When you're refuting a position, it's important to make sure that the position
that you're refuting is one that you correctly understand and that you
accurately represent. Sometimes, when people attempt to refute
a position that they don't accurately represent, we say that that's refuting a
straw man. And now, in the following clip, I'd like
to consider an example of the straw man. [MUSIC] Have you noticed, it's no longer
good enough to try and live in a such a way that pleases you and doesn't outrage
others. No, as if this was too easy a goal and we
needed a refinement on the human condition to make a sufficient challenge
of it. We are now supposed to live in the moment.
It's not enough to work towards being happy later, you have to be happy now.
Right now. No, now, not then, not soon. Now.
Well, that's unfair of me. I realize most of the living in the
moment here are not saying that's the only way of being happy that counts.
Although, asterisk, some of them definitely are saying exactly that.
They're recommending this as a way to become happy.
Are they mad? Apart from the obvious paradox that any time I'm checking to see
if I'm living in the moment or not I cease to live in the moment or rather the
moment I'm living and becomes a moment of checking, the range of pleasures
available to people living in the moment is both small and, well, best deal,
unless you're in the middle of something delicious, intoxicating, carnal, or
whatever the posh word for sneezing is, you're stuck.
And out of those, the only one that requires no [UNKNOWN] the moment planning
or forethought whatsoever is sneezing. A nice, though a good sneeze is,
after three, they get annoying. And what's more, I don't think it's as
easy as all that to tell whether you're enjoying a moment in that moment.
I remember watching the film Mulholland Drive and believing that I was enjoying
myself as I anticipated the dramatic ending that would cleverly resolve and
make sense of this intriguing mystery, but there wasn't one, it just sort of
stopped. And once I realize that, I have no choice but to retrospectively
downgrade what I had thought had been my enjoyment in the moment.
My enjoyment was predicated on a demanding to something, it was an I.O.U.
to be redeemed at the point of pleasurable revelation, by which I don't
mean the lesbian sex scene. And as there was none, the I.O.U.
was never redeemed, therefore, I hadn't enjoyed myself.
Where this is really starkly obvious, of course, is sport.
Of the three big matches Andy Murray played this year, the one I enjoyed most
at the time by a country mild was his last Olympic game, where he went into the
lead early and stayed there until he won. The one I think I enjoyed most now is the
U.S. Open where it was touch and go for hours,
and then he won. Much more exciting, which is why I value
it now and hated it at the time. Because at the time, I had no way of
knowing that the moment I was reluctantly suffering through wasn't a moment on a
long and exhausting journey towards defeat,
like the Wimbledon final, which neither in the moment me, nor looking back me,
enjoyed at all. At the time, when watching any sporting
contest in which I'm partisan, I don't have the faintest idea if I'm
enjoying myself. My dominant emotion is, I really hope my
team wins, so it will turn out later I'm enjoying myself now.
That's the problem with living in the moment, we're too intelligent a species
to be able to avoid living in some sort of narrative and that involves not
knowing how we feel in the moment until we have context for it.
Too short term a focus, and we've nothing to enjoy but sneezing.
Too long term a context and it's all a plan to enjoy something we never get to,
and anyway, we'll all be dead within a 100 years.
We have no choice but to find some sort of medium term over which to give a shit
or nothing is anything. And once you've gone to that, then all
the delayed gratifications are variations on a theme and the theme is chores now,
for jam tomorrow. Whether it's I want to build a cathedral
or I fancy a sandwich, you're stuck in the middle with me.
[MUSIC] In the clip that we just saw, David Mitchell gives two arguments
against those who would say that people should live in the moment.
The first argument seems to go something like this.
Premise one, living in the moment involves a very restricted range of
pleasures, merely the bestial pleasures of eating, drinking, fornication, and
sneezing. Premise two, a good life involves many
pleasures outside that restrictive range, the pleasures of watching sports, of
watching good movies. So conclusion, a good life does not
involve living in the moment, those who'd advocate living in the moment are wrong
to do so, that's not a good life. Now, let me point out two things about
this argument, two problems in this argument.
The first problem, in case it's not obvious to all of you already, is that
this argument is not valid. The conclusion simply does not follow
from the premises. Here is why.
Suppose that living in the moment does involve a very restricted range of
pleasures, suppose that Mitchell is right about
that, and let's suppose he's also right that a
good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range.
Well, both of those premises could be true,
even if a good life does involve living in the moment,
because a good life might involve pleasures inside that restricted range,
as well as pleasures outside that restricted range.
So, simply from the fact, if it is a fact, that living in the moment involves
a very restricted range of pleasures, and that a good life involves a wide range of
pleasures, simply from those two facts, it doesn't yet follow that a good life
doesn't involve living in the moment. A good life might very well involve living
in the moment, as well as a bunch of other pleasures.
So this argument is not valid. That's the first problem I wanted to
point out with this argument, but there's another problem with this
argument and this is why the argument can be fairly accused of attacking a straw
man. Which is that, in premise one, Mitchell
says that living in the moment involves a very restricted range of pleasures and
that is precisely what the proponents of living in the moment would deny.
They would deny that living in the moment requires only the bestial pleasures that
Mitchell described. Living in the moment, according to its
advocates, is something that involves taking pleasure in whatever it is that
you're doing at that moment, whether it's working, talking to friends,
whether it's taking a walk. Anything that you're doing in that moment
is something that could be an object of pleasure if you adapt the right attitude
towards it. And so, learn to adopt the right attitude
toward whatever it is that you're doing in that moment, and then you'll not just
enjoy the pleasures of anticipation, you'll also enjoy the pleasures of
immediate experience in that moment. So, in premise one, Mitchell is attacking
a straw man. He's attacking a position that no one in
fact or virtually no one in fact propounds.
