The Deeds are Left to Purchase

Is opportunity as good as having an actual experience?

I sat down and really thought about whether or not I'd be alright if I heard the news that the Mona Lisa had been burned. On the universal sentiment of great art being destroyed and the collective humanity lessened, sure, I'd feel sad. But on a personal level, I realized I didn't actually care.

I suppose that makes me heartless, but the key is a matter of experience. I will most likely never see the Mona Lisa. Therefore, I have no vested personal interest in whether it exists in the future or solely in the past. I'm sure there are plenty of manifest qualities about the Mona Lisa - perhaps my life is affected in some way that I can't directly connect, but affected nonetheless. On the whole, though, my life is unchanged whether the Mona Lisa is still in the Louvre available for viewing or reduced to ash.

My position comes from my not equating opportunity with experience. I can see a logical argument to contradict my personal feelings by saying that the "possibility of seeing the Mona Lisa" is as good or almost as important as "seeing the Mona Lisa". For example, let's say we were talking about economic growth instead of art. Isn't the opportunity to make as much money as possible better than not having the opportunity at all?

This, of course, is the American Dream.

Some quick problems with the dream of opportunity:

1) In order to equate possibility with the experience, I would also have to equate opportunity with failure. After all, without a guarantee of success - which opportunity doesn't have - it is as likely that I will succeed as that I will fail. Thus, there's no inherent value to opportunity that makes it as significant as experience.

2) There's reasonable doubt to claim that opportunity (or possibility) does not exist. It certainly doesn't follow from common sense, but there is also nothing in the way of proof that shows that possibility or true free will exist. In fact, there is also equally strong evidence that the world is predetermined (a thought that follows well with religion and with something like monism).

Of course there is a gut response to opportunity. It's obvious to me that living in the United States is better than living in Communist Russia. At least the chance exists to create a good life for myself. So then, what does opportunity really mean?

I suppose I'm starting to form "opportunity" into two types: Soft Opportunity and Hard Opportunity.

Soft Opportunity can come from the mere existence of an object or goal - The Mona Lisa exists, therefore I could go see it.

Hard Opportunity speaks to the mechanics of actually being able to do something - The Mona Lisa exists, I have the funds for air travel, the museum where its housed will be open, I can withstand the lines, I have eyesight, therefore I could go see it.

The reason I feel compelled to delineate between the two is because opportunity on its own means very little. Or, at least, there is a difference between real opportunity and perceived opportunity. I would argue, quite liberally, that the American Dream doesn't actually exist for many citizens. The fact that they live in the United States does nothing to make that "opportunity to make life good" exist in any real form in their lives. Because there are other factors that go into whether an opportunity can be utilized beyond the opportunities existence.

Therefore, since I (at the current moment and at no perceivable time in the future) have the funds to travel to France - it matters very little to me whether the Mona Lisa exists or has been sprayed with acid.

I'm getting back into how things affect us in the micro and macro, and this seems like an extreme view to take, but I still have to question what role a painting I will never see plays in my life. Still thinking, is the key phrase.