FumaniJanuary 01, 2018 at 19:1310925 views44 comments
Is the desire to achieve more in life in the broadest context an organic process in nature, or is it an artificial construct that is forged by the mind?
How so? In the animal kingdom there is no clear indication that animals desire to achieve anything more than the equilibrium set by nature. No animal desires to rebel against its natural instinct nor its position in the food chain. What we deem as achievements are mental constructs based on what we consider as worthwhile. Is it not that desire itself is fundamental but the desire to achieve more could be artificially?
Is the desire to achieve more in life in the broadest context an organic process in nature,
Desire seems to be built into life, as described in the Four Noble Truths. However, desire can be moderated be replacing one big desire with many little ones.
In many cases, desires cannot be quantified so the word "more" cannot be appropriately used to describe the situation. Possibly one can describe it as a feeling of intensity.
Achieve, is entirely subjective, and I don't believe I think in this manner. I think more in terms of learning something new.
Is the desire to achieve more in life in the broadest context an organic process in nature, or is it an artificial construct that is forged by the mind?
Hi.
I think desire is an organic process, a part of our nature as humans, but what we desire is forged by the society and its history where we are cast.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 01, 2018 at 23:20#1391130 likes
Reply to Cavacava
Good reply. However, we are creatures of free will and therefore despite what society gives us to form our habits of desire, we ultimately still choose our own goods to be desired.
Yes, I agree with this, but I've been thinking that we can only choose what is possible to choose. I mean by this that it would been virtually impossible for any educated person in the 1300s to think that religion ought to be separated from science, they were one and the same for the people at that time.
Society has its own bibliography, and most of our choices are limited by it because it is all that we know. For the most part we can only choose between known choices. What we don't know, is not an option.
Hey I think humans share the same basic desires. We all want to fit in. We want to feel apart of the human race. We chase this connectivity whether we realize it or not. Desire is a natural trait, and we share it with other members of the animal kingdom.
Reply to Rich Interesting points Rich, I have to agree with the angle that you approached this question with, desire cannot be quantified by more or less yes but what may differ is the feeling of intensity.
In terms of the achieving, I did say achievements in the broadest context Rich. So to be more precise in my wordings let me deliver it to you like this. The desire to accumulate more resources (resources dont always need to be physical, their are internal resources too) than the equilibrium set by nature only belongs to man. If we experience an internal feeling of anxiety for example we do not desire it to perpetuate, in fact we desire the opposite. To learn something new takes discipline, which is forged by miniture achievements. You may not perceive them as achievements because you love what you are learning, but in a metaphysical sense you are evolving, because you had the desire for more resources, knowledge is a resource too. So learning something new is a form of attaining more resources the more resources the higher the quality of life.
So the word more is quite relevant, I can make the assumption that Buddha or Maharaj had more internal resources than I have. In possessing these internal resources they were able to shift themselves away from the contemporary human suffering. I can also make the assumption that the internal resources that they had did not fall on their lap, they had to desire more out of life to get more out of life.
So again is this desire to get more out of life truly an organic process or is it artificially created by what we define as 'more'?
Cavacava I just want to redirect you to the question, "is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". Desire is fundamental yes, however the prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?
To say we have free will to decide what we want is incorrect, we always operate on a template. We either negate the template and form a new one out of that negation or we can accept the template and move on. The free will I think comes in where we are able to change the location of our focus. I can shift my focus of attention away from a habitual desire but I cannot negate the template.
Very good points Crank. If i had to incorporate your premise then there is a potential that the universe made a mistake in the creation of human beings. Why is it that we are the only known organisms that go against instinct and desire, basically we can oppose nature.
I agree that desires and wants arise without our conscious will but your forgetting the aspect of our desire to entertain or disprove the desires and wants. Even in our opposition of the inevitable desires and wants we have, we still are going against nature, so is this quality artificial or organic?
I agree with everything you said Steven but let me redirect you to the question. "Is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". So we may have friends, we may fit in, we may attain connectivity but the desire for more of those experiences is inevitable, even if you have enough friends, connectivity and social status.
Is the desire to achieve more in life in the broadest context an organic process in nature, or is it an artificial construct that is forged by the mind?
There is a difference between humans and other animals. It's our ''superior'' intellect and this permeates every other aspect of our mind, including desire. Humans desire food, shelter, mates, like all animals but we also have one other desire - eudaemonia/flourishing - that is, to say the least, exclusively human in character. People may define eudaemonia differently but the point is it isn't found in animals. So, human desire may be said to be unique thus. Have I understood you correctly?
