Actions Caused by their Effect

It makes you happy...

In our world, every effect is caused by an action. A window breaking is caused by a boy throwing a rock at it. A new law is caused by the Supreme Court passing it. Most people would agree that the same thing can be said in a mental sense. Smiling is caused by being happy. And people would agree that you can’t just flip these two and have an action caused by an effect, because time doesn’t go backwards. You couldn’t have a boy throw a rock at a window because the window breaks. You couldn’t have the Supreme Court pass a new law because a new law is passed.

Those two statements are true. With things like that, time would have to go backwards for an action to be caused by an effect. But sometimes, in other situations, our brain gets so used to the cause-and-effect cycle of life that when presented with an effect, it will guess the cause as well.

What do I mean? Well, take the last example, of smiling being caused by being happy. What this means is that when you put a smile on your face, your brain automatically thinks Oh, look, I’m smiling. I guess that means I’m happy. And amazingly, it releases the chemicals in your brain that make you happy. This phenomenon has been proved over and over in scientific tests; smiling makes you happy!

If you aren’t convinced, try it right now. While you read these words, put a big smile on your face. It doesn’t matter if it’s a completely forced smile. Hold your smile for about 20 seconds, and then stop. Don’t you feel more lighthearted, worry-free, and generally more joyous and happy?

While it’s highly recommended that you put a smile on your face a few times a day to lift your spirits, that’s not what I wrote this post for. I wrote this post to show you that these “actions caused by their effect” can be applied almost anywhere in life. And if you think of other ways to generate actions out of yourself, or other people, because of the effect they have, you can be extremely influential.

Dealing With Unachievable Goals

There is an old fable told by Aesop of Greece in which a fox sees some grapes high up in a tree. But, when he realizes that he won’t be able to get them, he says, “Well, it doesn’t matter, for those grapes were sour.” Some people say that he is making an unjustified claim about something only because he can’t obtain it, so he is foolish. However, some people say that he is wise because he isn’t trying to attain an unattainable goal. And as it turns out, this situation appears a lot in our lives. When we see a new product too expensive for us to buy, we might think, “Oh, well it’s not a very good product anyway.” Lately, when I was thinking about the possibility that other people don’t consciously think (after all, how do you know that they do?), I thought, “Oh, well the theory is wrong anyway.” So which view on this situation is correct? Is this a wise thing to do or a foolish thing to do?

First, let’s think about this question; would this fox actually be able to convince himself that the grapes are sour? No. While he would tell himself that the grapes were sour, he would know deep down inside that the grapes were perfectly good. But, however, we normally act according to what we tell ourselves, not what we truly know. A kindergartener who has just learned from his friend that the tooth fairy isn’t real will still try to make himself believe in the tooth fairy, although he knows deep down inside that she isn’t real. More often than not, we don’t face the facts, and we tell ourselves what we want to believe, and act according to this. However, though, we are often torn in these situations; this kindergartener won’t have as much fun believing in the tooth fairy because despite what he tells himself, he knows she isn’t real. So, if the fox says that these grapes are sour, he won’t try to attain this unattainable goal (good), but he will still think about how the grapes must be very good, and he’ll bog himself down with thoughts and distract himself from his other pursuits in finding food (bad).

But, according to this logic, if this hypothetical fox tells himself the truth, that the grapes are as good as any others, while he won’t distract himself (good) when finding other food (he’ll just say, “Well, they’re unreachable.”), he may look at the grapes enviously, and even try to get them (bad).

The Meaning of Life

What is the meaning of life? What is our ultimate goal and our motivation in life? Who are we, and why are we here? Questions along these lines have been very common among philosophers for millennium. Plato of ancient Greece said that the meaning of life was attaining the highest of knowledge. Philosophers in the Enlightenment era said life was about connecting with others. In the 19th century, Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that life doesn’t have a meaning. In the 20th century, secular humanists began to say that the human personality is the purpose of one’s life; typically, our personalities want to develop and fulfill. In fact, there are over 40 different popular views on the meaning of life. Well, which one is correct?

Defining which one is correct is a tough thing to do. Every one of these theories is completely logical, so by that definition they’re all correct. But which one is the true meaning of life? Which one should one believe in to maximize what he/she can make out of her life. Well, I’ve long had a theory of my own that I’ve followed. And, it turns out that this very theory was also Aristotle’s theory.

This theory is named The Highest Good, and its logic works this way; if you take action A to achieve goal B, you must be achieving goal B to achieve goal C, and achieving goal C to achieve goal D, and so forth. Eventually, however, something must stop this progress of infinite regression. And that is named the Highest Good, and it is the meaning of life. People interpret what the Highest Good is in many different ways, but Aristotle said the Highest good is eudaemonia (translated as happiness, well-being, flourishing, and excellence).

Free Will: How Should You Act When You Don’t Know if it Exists?

In ancient Greece, there was believed to be a group of people including the famous mathematician Pythagoras who believed that the entire universe could be explained in numbers. For example, they believed that it would be possible to figure out with numbers what would happen to a peach thrown at a certain angle with a certain speed at a certain altitude. And they turned out to be correct; in fact, they were beginning to discover physics. And now, because we actually have the mathematical understanding to know what will happen to this peach, we can actually apply this amazing idea that everything can be explained in numbers.

It would be logical to agree that numbers can only predict what would happen if we took a certain action. But, obviously, they couldn’t predict our actions. Or could they? After all, our actions are influenced by what happens to others around us, which in turn are influenced by what happened around them, and so forth, until this was influenced by the very first thing in the universe, presumably the Big Bang. Maybe the universe was like a pool shot; the Big Bang set off a huge chain reaction, which is all predetermined. This leads to the idea of free will. Do we have decisions in our life, or is everything predetermined?

Now, I’m not going to try to figure out whether or not free will exists. I’m not a scientist. I’m 12. But the point that I’m going to make is far more important than any argument for or against the idea of free will. Instead I’m going to ask this question, a question that is the only one that matters to us in this topic; How should I live when I don’t know whether free will exists or not?

“The Journey is the Reward”

In a famous passage from the book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Tom persuades his  friend Joe to whitewash his fence by telling him if he gives him two apples, he will be allowed to whitewash the fence, a deal that implies that whitewashing the fence isn’t work. His friend gladly whitewashes the fence, realizing that it was more fun than he thought it would be, despite the fact that he didn’t earn any pay from the job. Meanwhile, Tom jovially strides around town, eating his apples. At the end of the chapter, the author says that rich men pay money to travel around the streets of London on horse-drawn chariots, but if they were paid, it would be considered “work” and they would refuse the offer.

Many people are aware of this phenomenon, and it has been proved many times. For example, a study showed that people enjoyed scooping dog poop without pay more than they did when they were paid for the job. Yet, for some reason, our life doesn’t follow the teachings of this principle. We do too many things for the money, not for the experience.

Many people thoroughly enjoy cooking meals for their family at their house, but when they become a chef, the same cooking process becomes “work” and they do it for the money. Many people love posting on their personal blogs, but when they put advertisements on it to make revenue, it becomes “work” and they force themselves to do it only for the money. Athletes have a passion for their sport, but when they start paying professionally, they sign with the team that offers the most money, not the one they would like to play on the most. Something is clearly wrong with the way jobs work, and in the paragraphs that follow, I’m going to pinpoint it and show you how making a simple realization can change the way you think.