About a year ago, I started doing this thing that the people who do it just call “climbing.”
Basically, you go to a giant place where there are things strategically stuck to a wall, and you grab them with your hands and feet trying to climb to the top of the wall. The things combine to form “routes,” and you can climb short ones with no ropes (“bouldering”) or longer (thus, higher) ones with a rope running from a harness you wear, up through an anchor installed at the top of the route, and back down to someone on the ground who takes up the slack as you climb and then lowers you back to the ground when you’re finished (“top-roping”). You can also do something more advanced (“lead climbing”) where there is no anchor at the top and the person at the bottom doesn’t take in slack as you climb but rather gives you slack as you climb higher with your own rope, which you attach to anchors fixed along the route as you go. (This one I haven’t tried, might never.)[1]
I started doing this because a friend of mine had just lost her spouse, with whom she had climbed regularly. It’s kind of a buddy sport, and I liked the idea of spending more time with this friend, as well as with two other friends who were already climbing together regularly. So we formed a climbing foursome, me the clear novice, but no matter: I learned how to be the person at the bottom, which you can safely do with no climbing skills at all, so in the confines of a “climbing gym” where the advanced courses are right next to the ones that have you basically climbing the rungs of a ladder, my being much worse than the others didn’t hold them back too much. (I did fail my first test to be a licensed person-holding-the-rope-at-the-bottom, but that actually was a great thing to have happened to me, for reasons I can explain in a different post. I passed on my second attempt and have been safely hoisting people up and lowering people down walls ever since.)
My climbing was and is mostly motivated by reasons extrinsic to the actual climbing. I really enjoy spending time with these friends, and I like being with them as they do something they all clearly love and excel at. Those reasons are more than enough for me to want to continue doing this. But I often do idly wonder: Do I, additionally, enjoy climbing?
Here are some data points:
- I rarely feel excited leading up to climbing. I am excited to see my friends, sometimes pleasantly hopeful that I’ll manage to complete a new route. But I’m not psyched out of my mind to get into that gym. I have been known to drag feet.
- I do usually feel glad that I went after the fact. I like the fatigue in my arms and sometimes the feeling of satisfaction when I’ve done something hard. I don’t feel too disappointed when I fail, either. I just generally feel glad to have done it.
- But. I think my feelings of wellbeing post-climbing are less down to the satisfying fatigue or satisfying accomplishment or satisfying anything-related-to-climbing. I think I mostly feel good because I’ve just spent time with friends.
- I have gone climbing by myself on occasion, but note: People keep telling me that women my age need to lift weights, and they have weights at the climbing gym, which I use regularly before I climb. I suspect that some of what brings me to the gym and makes me feel satisfied afterward is renewed hope about my bone density!
I’ve already said that friendship (and bone density) are enough to make me want to continue climbing. But in addition to having sufficient reason to continue climbing, do I actually enjoy it?
When I sat down to write this, I was hoping just to pose a question about how we figure out if we enjoy something. But while writing, a comparison came to mind, which I now find illuminating: The patterns I just bulleted closely match what I see from my kid when he participates in sports. He’s very self-critical, he’s often not the best athlete on the field (that’s just numbers), and his team doesn’t always win. So, participation in sports means he spends a lot of time feeling like he messed up, let his team down, etc. And that means:
- He often doesn’t want to go to his practice or game in the run-up to it.
- He usually is happy and glad he went after he does.
- But, that post-game happiness is plausibly down to things just as extrinsic to the sport as the things that elevate my mood after climbing: He’s been with friends; he’s been physically active; sometimes his team won; sometimes he gets ice cream; etc.
- What drives him to his sports in the day-to-day is often not confidence that he’ll have fun, but rather his sense that he committed to being there, his hope that his team will win…things I again regard as extrinsic to the actual playing of the sport.
Those data points are a fairly good match with mine. And yet, if asked, I would answer with confidence that my kid does enjoy the sports in question. I would answer affirmatively because when he gets out of his way and just plays, he is happy while doing it. It seems, then, that when I ask myself whether he enjoys some activity, I’m asking something like this: When he really does it, does he experience happiness, elation, joy, or exuberance?
Yet when I ask myself if I enjoy climbing, I’m evidently asking a different question.