Our desires are not fixed. They constantly change - shaped, altered, modified by cultural, psychological, social, economic, whathaveyou influences - but the fact remains that our desire to flourish sets us apart from animals. Is this artificial? What do you mean by ''artificial''?
That was a great response to the question thank you, look I need to be honest I have not heard of eudaemonia I will have to do my research but you did mention flourish so I will work with that. I believe every organism has an embedded code to flourish but this is mainly physical which has a boundary. Animals work with their instincts, only when the environment stimulates them to flourish mentally do they evolve. We on the other hand seem to have something special as you have stated, we can desire more than what the environment gives us.
Yes that is what I mean by artificial, it is a construct, a mental formulation, in essence it holds no grounds in reality. So is the desire for more truly a natural experience or is it fabricated by and only utilized by the human condition?
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 02, 2018 at 12:55#1392590 likes
You as an individual, you have a bundle of experiences that are stored in your brain. These experiences are then stored as information in your neural pathways so that the next time you experience that phenomenon your brain has the appropriate responses for it. For example if you want to start your own business but you recall that society at large has given you a template that you need money, and to get money you need a job, it will create resistance within you. We can oppose this template by starting our own business negating the prospect of getting a job, but we are still operating on the template of money. There are certain things we may be able to bypass but the fundamentals remain the same, our desires are intertwined with society, because even in opposing them and forming new ideologies or habits of our own, we cannot escape seeking a template that has already been created by a collection of other individuals.
Of course our templates may differ but the basis and foundation remain the same for every individual in society. Does that make sense?
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 02, 2018 at 14:28#1392910 likes
For example if you want to start your own business but you recall that society at large has given you a template that you need money, and to get money you need a job, it will create resistance within you. We can oppose this template by starting our own business negating the prospect of getting a job, but we are still operating on the template of money.
I don't see how my want for something can be interpreted as a template given to me by society. Let's say that I desire sexual pleasure, how is this a template given to me by society?
It appears to me like you have everything backwards. Society doesn't tell me that I need money, and therefore I have a desire for money. I have desires for many different things, and society tells me that to get these things, I need money, and so I transform my desire into a desire for money in order that I can get what I truly desire. So the template doesn't form my desire, it only transforms it. And it isn't even the template really which transforms it, I transform my desire, to be consistent with the template.
There are certain things we may be able to bypass but the fundamentals remain the same, our desires are intertwined with society, because even in opposing them and forming new ideologies or habits of our own, we cannot escape seeking a template that has already been created by a collection of other individuals.
So the template doesn't negate free will. It has to be chosen. And even after choosing a particular template, we can switch templates at any moment. Therefore we do not really operate on a template, as you suggested, because we are always choosing different templates right and left, as we see fit, and the templates are nothing more than tools which are at our disposal, if we so desire to use them.
I have desires for many different things, and society tells me that to get these things, I need money, and so I transform my desire into a desire for money in order that I can get what I truly desire.
You are making the assumption that your desires are separate from society at large. Look we need money to get the things we want, that is our template, I operate by it and you operate by it. Out of this template I may attain things that are different from you but the template that I worked with was money. In order to get the things you desire we have to follow the law of society which states that in order to accumulate objects or experiences you need to exchange your money for it.
Free will by its own definition is the ability to choose any course of action. Now do you honestly think you decide the course of your actions when you already contain a template for which course of action is right or which course of action is wrong?
We can spend years on in reconstructing our templates to suit our preferences and we may even succeed in altering them but whatever you replace that template with will still be interlinked with the previous template. No matter how good you try make yourself, your template will always be based on what you think is evil or what is not good for you. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So the template doesn't negate free will. It has to be chosen. And even after choosing a particular template, we can switch templates at any moment. Therefore we do not really operate on a template, as you suggested, because we are always choosing different templates right and left, as we see fit, and the templates are nothing more than tools which are at our disposal, if we so desire to use them
You cannot choose a template without negating another, a choice implies that there is a selection of options that are available. Now you choose one and you make the proclamation that you chose it on your own accord but you merely chose it based on either your instinct (biochemistry in your body) or a new template that you are trying to adopt.
Basically what I am saying Meta is that templates cannot be avoided, they are constructs that you operate under. Free will from your particular perspective is just the ability to move from one template to another, but every template that you can operate from is and was created by society, whether its supported by the majority or minority. The amount of people supporting that template matters not it can be a billion or just a hundred it doesn't change the fact that it is a template created by man and you are obligated to operate by one, your will is not free in that regard.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 02, 2018 at 16:04#1393150 likes
You are making the assumption that your desires are separate from society at large.
