1 00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:05,180 When you're refuting a position, it's important to make sure that the position 2 00:00:05,180 --> 00:00:09,983 that you're refuting is one that you correctly understand and that you 3 00:00:09,983 --> 00:00:14,248 accurately represent. Sometimes, when people attempt to refute 4 00:00:14,248 --> 00:00:19,514 a position that they don't accurately represent, we say that that's refuting a 5 00:00:19,514 --> 00:00:24,048 straw man. And now, in the following clip, I'd like 6 00:00:24,048 --> 00:00:30,467 to consider an example of the straw man. [MUSIC] Have you noticed, it's no longer 7 00:00:30,467 --> 00:00:36,076 good enough to try and live in a such a way that pleases you and doesn't outrage 8 00:00:36,076 --> 00:00:39,504 others. No, as if this was too easy a goal and we 9 00:00:39,504 --> 00:00:44,826 needed a refinement on the human condition to make a sufficient challenge 10 00:00:44,826 --> 00:00:48,192 of it. We are now supposed to live in the moment. 11 00:00:49,318 --> 00:00:53,959 It's not enough to work towards being happy later, you have to be happy now. 12 00:00:53,959 --> 00:00:56,782 Right now. No, now, not then, not soon. Now. 13 00:00:56,782 --> 00:01:00,303 Well, that's unfair of me. I realize most of the living in the 14 00:01:00,303 --> 00:01:04,882 moment here are not saying that's the only way of being happy that counts. 15 00:01:04,882 --> 00:01:08,546 Although, asterisk, some of them definitely are saying exactly that. 16 00:01:08,546 --> 00:01:11,290 They're recommending this as a way to become happy. 17 00:01:11,290 --> 00:01:15,402 Are they mad? Apart from the obvious paradox that any time I'm checking to see 18 00:01:15,402 --> 00:01:19,473 if I'm living in the moment or not I cease to live in the moment or rather the 19 00:01:19,473 --> 00:01:23,361 moment I'm living and becomes a moment of checking, the range of pleasures 20 00:01:23,361 --> 00:01:27,619 available to people living in the moment is both small and, well, best deal, 21 00:01:27,619 --> 00:01:32,364 unless you're in the middle of something delicious, intoxicating, carnal, or 22 00:01:32,364 --> 00:01:35,563 whatever the posh word for sneezing is, you're stuck. 23 00:01:35,563 --> 00:01:40,018 And out of those, the only one that requires no [UNKNOWN] the moment planning 24 00:01:40,018 --> 00:01:44,762 or forethought whatsoever is sneezing. A nice, though a good sneeze is, 25 00:01:44,762 --> 00:01:48,529 after three, they get annoying. And what's more, I don't think it's as 26 00:01:48,529 --> 00:01:52,744 easy as all that to tell whether you're enjoying a moment in that moment. 27 00:01:52,744 --> 00:01:57,357 I remember watching the film Mulholland Drive and believing that I was enjoying 28 00:01:57,357 --> 00:02:01,753 myself as I anticipated the dramatic ending that would cleverly resolve and 29 00:02:01,753 --> 00:02:06,925 make sense of this intriguing mystery, but there wasn't one, it just sort of 30 00:02:06,925 --> 00:02:11,262 stopped. And once I realize that, I have no choice but to retrospectively 31 00:02:11,262 --> 00:02:15,259 downgrade what I had thought had been my enjoyment in the moment. 32 00:02:15,259 --> 00:02:19,553 My enjoyment was predicated on a demanding to something, it was an I.O.U. 33 00:02:19,553 --> 00:02:24,078 to be redeemed at the point of pleasurable revelation, by which I don't 34 00:02:24,078 --> 00:02:27,715 mean the lesbian sex scene. And as there was none, the I.O.U. 35 00:02:27,715 --> 00:02:31,349 was never redeemed, therefore, I hadn't enjoyed myself. 36 00:02:31,349 --> 00:02:35,008 Where this is really starkly obvious, of course, is sport. 