I think my adult version of the enjoyment question incorporates two considerations that my kid version of the question abstracts away: First, by asking whether my kid is happy, elated, etc. when he just plays, I am setting aside questions about how much of the time he is in that state of just playing. Second, when I ask simply whether my kid experiences those things, I am setting aside questions about opportunity costs, including in the domain of enjoyment itself: I’m not asking whether he could be experiencing more enjoyment if he were doing something else. In contrast, when I ask myself if I enjoy climbing, I’m thinking about how little of the time spent “climbing” is actually time on the wall, climbing. There’s the commute, the putting on of the shoes and harness, the turns spent being the person holding the rope at the bottom. I factor all that in as I contemplate the question of my enjoyment. I’m also factoring in that the time I spend climbing is time I am not being productive. Time not being productive is precious. So, when I ask if I enjoy climbing, I’m treating it as relevant whether something else would bring more happiness, elation, joy, or exuberance, or a better volume of those feelings per increment of time spent.
In short, I now think that when I ask about kid enjoyment, I’m doing ideal theory, whereas when I ask about adult enjoyment (or at least my adult enjoyment), I’m doing non-ideal theory. While that might seem at first to make some sense, I have a hunch that the asymmetry actually reveals that I’m making a mistake. When we ask what we should do, whether we should pursue some hobby, we should ask mostly without abstracting away the real-world details. We should incorporate those details when we ask the practical question of what to do or keep doing, for both kids and adults. If my kid felt joy and exuberance but only for ten seconds over the course of an entire season of soccer, and if he hated going to practice every other day, probably we should look for a new activity! But my question wasn’t the practical question of whether to keep climbing: I already knew I had sufficient reason to continue. I just wanted to know whether I enjoy the activity.
And surely, the definition of enjoyment shouldn’t be different between kids and adults, even if the things that bring us enjoyment clearly should vary across developmental stages. To treat the meaning of enjoyment as different seems like an objectionable equivocation.
If I am so confident that my kid enjoys soccer because when he actually plays, he experiences happiness, elation, joy, and exuberance, then I should apply that same standard, with its abstractions, to the question when I ask it of my own enjoyment. In neither case will my answer settle the practical question. (As our most (in)famous ideal theorist was always careful to remind us, ideal theory will not tell us directly what to do in less happy circumstances.) But if, setting aside the practical question, I just want to learn something about my own enjoyment, I should ask: Do I experience happiness, elation, joy, and exuberance when I actually engage in climbing? And the answer is, I do! I experience those things partly because when I’m climbing, I’m working and concentrating far too hard to worry about optimizing my enjoyment, so I’m definitely not thinking about what I might be enjoying more. And, while there might be a lot of time not climbing when you go climbing, the time on the wall is, like the time just shooting the shit with my friends, something that brings happiness , elation, joy, and exuberance (if not all at once!).
(I’m experiencing those things right now, too, first because I just sorted something out to my own satisfaction using reflective equilibrium, and I definitely enjoy doing that. I also gave myself a visceral reminder of why we should keep writing without AI. The question of whether I enjoy climbing is not a matter of great importance, but I did want to know the answer, and I never would have sorted it out without messily writing through the thoughts on my own.)
Now, suppose I’m right. Suppose this journey has revealed that I (someone who clearly thinks way too much about whether I’m properly enjoying what’s meant to be enjoyable) slipped into the mistake of defining the very term enjoyment in a way that shifts depending on the subject I’m asking about. Here’s the curiosity I’m left with: Does this reflect a more general tendency? Do we adults do too much nonideal theory when we ask what we enjoy? When we reflect on our enjoyment, are we too often also already anticipating the practical question—the one that we rightly locate in nonideal theory—of what we should do?
[1] I’m sure I’m explaining this badly and/or incorrectly. Those in the know, please correct me!
{ 22 comments }
Eszter 09.17.26 at 7:28 am
That was an interesting read (in a good way:). I don’t believe I’ve ever put this much thought into whether I enjoy something. I guess I either know that I do or have other reasons (like you) to participate in the activity. So then one question I have: why are you asking yourself whether you enjoy the climbing itself? Does it matter given that you have plenty of reasons to go climbing? Is it just for the sake of having a theoretical exercise?
