I recently had something said to me that I have not been able to get out of my mind. Thus, I turn to you twelve for your thoughts on the matter.
I’m not going to quote directly for a couple of reasons, the primary one being that the way the idea was expressed was not neutral, and I don’t want to unduly color this conversation. So, with that said, let’s get clear on a couple of terms, and away we’ll go. Let’s stipulate that “fun” means a pleasurable activity that does not carry a cost to another—so, for example, teasing a person who’s upset at being in that position would be excluded from our definition. Profit, of course, encompasses more than bringing in excess money than was used to create something; and it’s that wider context of general benefit that’s relevant here.
So, here’s the issue: while it is demonstrably true that not everything that brings one profit is fun, is it similarly accurate to hold that fun is not always profitable?
Let’s Get Metaphysical on Fun
That depends...
Fun is one among many "currencies" that one could potentially count one's "profits" in. Their values are all relative to each other and subjectively determined (like all prices/costs/valuations).
As a result of the above, your setup of the question itself seems partly true and partly false in a few different ways.
For example, the stipulation that "fun" does not carry a cost to another is very civilized and admirable on your part, but not in accord with the observable reality of existing social interactions. Plenty of people take pleasure in or find humor in each others misfortunes. Perhaps we can say, though, that what we decide is fun or perceive as fun "ought not" carry such costs -- or else someone's subjective valuation of something that does carry such costs is an indicator of seriously impaired personal growth on their part. Certainly an excess of such tendencies would be almost definitive of a pathologically cruel or psychopathic person. OTOH, even the most compassionate and empathetic among us will still occasionally laugh at the real or pretended misfortune of others. Look at the pratfalls Chevy Chase used to do in skits on the old Saturday Night Live episodes from way back in the day. Clearly many considered that show "fun".
And so on...
I would suggest re-examining some of your assumptions.
A clarification, then.
True. I only made that stipulation because it seemed to be consistent with the tone of the comment that set me thinking about this. Anyone who wants to consider the question without the stipulation is welcome to do so.
Perhaps a better way to frame the question is this: Is fun always profitable?
not always
No, not always. Profit is about receipts exceeding costs. When receipts and costs are measured in totally different units of account, the question can only be answered in terms of relative valuations by the individual. Clearly fun can be judged by the individual experiencing it to be EITHER more OR less valuable than the costs sunk to gain that particular experience, but other people's opinions may vary.
Can you elaborate?
I’m not sure I understand the purpose of your clause, Brad. Why would (or should) others’ opinions matter to the actor? And if we’re speaking in eudaimonistic terms, as The Shadow did, does the units problem disappear? (That sort of thing is where I start to lose it in econ-oriented discussions.)
Jorge, since you agree with Brad, if you’d like to expand on your agreement, you’re invited to do so as well.
Pardon me. I wasn't trying
Pardon me. I wasn't trying to say that other people's opinions should matter to the actor. Rather, I meant other people's opinions of whether or not a particular action is "fun" (and to what degree) for themselves would vary.
1. Billy might think sniffing glue is fun.
2. Tommy might not like it at all.
3. Suzie might enjoy sniffing glue, but not enough to give up her lunch money.
Now, as it happens, I would disagree with the proposition that other people's opinions should never matter at all. That wasn't what I was talking about, though.
Okay, but ...
Thanks, Brad. But now I’m wondering what that has to do with the question.
I think most reasonable individuals would disagree with that proposition. I certainly do.
Fun is ultimately always profitable...
...based upon the understanding that happiness is the ultimate end of life (and thus the ultimate end of every action that one takes).
Fun may not always be monetarily profitable, but it is always eudaimonistically (and thus ultimately) profitable.
Fun and monetary profit are however equal, in the sense that both are simply means of reaching the ultimate goal of life, which is happiness.
Short v. Long Term
I think that this is one of those short vs. long-term profit questions. Blowing your life savings on a big party may bring a lot of short-term fun, it will probably bring long-term misery. So I think that "fun" may or may not be profitable, depending on what time frame you are looking at.
And time ...
I dunno, Presto. I would agree if you said it could bring long-term misery—and I can certainly envision many scenarios where that would obtain. However, I can envision other possibility-scapes in which spending one’s money could bring even more fun to one’s life—say, for example, the self-made millionaire who now has a fresh opportunity to test himself against the market, to see if he can score another success.
