Z
azenbozo writes:
Between a ridge and a brook, the place would be difficult to log, and difficult to build in, too. Makes it no good for much other than walking, and I think that’s alright, good even. I like things that aren’t good for much else.
Is the violin good for anything? I suppose if you play it to impress people or earn access to a club it could be.
I'm already quoted on Bozo's blog, but I will reiterate--useless things are better than useful things, because useful things are, by definition, for the sake of something else, while useless things are for their own sake. Ultimately, all useful things are for the sake of something useless. Useless things are best.
In reality, most things are a combination of useful and useless. A purely useful thing would be something like a terrible job--entirely not worth doing except as a means to an end (in this case, getting paid). Most jobs, however, have some redeeming qualities, that make them at least partially enjoyable for themselves (even if these moments are fleeting or insignificant). Likewise, most useless things also have some use beyond themselves. We watch good movies partly for their own sake, and partly to engage with our friends and culture, learn new things, et cetera. Probably the only truly useless thing (and thus, the most valuable thing) is the Final End, that for which all other things exist. This End is, of course, to know and love God, the least useful of all things. While others may characterize this final end differently, on analysis it will be found we are all talking about the same thing.
The salient point about whether something is fundamentally good in itself, or good for something else, is whether the thing can coherently be removed from consideration from the purpose aimed at. For example, the terrible job: the proof that the job is wholly useful (to us) is that the money is the only reason we are doing it--if we could get the money for nothing, we would not do the work. Useless things we do even if we are not being paid (or receiving some other remuneration).
It may be asked, aren't things like movies also useful in this sense? Isn't the point of watching the movie the enjoyment that we receive from it, and not the movie in itself? In reply, we could ask: does it make sense to seek enjoyment decoupled from the object of enjoyment? Is it possible to feel "in love" without a beloved? Is it possible to feel the joyful rest of finishing a good book without any features of the book to be thinking back on? It seems difficult to imagine what these experiences would even mean without their objects. This is what it means for something to be good in itself--that its end is in some way "within" the object, unable to be detached.
It may occur to the reader to ask whether, if useless things have no purpose, they are all equally good? Is it impossible to compare useless things? This will be the topic of a later post.