37 00:02:35,008 --> 00:02:39,656 Of the three big matches Andy Murray played this year, the one I enjoyed most 38 00:02:39,656 --> 00:02:44,619 at the time by a country mild was his last Olympic game, where he went into the 39 00:02:44,619 --> 00:02:49,595 lead early and stayed there until he won. The one I think I enjoyed most now is the 40 00:02:49,595 --> 00:02:52,327 U.S. Open where it was touch and go for hours, 41 00:02:52,327 --> 00:02:55,937 and then he won. Much more exciting, which is why I value 42 00:02:55,937 --> 00:03:00,332 it now and hated it at the time. Because at the time, I had no way of 43 00:03:00,332 --> 00:03:05,037 knowing that the moment I was reluctantly suffering through wasn't a moment on a 44 00:03:05,037 --> 00:03:07,682 long and exhausting journey towards defeat, 45 00:03:07,682 --> 00:03:12,242 like the Wimbledon final, which neither in the moment me, nor looking back me, 46 00:03:12,242 --> 00:03:15,532 enjoyed at all. At the time, when watching any sporting 47 00:03:15,532 --> 00:03:19,522 contest in which I'm partisan, I don't have the faintest idea if I'm 48 00:03:19,522 --> 00:03:23,556 enjoying myself. My dominant emotion is, I really hope my 49 00:03:23,556 --> 00:03:27,213 team wins, so it will turn out later I'm enjoying myself now. 50 00:03:27,213 --> 00:03:31,983 That's the problem with living in the moment, we're too intelligent a species 51 00:03:31,983 --> 00:03:36,438 to be able to avoid living in some sort of narrative and that involves not 52 00:03:36,438 --> 00:03:40,423 knowing how we feel in the moment until we have context for it. 53 00:03:40,423 --> 00:03:44,324 Too short term a focus, and we've nothing to enjoy but sneezing. 54 00:03:44,324 --> 00:03:49,087 Too long term a context and it's all a plan to enjoy something we never get to, 55 00:03:49,087 --> 00:03:51,975 and anyway, we'll all be dead within a 100 years. 56 00:03:51,975 --> 00:03:56,738 We have no choice but to find some sort of medium term over which to give a shit 57 00:03:56,738 --> 00:04:01,671 or nothing is anything. And once you've gone to that, then all 58 00:04:01,671 --> 00:04:07,244 the delayed gratifications are variations on a theme and the theme is chores now, 59 00:04:07,244 --> 00:04:11,890 for jam tomorrow. Whether it's I want to build a cathedral 60 00:04:11,890 --> 00:04:16,094 or I fancy a sandwich, you're stuck in the middle with me. 61 00:04:16,094 --> 00:04:22,300 [MUSIC] In the clip that we just saw, David Mitchell gives two arguments 62 00:04:22,300 --> 00:04:28,015 against those who would say that people should live in the moment. 63 00:04:28,015 --> 00:04:32,479 The first argument seems to go something like this. 64 00:04:32,479 --> 00:04:38,267 Premise one, living in the moment involves a very restricted range of 65 00:04:38,267 --> 00:04:45,378 pleasures, merely the bestial pleasures of eating, drinking, fornication, and 66 00:04:45,378 --> 00:04:49,801 sneezing. Premise two, a good life involves many 67 00:04:49,801 --> 00:04:57,163 pleasures outside that restrictive range, the pleasures of watching sports, of 68 00:04:57,163 --> 00:05:02,239 watching good movies. So conclusion, a good life does not 69 00:05:02,239 --> 00:05:09,346 involve living in the moment, those who'd advocate living in the moment are wrong 70 00:05:09,346 --> 00:05:15,340 to do so, that's not a good life. Now, let me point out two things about 71 00:05:15,340 --> 00:05:18,858 this argument, two problems in this argument. 72 00:05:18,858 --> 00:05:23,843 The first problem, in case it's not obvious to all of you already, is that 73 00:05:23,843 --> 00:05:28,323 this argument is not valid. The conclusion simply does not follow 74 00:05:28,323 --> 00:05:30,577 from the premises. Here is why. 75 00:05:30,577 --> 00:05:35,416 Suppose that living in the moment does involve a very restricted range of 76 00:05:35,416 --> 00:05:38,650 pleasures, suppose that Mitchell is right about 77 00:05:38,650 --> 00:05:41,712 that, and let's suppose he's also right that a 78 00:05:41,712 --> 00:05:46,106 good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range. 79 00:05:46,106 --> 00:05:49,232 Well, both of those premises could be true, 80 00:05:49,232 --> 00:05:54,240 even if a good life does involve living in the moment, 81 00:05:54,240 --> 00:06:00,853 because a good life might involve pleasures inside that restricted range, 82 00:06:00,853 --> 00:06:05,852 as well as pleasures outside that restricted range. 83 00:06:05,852 --> 00:06:10,877 So, simply from the fact, if it is a fact, that living in the moment involves 84 00:06:10,877 --> 00:06:16,577 a very restricted range of pleasures, and that a good life involves a wide range of 85 00:06:16,577 --> 00:06:21,652 pleasures, simply from those two facts, it doesn't yet follow that a good life 86 00:06:21,652 --> 00:06:27,052 doesn't involve living in the moment. A good life might very well involve living 87 00:06:27,052 --> 00:06:30,692 in the moment, as well as a bunch of other pleasures. 