Individuals certainly do things that they come to regret. But if they were pursuing eudaimonia, would there not be fewer regrets?
Pleasure v. Eudaimonia
First, let me apologize for the big typo in the sentence that you quoted. I forgot the but after the comma.
I think that we mean basically the same thing, but I was using a simple definition of fun from my handy Funk & Wagnalls' dictionary:
Such a definition is not necessarily consistent with eudaimonia if your definition includes long-term well being.
While the millionaire that you describe might be pursing eudaimonia, I was thinking more of a person that I knew that spent a large settlement on partying, even though with a little smart money management he would not have had to work again. After two years of partying, he was back at a job that he hated and more miserable than ever. In this case, he had a short-term profit (a two-year party), but the long-term loss of financial security and the misery that resulted from that choice.
I used the word "probably" because in my experience most people pursue short-term pleasure even if it causes them long-term pain. I have made that mistake myself. "Could" works, but it doesn't reflect my experience. So, your "fun" may or may not be profitable, depending on what your definition of fun is and the time frame you are considering.
I am advocating the long-term pursuit of eudaimonia, because even though the short-term may not be as "fun," the long term profits are worth it. Such a pursuit increases the possibilities of more fun over the length of one's life.
How could it not?
It seems to me we hold differing contexts when considering these questions, Presto.
I don’t understand. If one is pursuing eudaimonia long-term, how could the short term not also be pleasurable? For example, while I was in grad school, much of the day-to-day work was repetitive—going to classes, reading a shitload of complex papers, advancing research projects, teaching, etc. And even though I recognized that at some level [and have groused about it a good amount], at a higher level it was still pleasant to me: I was pursuing a goal that had been very important to me for many years, and that was worthwhile even if some of the details on the journey were not. And even though that sheepskin is now very much less important to me than it was then, I still consider those years fun and profitable, albeit in a more personal and much less academic way. For a better answer, I really can’t do better than what Pagan has written.
Hmmmm. A couple of thoughts just occurred to me. Perhaps implicit in such considerations is one’s fundamental outlook on life—is the glass half-full or half-empty type of thing. Also, I should have made it clear that I had in mind a more mature/rational/informed context of fun, rather than the impetuous pursuits that can characterize youth ... and which we hope we learn and grow from.
Different languages, perhaps?
I think that we are speaking slightly different languages here. I'm sure that your graduate work was pleasurable and maybe even pleasant, but I'm also quite sure that you weren't frolicking when you were working to finish your doctoral dissertation. I was using "fun" in the terms of frolic and frivolity while you seem to be using it in the terms of more generalized pleasurable activity. Sometimes the most rewarding things are hard work, but of course they should be pleasurable in the end.
Going back to my earlier comment, the person I was referring to had a great deal of short term fun (as in frolic and frivolity), but because of the long-term consequences he did not consider his two-year party profitable on balance. That's what I meant when I said that fun is not always profitable.
Semantics, perhaps.
I think you’re right; we’re using the words with different shades of meaning in mind.
Not always
Brad is exactly correct. Since the costs of fun and returns from fun are in different units profit is impossible to measure objectively.
Measurement
Okay, that objective measurement bit I grok. However, that isn’t really the level of analysis I had in mind, precisely because I know of no complex calculation that will allow such an attempt.
“So, here’s the issue:
“So, here’s the issue: while it is demonstrably true that not everything that brings one profit is fun, is it similarly accurate to hold that fun is not always profitable?”
No.
With the prior understanding that “profit” isn’t always accrued monetarily where Fun is concerned... AND the understanding that “at someone else’s expense” doesn’t involve Fun – it seems to me the only fun one can achieve MUST be profitable.
“Fun” can result in financial, emotional, intellectual, physical, epistemological, even serendipitous, profit. “Profit” equals “gain”. As long as it doesn’t hurt or take from others, it can be viewed as a gain or a boon to the actor. As long as the "profit" was satisfactory to him during or on completion, it can be viewed as “fun.”
Except for serendipitous profit – which would seem to make Fun even more pleasurable – choices are involved in every act. When one acts on his choices and completes them, he can feel satisfied that his goals were correct, and that he is worthy of life itself.
Self-satisfaction is its own reward.
That would HAVE to be fun!