 So this time around we're asking a different question. We're asking, what is the difference between higher pleasures and lower pleasures? Now what Mil has in mind here is he's trying to anticipate and respond to any kind of criticism that utilitarianism requires that we just turn into some kind of animal, that we just have our wild knights in Las Vegas or whatever the equivalent was at the time, where we just try to satiate these desires of the body. Now when he's talking about higher pleasures, he means something almost literally higher than anything else, at least in one's person, and that's the mind. Now when you start thinking about, you know, maybe start trying to apply what he's talking about here. So, you know, something like Scrabble. I mean, you might kind of laugh, but to really be a master Scrabble, you've got to have quite a large vocabulary. You have to invoke strategy involving not only what letters you have, but which letters you could pull up and which sorts of words are available given what you have. Chests requires a mastery that some take years to develop, and most don't even really develop this sort of mastery. It's even to the point now where, you know, they have finally programmed these computers to successfully play chess, but it requires a number of moves that are far beyond human comprehension. And he's not completely divorcing himself for any kind of sensuality. He is going to allow for some kinds of higher pleasures. Nevertheless, it's going to require scrutiny, analysis, taste, experience, intellect to be able to enjoy these things. Not just something that immediately hits the taste buds, but you have to understand where it comes from, how it was prepared, what the chef intended in developing this dish, in order to fully appreciate it. Music involves a complexity, or can involve a complexity, that is astoundingly demanding on the intellect, ranging from time period and history and context to the kinds of instruments, the chords that are involved, the relationship between the conductor and the orchestra to create this sound. And not only that, but understanding what the composer was trying to do, and reaction to what, all requires a grasp, an intellectual grasp, and exercise that is beyond most people's common experiences. You have to work at it to develop these higher pleasures. In contrast, there are gains that involve very little. There might be some strategy involved, but it's not like there's entire championships, books written to beat some of these games. I mean, there are books written to beat some of these games, but it's not as if you develop a book and a walk through to beat some of these games. You know, that's it, right? The game is solved. Chess is never solved. You have to beat an opponent, not just a game. We've got our very passive pleasures that are meant for not so much between the ears, but just to evoke emotion, just to get us riled up or to passively entertain us. Music in a lot of ways, a lot of pop music is just not that complicated. There's even set structures and instrumentations that are used time and time again as a ready formula, right? There's almost no real analysis involved. Most of our activities these days require very little of the intellect. They just require a stomach and a tongue to take it all down. I mean, in some of these cases, you best not think of what the food is before you eat it. If you think too hard on it, you probably won't. Now, what Mill has, you know, Mill is really trying to drive this home. He even has this metaphor, you know, this kind of phrase. He says, you know, it's better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. I mean, think about what a pig does. It just, it literally just keeps his nose shoveled on the dirt trying to satisfy its belly. Whereas Socrates literally probably wasn't fully intellectually satisfied his whole life. He continued to, he continually strove to answer some of these deep questions and nevertheless eluded him. And for Mill, it's better to be that than to be satisfied with shoving your nose in the dirt. And Mill, I think what Mill might have in mind here is even though he has a different answer than Aristotle, I think this is still something of an homage to Aristotle. At least it's something about what Aristotle had to say, that that nevertheless impressed Mill. And that these higher pleasures and lower pleasures have to deal with our human nature, what it means to be human to enjoy some of these things. I mean, you can just sit around and eat, you know, non-nucative flavor wafers that come in cellophane bags. You can do that. But it'll never bring you the full real pleasure. And he makes this claim and I don't know why he might be right. You know that these pleasures are higher that they are better because once you experience them, you just never really satisfied with them. Once you've experienced exquisite food, never really satisfied with fast food. Once you learn the complexities of classical music, of orchestral music, symphonies, you're just not really satisfied with pop tunes. Once you've read the great works, not really satisfied with Pulp Fiction.