88 00:06:30,692 --> 00:06:35,992 So this argument is not valid. That's the first problem I wanted to 89 00:06:35,992 --> 00:06:41,422 point out with this argument, but there's another problem with this 90 00:06:41,422 --> 00:06:47,852 argument and this is why the argument can be fairly accused of attacking a straw 91 00:06:47,852 --> 00:06:51,237 man. Which is that, in premise one, Mitchell 92 00:06:51,237 --> 00:06:57,052 says that living in the moment involves a very restricted range of pleasures and 93 00:06:57,052 --> 00:07:02,282 that is precisely what the proponents of living in the moment would deny. 94 00:07:02,282 --> 00:07:08,152 They would deny that living in the moment requires only the bestial pleasures that 95 00:07:08,152 --> 00:07:12,366 Mitchell described. Living in the moment, according to its 96 00:07:12,366 --> 00:07:17,696 advocates, is something that involves taking pleasure in whatever it is that 97 00:07:17,696 --> 00:07:22,666 you're doing at that moment, whether it's working, talking to friends, 98 00:07:22,666 --> 00:07:27,457 whether it's taking a walk. Anything that you're doing in that moment 99 00:07:27,457 --> 00:07:32,914 is something that could be an object of pleasure if you adapt the right attitude 100 00:07:32,914 --> 00:07:36,906 towards it. And so, learn to adopt the right attitude 101 00:07:36,906 --> 00:07:43,001 toward whatever it is that you're doing in that moment, and then you'll not just 102 00:07:43,001 --> 00:07:48,669 enjoy the pleasures of anticipation, you'll also enjoy the pleasures of 103 00:07:48,669 --> 00:07:54,764 immediate experience in that moment. So, in premise one, Mitchell is attacking 104 00:07:54,764 --> 00:07:59,210 a straw man. He's attacking a position that no one in 105 00:07:59,210 --> 00:08:03,209 fact or virtually no one in fact propounds. 106 00:08:03,209 --> 00:08:09,954 No one thinks, that a good life involves only the restricted range of bestial 107 00:08:09,954 --> 00:08:16,526 pleasures that Mitchell describes. Those people who advocate living in the 108 00:08:16,526 --> 00:08:23,567 moment do so, because they think that we can enjoy a broader range of pleasures in 109 00:08:23,567 --> 00:08:27,810 experiences that we have at a particular moment, 110 00:08:27,810 --> 00:08:33,990 a broader range than simply the bestial range that Mitchell described. 111 00:08:33,990 --> 00:08:38,619 So, according to the living in the momentiers, premise one is false. 112 00:08:38,619 --> 00:08:43,397 And because Mitchell supposes that premise one is true, he's attacking a 113 00:08:43,397 --> 00:08:46,567 straw man. He's attacking a position that no one 114 00:08:46,567 --> 00:08:50,287 actually propounds. So that's why his first argument is 115 00:08:50,287 --> 00:08:54,367 guilty of the straw man. Now, let's consider his second argument. 116 00:08:54,367 --> 00:08:59,197 The second argument that Mitchell gives is an argument not to the effect that 117 00:08:59,197 --> 00:09:03,962 living in the moment is somehow bad or not part of the good life, rather, it's 118 00:09:03,962 --> 00:09:08,062 an argument that living in the moment is actually impossible. 119 00:09:08,062 --> 00:09:14,076 Here is how his argument seems to go. Living in the moment is something that's 120 00:09:14,076 --> 00:09:18,116 ascertainable only after that moment has past. 121 00:09:18,116 --> 00:09:24,297 For instance, when watching a movie whether or not you are presently, while 122 00:09:24,297 --> 00:09:30,192 watching the movie, enjoying what's happening is something that you'll only 123 00:09:30,192 --> 00:09:32,757 be able to ascertain after the movies over. 124 00:09:32,757 --> 00:09:37,592 When watching a sporting event, whether or not you're actually enjoying this very 125 00:09:37,592 --> 00:09:42,167 moment of watching the sporting event is something that you'll only be able to 126 00:09:42,167 --> 00:09:46,897 ascertain after the sporting event is over or at least after it's progressed to 127 00:09:46,897 --> 00:09:54,436 the point that you realize whether you're whether your favorite player is going to 128 00:09:54,436 --> 00:09:57,829 win. Now, from that premise, Mitchell 129 00:09:57,829 --> 00:10:03,435 concludes that living in the moment is therefore impossible. 