As I’ve aged and as I’ve experienced people around me die, I’ve definitely spent more time thinking about how I want to spend my time and that I want it to be meaningful. Meaningful here is as vague and personal as enjoyment in your example. The reason for that pondering is that I want my time to matter in ways that matter to me. I’ve been increasingly good at cutting out activities that don’t qualify and being able to do that is a great place to be in.
D. S. Battistoli 09.17.26 at 7:47 am
What a delightful post and thought experiment!
I am inclined to differ with you on one point that may be determinative, however. You write:
You’re probably well familiar with the longstanding discourse over the subjecthood of children; rather than take a firm distinguishing stance within it, I might try to point to some commonalities between otherwise occasionally divergent thinkers. Joel Feinberg‘s Child’s Right to an Open Future, though mostly legal-theory-oriented can be seen to entail in part valorizing adults prioritizing certain ideal-theory-oriented parenting strategies that may conflict in the immediate term with non-ideal-theory.
A child with minimal education may struggle to distinguish the pursuit of eudaimonia from that of hedonia. (As the Saamaka Maroon version of a common West African and Caribbean proverb has it, piki mii an sa tja lɛpi baana a boto: [unaccompanied] children can’t [be trusted to] transport ripe bananas [alone] in a boat). So parents are constantly exposing their children to things that may, in time, expand the child’s understanding of eudaimonia and their capacity to subordinate immediate hedonic drives.
Rousseau goes to town on this very distinction in the second book of Émile, if I recall correctly. Even though he famously says, “L’enfance a des manières de voir, de penser, de sentir, qui lui sont propres ; rien n’est moins sensé que d’y vouloir substituer les nôtres,” and spends much time talking about not weighing education too heavily with bitter experiences, we can read him as being in dialogue with what anglophones might call the “pre-1950s British boarding school” model of education. And Rousseau had much less often to deal with childhood-targeting hedonia promoters like flatscreens, industrially produced sweets, and Instagram.
While Hegel is in significant disagreement with Rousseau when he says “Die Kinder sind an sich Freie, und das Leben ist das unmittelbare Dasein nur dieser Freiheit” we can also read him as in agreement with Rousseau and Feinberg insofar as he says that our understanding of what is good for children does take into account that they occupy a time in life particularly marked by education.
I’ve already written a long enough comment, and I don’t think it invalidates your closing questions, though it may color how we respond to them. It may make sense to establish activities for children based on a heftier consideration of ideal theory than would be brought to bear with regard to activities for adults. But that is not to say that adults do not still risk get lost in non-ideal theory, and risk forgetting that even though they are already subjects (fully and unalterably so at law, if they are not Boddhisatvas, they are also subjects-in-formation, if not in the same proportion as are children. Ideal theory may well be oft kept not far from consideration when adults weigh their own pursuit of eudaimonia.
D. S. Battistoli 09.17.26 at 7:54 am
Ah, I meant to place a closing parenthesis after “at law” in my penultimate sentence, above. Copy-editing a comment in a window that shows eight lines at a time is a bear. (Please Mr Postman, or Dr Memory, may we have a comment-preview function?)
oldster 09.17.26 at 8:23 am
Thanks for writing that. I enjoyed reading it.
D. S. Battistoli 09.17.26 at 9:30 am
Oh, and I see from looking at your CV that the graduate courses in the philosophy of education that you took were taught by one “Brighouse” at the University of Wisconsin—Madison.
May we hope for Harry stopping by this thread, and the two of you exchanging?
Eric Schliesser 09.17.26 at 9:35 am
I really enjoyed reading this (and the invocation with ideal theory was illuminating). First, it seems totally fair that you have come to the conclusion that you enjoy climbing. Second, I do wonder how you quiet the thought that what you really enjoy is doing stuff with your friends, and feel valued by them (etc.), rather than climbing.
MisterMr 09.17.26 at 12:34 pm
I think the question is something like: is there something like an “essence of climbing”, and peripherical aspects (accidents?), like hanging out with friends.
If we can distinguish between essential aspects and accidental aspects, it makes sense to ask “do I actually enjoy the essetial aspects of climbing, or only the accidenta ones?”
However the distinction between essence and accidents is something that IMHO exists in the way we think about stuff. but not in the stuff itself, so when applied to real cases it is very difficult to make a judgement and largely depends on what you take the essence of climbing to be.
