Skip to main content

Marginal utility (Part II)

 §1. Utility is the pleasure over pain. I prefer it to be total experience  minus pain. 

§2. This pleasure as it is claimed diminishes when more and more extra units of pleasure is added. 

§3. Pleasure is indirectly measured by quantity of the thing to be consumed. More quantities consumed in succession, it gives less and less pleasure on margin.

§4. Now let us divert from these established way of thinking (or may be I get so). Does the pleasure come from fulfilling the objective for which action is taken or by just the action of consuming? If we say the objective then utility can be fulfillment of sense organ pleasing or fulfilling human needs. If we give up sense pleasure and just focus on human needs then utility is continuing the existence. 

§5. If utility is related with need fulfillment, can we say need is full filled in stages and that is in diminishing fashion? I think, need is just need and its fulfillment is not possible in stages. Action can be taken in stages. Hence, action can be diminishing not the end itself. 

§6. Suppose I have to build house. It takes 10000 bricks. We can see that home alone can make me pleased. I put 100 bricks at a time. Then another 100 and so on. Suppose I put 10th count totaling 1000 bricks. Can I say it make me satisfied and next 9000 bricks make me less pleased. I don’t think so. All bricks give equal utility that is zero. 

Here, utility is seeing the complete house (objective) and bricks laying is process of getting their (action) and bricks are consumed to fulfill utility. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hindu Jurisprudence- Smriti And some property law

I just don’t have the energy to write against the popular teaching (perhaps I have read the wrong books) that Hindu jurisprudence is contained within the Smriti, mainly the Manusmriti, and the property systems of the two schools — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga (I forget which region each school belongs to). But these are laws, not jurisprudence. I admit I do not know the subject of jurisprudence deeply — such a tragedy — but it seems to me these were laws made for the time and place according to the wisdom of the sages of that era. The Smriti writers themselves clearly said that the source of their understanding is the Veda. So, anyone who wants to understand exactly what truth Hindus hold must study the Vedas. Those who cannot may go through the Upanishads (major texts distilled by sages to teach the essence of the Jñāna part of the Veda). Those who still find that difficult may turn to the Mahabharata (which is in itself a “great battle” to understand), or they may study Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya-śā...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dharma - Nyaya

(To clear my thought process ) Dharma is that which bears, that which provides stability to a thing, a person, or a nation in motion. Nyaya is specific to the individual; A person who abides in Dharma may still be affected by the Adharma of another who fails to uphold it then the State/Society must inject Nyaya to tha specific person or group or even state. Jurisprudence (in my limited understanding and information ) could not ditinguish between these two concepts and confused it with morale, divine rule, command, society, economics etc. These two are related, but Dharma is what guides the Naya but here it has nothing to do with legal system, it is independent and move with truth, whereas Naya alone requires legal system. Hence, Jurisprudence has long divorced its essence of Dharma (somehow natural school using reason could hover around truth) and focus on legal system alone. ..................
Post a Comment
Read more

Vedas- The Ultimate -Darshan lets not say Philosophy it will be injustice to Great Sages

Vedas -Nobody knows what is it, it is praised by Sages of later dates hence people still praise it -I have not read any piece of paper (except the Secret of Vedas by Sri Aurobindo) which relates Vedas to Pshychology (which I think is still inadaquate (daring to challenge legend in my own foolishness)). 1.Some recites it like parrots 2. Some criticize it like Vedic sages were just fancy poets with lots of imagination 3. Some give it credit to later Vedantic development as part of Methods of Knowledge, which means Vedas are cave men and Vedanta were modern men 4. Some laugh about it since they worship Sun Moon lightening air etc. etc. Let me go one by one 1. reciting with full faith and accuracy have some benefits but it will limit to the level of brain only and that too for soothing purposes and other, which will produces mechanical results (results are bound to happen) 2. too poor may be who translated and criticizes it must lack knowledge of Vedangas, they were expert in musical no...
Post a Comment
Read more