130 00:10:03,435 --> 00:10:09,940 You can't succeed in living in the moment, because the moment that you're 131 00:10:09,940 --> 00:10:20,530 living in is not won, the enjoyment of which you can ascertain until after that 132 00:10:20,530 --> 00:10:29,055 moment has passed. But again, this argument is only valid if 133 00:10:29,055 --> 00:10:35,842 living in the moment involves not simply taking pleasure in the moment, but 134 00:10:35,842 --> 00:10:41,223 ascertaining in the moment that you're taking pleasure in that very moment, 135 00:10:41,223 --> 00:10:46,259 only then, is living in the moment shown to be impossible by means of this 136 00:10:46,259 --> 00:10:49,450 argument. If living in the moment doesn't need to 137 00:10:49,450 --> 00:10:54,467 involve ascertaining at that moment that you're taking pleasure at that moment. 138 00:10:54,467 --> 00:10:59,302 If living in the moment only involves taking pleasure in that moment, whether 139 00:10:59,302 --> 00:11:02,132 or not you ascertain that you are doing so, 140 00:11:02,132 --> 00:11:08,311 then this argument is simply invalid. Since Mitchell presents the argument as 141 00:11:08,311 --> 00:11:13,757 if it's valid, that shows that once again, he's attacking a straw man. 142 00:11:13,757 --> 00:11:19,588 He's attacking the position that a good life involves living in the moment, 143 00:11:19,588 --> 00:11:25,630 understood not simply as taking pleasure in the particular moment that you're 144 00:11:25,630 --> 00:11:28,753 living in, but also is ascertaining in that very 145 00:11:28,753 --> 00:11:32,105 moment that you're taking pleasure in that very moment. 146 00:11:32,105 --> 00:11:36,968 Right? The position that this argument is designed to attack is that position, but 147 00:11:36,968 --> 00:11:41,369 is that a position that anybody holds? Does anybody think that a good life 148 00:11:41,369 --> 00:11:46,009 involves not just taking pleasure in the moment that you're living in, but also 149 00:11:46,009 --> 00:11:50,401 ascertaining in that very moment that you're taking pleasure in that very 150 00:11:50,401 --> 00:11:54,550 moment? I certainly don't know anyone who holds that view. 151 00:11:54,550 --> 00:12:00,035 The people who propound living in the moment think that it's important to take 152 00:12:00,035 --> 00:12:05,125 pleasure in the moments that you're living in, but they don't think it's 153 00:12:05,125 --> 00:12:10,822 important to ascertain in those very same moments that you're taking pleasure in 154 00:12:10,822 --> 00:12:15,054 those very moments. And since they don't think that, this 155 00:12:15,054 --> 00:12:20,349 argument doesn't show that living in the moment as they describe it, is 156 00:12:20,349 --> 00:12:24,182 impossible. It doesn't show that it's impossible to 157 00:12:24,182 --> 00:12:28,022 take pleasure in the moments that you're living in. 158 00:12:28,022 --> 00:12:33,538 All it shows is that it's impossible to take pleasure in those moments while 159 00:12:33,538 --> 00:12:39,118 simultaneously ascertaining that you're taking pleasure in those moments, 160 00:12:39,118 --> 00:12:44,199 but who would have ever thought otherwise? So once again, Mitchell's 161 00:12:44,199 --> 00:12:49,834 second argument is attacking a straw man, is attacking the position that no one 162 00:12:49,834 --> 00:12:53,930 actually propounds. The living in the momentiers have a more 163 00:12:53,930 --> 00:12:58,220 plausible position than the one that Mitchell is attacking here. 164 00:12:58,220 --> 00:13:03,242 The second argument that Mitchell gives is an argument not to the effect that 165 00:13:03,242 --> 00:13:07,413 living in the moment is somehow bad or not part of the good life, 166 00:13:07,413 --> 00:13:13,082 rather it's an argument that living in the moment is actually impossible. 167 00:13:13,082 --> 00:13:19,217 Here is how his argument seems to go. Living in the moment is something that's 168 00:13:19,217 --> 00:13:23,197 ascertainable only after that moment has passed. 