Doug Muir 09.17.26 at 12:55 pm
The experience of “uninterested or reluctant to do the thing -> do the thing anyway -> subsequently glad that you did the thing” is so common that I faintly wonder why there isn’t a word or short phrase for it. It applies with particular strength to exercise, but is also regularly relevant in life and work otherwise. (Well, it is for me, anyway.)
Doug M.
Gina Schouten 09.17.26 at 4:15 pm
Thank you, Eszter and Eric!
Eszter, I have also wondered why I care so much about this question! In the first draft of this post, I made some comment about it just being the irritating philosopher in me who needs to know. And then I cut that. I’m sure that is part of it. But I actually think what prompted me to start thinking about this is that other people have asked me the question and I genuinely didn’t know the answer. People would say, “oh, how are you enjoying the climbing thing” or “is it fun for you” and I’d say something like “well it’s a great excuse to be with friends but I’m not sure whether I enjoy the climbing itself.” And we’d laugh about that, but then I started to think it was strange that it was true: I really didn’t know! (How could I not know?!) So then I started wondering why I found it to be a hard question to answer. It sounds like your enjoyment is more transparent to you! I bet I’m an odd duck on this one…
Great question, Eric. I’m not sure I can quiet that thought! In this case I found my uncertainty interesting because I had already accepted that the practical question was either determined or over-determined: The extrinsic things were enough to make me want to do it, but was enjoyment also a reason to do it? So it felt like maybe I could control for the extrinsic variables in my own mind better than if I needed the enjoyment itself to somehow break the tie as to whether I should do it. But…I’m not sure that actually makes any sense! I can report, though, that I just went climbing with my friends and tried to concentrate on this question while I was doing the actual climbing and…I really couldn’t! Maybe it’s because I haven’t been very adventurous, but I can’t think of another physical activity that really consumed my mind so much that I literally couldn’t think about other things even if I tried to. (Maybe when I ran very far?) It wouldn’t surprise me if that sort of force-quit is something enjoyable.
Gina Schouten 09.17.26 at 4:23 pm
D. S. Battistoli, thank you, I was really wondering if (and hoping that!) someone would disagree with that premise!
Gina Schouten 09.17.26 at 4:26 pm
MisterMr, I did wonder if I was being too prissy about what counts as the *climbing* in climbing. But while I admit that there will be tough cases, I still feel some conviction that being on the wall is a part of the activity *climbing* whereas putting on my shoes while hearing about a friend’s kid’s meltdown over breakfast is a part of the activity *going climbing with friends* but not a part of the *climbing.*
Doug, shall we coin a term for it??
oldster 09.17.26 at 7:30 pm
“Doug, shall we coin a term for it??”
Former friend of the blog L.A. Paul wrote a whole book about this phenomenon, calling them, “transformative experiences.” In particular, they are experiences that transform your own desires and preferences: what you earlier did not value, you come to value in virtue of having the experience.
Agnes Callard has studied related phenomena under the description of “aspirations”.
Eszter 09.17.26 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for explaining your motivation. I can see bow getting asked that question a bunch would motivate you to find an answer! :-)
marcel proust 09.17.26 at 11:14 pm
Doug Muir @8: Well, not short, but how about (in the first person) IchHatteKeineLustAberImNachhineinBinIchFrohDassIchsGemachtHabe?
John Q 09.18.26 at 2:48 am
Great post !
Having just had a DNF (Did Not Finish) in a 70.3 Ironman (illness and injury in training, but also old age encroaching), this is something I’ve been thinking about a bit. I’ve been doing triathlon for the past 15 years, so it’s just “what I do”, more so now than academic work, where I’m gliding towards retirement. If I didn’t enjoy it when I was doing it, I’d stop, but I don’t normally need to motivate myself to get out the door. And it’s a central part of my social life
Now I’m realising I may need to do something less demanding, perhaps paddleboard or some feasible role in surf livesaving (observer or first aid), or else return to bushwalking/hiking in a less ambitious form than in the past.
As well as those things, I’ve started doing a lot more reading for pleasure.
David Duffy 09.18.26 at 5:24 am
I think one can recognize many things one enjoys doing, but would not be bothered if one stopped tomorrow (and did something else instead). Climbing is one activity that I see people just lose interest in after several intense years – I’m thinking more here of lead climbing, where there is a certain amount of risk (though perhaps not much more than many other organised sports, if you limit yourself to sports climbing). But if running is a intrinsically human activity (viz theories of evolution as cursorial endurance hunters), so must be hanging from your arms up off the ground.
