieve happiness. Not only does it provide a way to avoid any kind of pain in the world, it allows the user to experience pure psychological pleasure. To an an Epicurean philosopher, the fact that the user would be given an alternate reality to experience, it would be like that person was transferred to an alternate dimension. The fourth part to the Four Part Cure concerned with the avoidance of pain would be fulfilled since it could easily be preprogrammed for the user. There would be an unlimited supply of pleasure at the user’s command. There would be no reason to fear death while in the machine, but they generally did not concern themselves with the idea of death since they believe that their existence is purely as a result of the collision of atoms making our conscious minds believe that we possess any kind of physical form.
As a result of the four part cure, and along with Aristotle, Epicureans too had their ultimate form of happiness; ataraxia. Ataraxia is defined as “a state of freedom from emotional distrurbance and anxiety; tranquility,” according to dictionary.com. This essentially means that this person exists in a state of happiness transcending any kind of worldly discomfort or any kind of trials. All that exists in this person’s life is pure bliss, the purest kind of pleasure. An Epicurean philosopher would argue that there would be no more perfect method to achieve such a perfect happiness than to plug into this machine for as long as is possible. After all, since it’s all in their head, the user would be experiencing the ultimate kind of katastematic pleasure.
A third philosophical character that might have an interesting take on the idea of the Experience Machine is Albert Camus and his work The Myth of Sisyphus. Camus describes for us the plight of an absurd hero called Sisyphus. Sisyphus was a clever man who seemed to always come out on top. Once he even tricked Death and got him caught in his own chains, causing everyone on Earth to live abnormally long lives. However, this does not come without consequence as Zeus began to take notice of his clever trickery. Zeus punished Sisyphus by sentencing him to eternally roll a large stone up to the top of the hill. Once the stone was rolled to the top, it would then roll back down the hill and Sisyphus would then have to go back up the hill and roll the stone back up the hill, doomed to this existence of completing the same terribly monotonous task over and over again. Camus, however takes another look at the situation saying, “It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me…I see that man going back down with a heavy yet measured step toward the torment of which he will never know the end…At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually skinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior. He is stronger than his rock” (Camus 89). Camus goes on to explain his theory, stating that he finds happiness in accepting his fate, particularly due to the fact that Sisyphus can somehow feel pleasure in his completion of the action, provided that he resigns himself to his eternal fate.
Camus then continues to apply this theory to the common workman saying, “ The workman of today works every day of his life at the same tasks and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious” (Camus 90). When Camus likens these two characters, the workman and Sisyphus, he is creating a comparison between the two different fates and remarking about how similar they are. One can imagine Camus asking is sitting behind a desk all day completing small meaningless tasks any less menial than rolling a rock up a hill? It is only when one accepts that his fate is menial that he can truly be satisfied. Sisyphus realizes that his task is menial and that there is nothing he can do to change it, so he can be content.
In regards to the Experience Machine and Camus, Camus would most likely not believe that one can achieve true happiness from a machine. Camus quotes, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” From this statement it can be inferred that Camus believes that there must exist some kind of insurmountable obstacle that exists in one’s life. When one struggles to overcome this obstacle and ultimately fails, and is conscious of it, he is miserable. However, if he learns to accept his fate, and not to compare his misfortune with the lesser misfortune of others, only then can he be content with the life he has. Only then can he be happy. It is for this reason that Camus most likely would not agree with the Experience Machine as a viable source of happiness. If there is only preprogrammed bliss, how can there be any struggle? Camus also believes that there can only be happiness when one looks back over his shoulder at his life. “…in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memories eye and soon sealed by death” (Camus 91). Here Camus is clearly stating that it is only by reflecting on the actions of one’s life can one truly find happiness. If someone were to spend their entire lives floating in the Experience Machine, there would be no concrete experiences to reflect on, and therefore no joy to feel.
I personally believe that the Experience Machine and the whole thought experiment is an extremely interesting idea. At first exposure at the beginning of this class, I bought into the idea whole-heartedly. What could be better? All I would have to do is pay whatever fee it was to enter the machine and I’m living as happily as I could for as long as I want with no consequence! But as I progressed through this course and learned about how the philosophers of old believed that happiness is to be achieved, I had a change of mind. I tend to agree with Aristotle and Camus the most, which most likely explains my reasoning for choosing these two philosophers in this essay. I believe that happiness is achieved through action and good works, but it is also not without a little suffering. This brings me to the question posed at the end of the third prompt. I do not believe that I or my children should use this machine for a few reasons.
One of the main reasons I hold this stance is I believe that human interaction along with the ability to communicate with other humans is incredibly necessary. This is expressed best through the criteria of Eudaimonia and Aristotle, who states happiness is achieved through action that is of the intransitive sort and is not done alone. I would hope, especially for my children, that human interaction or human cooperation in working to achieve some noble goal would bring about one of the most pure and satisfying feelings of happiness. Another reason I believe that the Experience Machine is entirely unnecessary is because I believe the best kind of learning occurs through the lessons taught to us from our mistakes. If I or my children were to live their lives hooked up to some kind of alternate reality, then they could never experience any kind of failure. (Unless they chose to program failure into their virtual-reality, however I highly doubt someone with access to unlimited pleasures would consider programming failures for themselves.)
If I were to somehow start my own school of thought, I believe that it would draw heavily from all of the philosophers that dealt with action and will. Along with the philosophers previously mentioned, I would also heavily involve the Stoics. I believe that performing your actions with a sense of duty is incredibly important to ensure that one would do their best to complete whatever task that they deem necessary to make themselves happy. While it is a nice notion to dismiss our reality and to instead resign yourself to the idea that your life is only made up of the collision of atoms in space, I find it entirely too pessimistic. I do not believe that only limiting yourself to the pursuit of pleasure over pain, found in Hedonism and Epicureanism, can improve you. In fact, it can be considered selfish to only pursue pleasure and throw away pain. I believe this can be misused too easily by the lazy part of the population to shirk all responsibilities. So, Nozick is right. Nothing is more important in our lives than our experiences. It is how we grow, learn and teach. Hiding yourself in a machine feeding you pleasure from some source of electric shocks is no way to spend a lifetime. The world wouldn’t be much fun if we were all “indeterminate blobs,” content to only experience pleasure, never amounting to anything.