169 00:13:23,197 --> 00:13:29,043 For instance, when watching a movie, whether or not you are presently, while 170 00:13:29,043 --> 00:13:34,630 watching the movie enjoying what's happening is something that you'll only 171 00:13:34,630 --> 00:13:37,926 be able to ascertain after the movie's over. 172 00:13:37,926 --> 00:13:44,008 When watching a sporting event, whether or not you're actually enjoying this very 173 00:13:44,008 --> 00:13:49,524 moment of watching a sporting event is something that you'll only be able to 174 00:13:49,524 --> 00:13:55,500 ascertain after the sporting event is over or at least after it's progressed to 175 00:13:55,500 --> 00:14:02,264 the point that you realize whether you're whether your favorite player is going to 176 00:14:02,264 --> 00:14:05,006 win. Now, from that premise, Mitchell 177 00:14:05,006 --> 00:14:09,709 concludes that living in the moment is therefore impossible. 178 00:14:09,709 --> 00:14:15,099 You can't succeed in living in the moment, because the moment that you are 179 00:14:15,099 --> 00:14:20,959 living in is not one, the enjoyment of which you can ascertain until after that 180 00:14:20,959 --> 00:14:23,972 moment has passed. But again, 181 00:14:23,972 --> 00:14:35,697 this argument is only valid if living in the moment involves not simply taking 182 00:14:35,697 --> 00:14:44,962 pleasure in the moment, but ascertaining in the moment that you're taking pleasure 183 00:14:44,962 --> 00:14:48,907 in that very moment. Only then, is living in the moment shown 184 00:14:48,907 --> 00:14:51,652 to be impossible by means of this argument. 185 00:14:51,652 --> 00:14:56,977 If living in the moment doesn't mean to involve ascertaining at that moment that 186 00:14:56,977 --> 00:15:01,902 you're taking pleasure at that moment. If living in the moment only involves 187 00:15:01,902 --> 00:15:07,441 taking pleasure in that moment, whether or not you ascertain that you're doing 188 00:15:07,441 --> 00:15:13,405 so, then this argument is simply invalid. Since Mitchell presents the argument as 189 00:15:13,405 --> 00:15:18,428 if it's valid that shows that once again he's attacking the straw man. 190 00:15:18,428 --> 00:15:23,817 He's attacking the position that a good life involves living in the moment 191 00:15:23,817 --> 00:15:29,067 understood not simply as taking pleasure in the particular moment that you're 192 00:15:29,067 --> 00:15:34,067 living in, but also as ascertaining in that very moment that you're taking 193 00:15:34,067 --> 00:15:39,542 pleasure in that very moment. Right? The position that this argument is designed 194 00:15:39,542 --> 00:15:43,795 to attack is that position, but is that a position that anybody 195 00:15:43,795 --> 00:15:48,922 holds? Does anybody think that a good life involves not just taking pleasure in 196 00:15:48,922 --> 00:15:53,711 the moment that you're living in, but also ascertaining in that very moment 197 00:15:53,711 --> 00:15:56,888 that you're taking pleasure in that very moment? 198 00:15:56,888 --> 00:16:00,162 I certainly don't know anyone who holds that view. 199 00:16:00,162 --> 00:16:05,662 The people who propound living in the momen Think that it's important to take 200 00:16:05,662 --> 00:16:09,112 pleasure in the moments that you're living in, 201 00:16:09,112 --> 00:16:14,927 but they don't think it's important to ascertain in those very same moments that 202 00:16:14,927 --> 00:16:18,247 you're taking pleasure in those very moments. 203 00:16:18,247 --> 00:16:23,822 And since they don't think that, this argument doesn't show that living in the 204 00:16:23,822 --> 00:16:26,832 moment as they describe it, is impossible. 205 00:16:26,832 --> 00:16:32,073 It doesn't show that it's impossible to take pleasure in the moments that you're 206 00:16:32,073 --> 00:16:35,439 living in. All it shows, is that it's impossible to 207 00:16:35,439 --> 00:16:40,580 take pleasure in those moments while simultaneously ascertaining that you're 208 00:16:40,580 --> 00:16:46,888 taking pleasure during those moments, but who would have ever though otherwise? 209 00:16:46,888 --> 00:16:52,286 So once again, Mitchell's second argument is attacking a straw man. 210 00:16:52,286 --> 00:16:57,075 It's attacking the position that no one actually propounds. 211 00:16:57,075 --> 00:17:03,892 The living in the momentiers have more, the living in the momentiers have a more 212 00:17:03,892 --> 00:17:09,105 plausible position than the one Mitchell is attacking here.