D. S. Battistoli 09.18.26 at 12:19 pm
I’m circling back around because of just how fascinating this post is.
Now, I am not at all up on the latest of Rawlsian philosophy, so my confusion on this may very likely just be a product of my own ignorance.
That said, after checking A Theory of Justice, I’ve not found Rawls using the “ideal”/”non-ideal” distinction for individual-level decisions that do not have tagged social implications. Everything I can see is about justice and compliance. Now, in my first comment, I tried to smuggle in the philosophy of education, for which societies do have norms regarding the sufferance and promotion of hedonic, anhedonic, and eudaimonic goals, with which norms individuals may or may not be in compliance.
I’ve seen philosophers use the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction for things like decision analysis of what route to travel under circumstances of incomplete information access. There is also an ongoing debate in the philosophy of language, kicked off by Herman Cappelen & Josh Dever, which seems to be resolving around the idea that, since natural language does not follow rules but rather organically establishes patterns which are retroactively described in the terminology of rules based on observation, the ideal/non-ideal distinction is, in most cases, not importable to the philosophy of language from the philosophy of justice.
So I guess I’d be interested to learn going forward where the social bite is of the tradeoffs you consider for yourself and don’t consider for your son in leisure-time sport activities. How do we understand your ideal-theory/non-ideal-theory distinction as being distinct from objective judgment of a third party being compared with subjective judgment of ego? Why is the notion of “ideal theory” particularly utile when analyzing such things as the duration of subjective hedonic pleasure? How does it pip, say, Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between decision utility and remembered utility? (With your son, you can only remember your decision, but for yourself, you also remember your sense-memories and can use them to retrospectively judge your decision framework).
I am afraid this may come across as a harsh series of questions, which is not at all my intent. I am truly fascinated by the line of thought you are exploring here, and would love to learn more.
Hussain R. 09.21.26 at 3:14 am
I had the same thought when I was watching some soccer by myself. I found it somewhat tedious and that I would rather read an article I had bookmarked.
I realized that I enjoy watching soccer/basketball/football with my friends because I enjoy their company and that the sporting endeavor is really just a facilitator of conversation. I enjoy it somewhat, rooting for “my” team and such, but I figured out that I don’t really care much about the result.
Nice of you to dive a bit deeper and examine the various factors that go into enjoyment and find out that the answer isn’t so straightforward. I’m gonna try it on myself.
MisterMr 09.21.26 at 8:45 am
@Gina Schouten 11
I understand your point but most people do *going climbing with friends* and not just *climbing*, unless they are climbing professionals (the same goes for all sports and hobbies in general I suppose).
I think that what I’m getting at is that the social aspect of sports and hobbies is quite an important part of sports and hobbies, not really that peripherical, IMHO.
AndrewMcK 09.21.26 at 12:28 pm
Doug Muir @ 8
In my cycling group we have the expression “type 2 fun”. For example, the exhilarating feeling you have when you finish a long climb, having spent a considerable portion of that climb questioning why you ever thought this would be a good idea
D. S. Battistoli 09.22.26 at 9:16 am
MisterMr @19:
Good point. Despite the existence of Black Swan (Aronofsky, not Taleb)–type experiences in group activities, most people (even professionals) experience a certain pleasurable ésprit de corps when playing together. There are perhaps some solo activities (solo sailing, cross-country running or -skiing, “swimming the channel,” &c.) though even some of these may implicate imagined communities.
We would probably view as perverse anyone whose experience of a group activity was exclusively solitary pleasure (like Everest-climbers whose memories of their Tenzing Norgays are as if of unnamed non-equals, or the behavior of certain men during the fashioning of the two-backed beast).
Laban 09.26.26 at 9:53 am
There is the other type of climbing, where you see something big and think you’d like to get to the top of it – at first it probably doesn’t involve ropes at all, just legs and maybe the odd handhold. Happy childhood scrambles in Gower or Arran. Two of my kids decided they wanted a bit more and are quite proficient with rope and harness now. But weather and inexperience can still catch you out – a Uni trip to Ben Nevis in winter a few years back ended in tragedy.
Comments on this entry are closed.