No one thinks, that a good life involves only the restricted range of bestial
pleasures that Mitchell describes. Those people who advocate living in the
moment do so, because they think that we can enjoy a broader range of pleasures in
experiences that we have at a particular moment,
a broader range than simply the bestial range that Mitchell described.
So, according to the living in the momentiers, premise one is false.
And because Mitchell supposes that premise one is true, he's attacking a
straw man. He's attacking a position that no one
actually propounds. So that's why his first argument is
guilty of the straw man. Now, let's consider his second argument.
The second argument that Mitchell gives is an argument not to the effect that
living in the moment is somehow bad or not part of the good life, rather, it's
an argument that living in the moment is actually impossible.
Here is how his argument seems to go. Living in the moment is something that's
ascertainable only after that moment has past.
For instance, when watching a movie whether or not you are presently, while
watching the movie, enjoying what's happening is something that you'll only
be able to ascertain after the movies over.
When watching a sporting event, whether or not you're actually enjoying this very
moment of watching the sporting event is something that you'll only be able to
ascertain after the sporting event is over or at least after it's progressed to
the point that you realize whether you're whether your favorite player is going to
win. Now, from that premise, Mitchell
concludes that living in the moment is therefore impossible.
You can't succeed in living in the moment, because the moment that you're
living in is not won, the enjoyment of which you can ascertain until after that
moment has passed. But again, this argument is only valid if
living in the moment involves not simply taking pleasure in the moment, but
ascertaining in the moment that you're taking pleasure in that very moment,
only then, is living in the moment shown to be impossible by means of this
argument. If living in the moment doesn't need to
involve ascertaining at that moment that you're taking pleasure at that moment.
If living in the moment only involves taking pleasure in that moment, whether
or not you ascertain that you are doing so,
then this argument is simply invalid. Since Mitchell presents the argument as
if it's valid, that shows that once again, he's attacking a straw man.
He's attacking the position that a good life involves living in the moment,
understood not simply as taking pleasure in the particular moment that you're
living in, but also is ascertaining in that very
moment that you're taking pleasure in that very moment.
Right? The position that this argument is designed to attack is that position, but
is that a position that anybody holds? Does anybody think that a good life
involves not just taking pleasure in the moment that you're living in, but also
ascertaining in that very moment that you're taking pleasure in that very
moment? I certainly don't know anyone who holds that view.
The people who propound living in the moment think that it's important to take
pleasure in the moments that you're living in, but they don't think it's
important to ascertain in those very same moments that you're taking pleasure in
those very moments. And since they don't think that, this
argument doesn't show that living in the moment as they describe it, is
impossible. It doesn't show that it's impossible to
take pleasure in the moments that you're living in.
All it shows is that it's impossible to take pleasure in those moments while
simultaneously ascertaining that you're taking pleasure in those moments,
but who would have ever thought otherwise? So once again, Mitchell's
second argument is attacking a straw man, is attacking the position that no one
actually propounds. The living in the momentiers have a more
plausible position than the one that Mitchell is attacking here.
The second argument that Mitchell gives is an argument not to the effect that
living in the moment is somehow bad or not part of the good life,
rather it's an argument that living in the moment is actually impossible.
Here is how his argument seems to go. Living in the moment is something that's
ascertainable only after that moment has passed.
For instance, when watching a movie, whether or not you are presently, while
watching the movie enjoying what's happening is something that you'll only
be able to ascertain after the movie's over.
When watching a sporting event, whether or not you're actually enjoying this very
moment of watching a sporting event is something that you'll only be able to
ascertain after the sporting event is over or at least after it's progressed to
the point that you realize whether you're whether your favorite player is going to
win. Now, from that premise, Mitchell
concludes that living in the moment is therefore impossible.
You can't succeed in living in the moment, because the moment that you are
living in is not one, the enjoyment of which you can ascertain until after that
moment has passed. But again,
this argument is only valid if living in the moment involves not simply taking
pleasure in the moment, but ascertaining in the moment that you're taking pleasure
in that very moment. Only then, is living in the moment shown
to be impossible by means of this argument.
If living in the moment doesn't mean to involve ascertaining at that moment that
you're taking pleasure at that moment. If living in the moment only involves
taking pleasure in that moment, whether or not you ascertain that you're doing
so, then this argument is simply invalid. Since Mitchell presents the argument as
if it's valid that shows that once again he's attacking the straw man.
He's attacking the position that a good life involves living in the moment
understood not simply as taking pleasure in the particular moment that you're
living in, but also as ascertaining in that very moment that you're taking
pleasure in that very moment. Right? The position that this argument is designed
to attack is that position, but is that a position that anybody
holds? Does anybody think that a good life involves not just taking pleasure in
the moment that you're living in, but also ascertaining in that very moment
that you're taking pleasure in that very moment?
I certainly don't know anyone who holds that view.
The people who propound living in the momen Think that it's important to take
pleasure in the moments that you're living in,
but they don't think it's important to ascertain in those very same moments that
you're taking pleasure in those very moments.
And since they don't think that, this argument doesn't show that living in the
moment as they describe it, is impossible.
It doesn't show that it's impossible to take pleasure in the moments that you're
living in. All it shows, is that it's impossible to
take pleasure in those moments while simultaneously ascertaining that you're
taking pleasure during those moments, but who would have ever though otherwise?
So once again, Mitchell's second argument is attacking a straw man.
It's attacking the position that no one actually propounds.
The living in the momentiers have more, the living in the momentiers have a more
plausible position than the one Mitchell is attacking here.