Yes of course I am making that assumption. It appears blatantly obvious to me, that my personal desires are completely distinct from society as a whole. Do you not agree? I would not think that society is expressing its desires through me. My desires are intrinsically selfish, stemming from my own physical needs. But I may conform, to want what I think society wants from me.
Free will by its own definition is the ability to choose any course of action. Now do you honestly think you decide the course of your actions when you already contain a template for which course of action is right or which course of action is wrong?
Yes, that is honestly what I think. I choose a template according the situation in which I find myself, as the means to the end. Since each situation varies due to its own particular circumstances, it is impossible that I already contain a template within me as to which course of action is right or wrong with respect to each situation I will be in. The templates only consist of general principles, and I must choose the ones best suited to the particular situation.
You cannot choose a template without negating another, a choice implies that there is a selection of options that are available. Now you choose one and you make the proclamation that you chose it on your own accord but you merely chose it based on either your instinct (biochemistry in your body) or a new template that you are trying to adopt.
Why would choosing a template require negating another? Imagine having hundreds of templates laid out on the table, each with its own principle of application. Depending on my situation, I choose the one I think is best suited for my purpose. I don't negate the others, I leave them accessible to me for when I am in a different situation and require a different template.
Basically what I am saying Meta is that templates cannot be avoided, they are constructs that you operate under. Free will from your particular perspective is just the ability to move from one template to another, but every template that you can operate from is and was created by society, whether its supported by the majority or minority. The amount of people supporting that template matters not it can be a billion or just a hundred it doesn't change the fact that it is a template created by man and you are obligated to operate by one, your will is not free in that regard.
I agree that templates cannot be avoided, and that if I am to be a human being I will necessarily use them. But I do not agree with your logic which concludes that because we use templates we have no free will. There may be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of existing templates. We are able to dismantle them and create new ones out of combining parts from different ones. So the number of possible templates is countless. With that amount of freedom of choice, how do you conclude that the use of templates indicates that the will is not free?
Yes of course I am making that assumption. It appears blatantly obvious to me, that my personal desires are completely distinct from society as a whole. Do you not agree? I would not think that society is expressing its desires through me. My desires are intrinsically selfish, stemming from my own physical needs. But I may conform, to want what I think society wants from me.
on the surface level it appears that way, your personal desires may seem to be different as I stated, when I say template I dont mean that it is based on frivolous desires such as you liking the colour orange or liking a particular smell, I mean exactly what you said that we have a whole array of templates to choose from, but even when we seem to choose a template that choice was inspired by a previous template. Your personal desires are rooted within the human condition, the desire for more resources, happiness and 'love' now how these desires express themselves is where the sense of individuality comes in. But we are operating through the same stencil, we are humanity and humanity is comprised of individuals, and we as individuals perceive ourselves to be separate from others. Is that not a template? has this template not been reinforced to you by other individuals also operating on that same stencil?
Why would choosing a template require negating another? Imagine having hundreds of templates laid out on the table, each with its own principle of application. Depending on my situation, I choose the one I think is best suited for my purpose. I don't negate the others, I leave them accessible to me for when I am in a different situation and require a different template.
All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time, you chose to join this forum because the prospect of not joining did not entice you, I chose to respond to your comment because the prospect of not responding did not alure me. Maybe negation is the wrong word to use but its our ability to oppose a desire that is the underlying truth. You chose the one best suited for you because you were able to realize what was not best for you, to determine what you like you must know what you dont like, its the inescapable polarity that exists in all choices.
I agree that templates cannot be avoided, and that if I am to be a human being I will necessarily use them. But I do not agree with your logic which concludes that because we use templates we have no free will. There may be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of existing templates. We are able to dismantle them and create new ones out of combining parts from different ones. So the number of possible templates is countless. With that amount of freedom of choice, how do you conclude that the use of templates indicates that the will is not free?
It appears as if you are choosing your templates but as I stated above, you work out what you want by discovering what you dont want. There's no pure decision or pure choice because our preferences are lent by already existing templates. The amount of templates may be countless it doesn't matter your preferences will always coincide with the things you dont prefer. You cannot choose a favorite color without seeing the other colors, you cannot know you love philosophy without being exposed to shallowness. So your idea of will comes in when you decide to choose a template but if we had to truly investigate why you chose it the reason will be evident that there was no will involved. You like what you like either because somebody as liked it or the chemistry of your body signals to you that you should like it, you dont stand aside from these processes, they happen to you and there only appears to be a will involved because a thought occupies our consciousness that says I am the one who chose that, and I am the one that chooses my experiences, it's an illusion, its just a thought.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 03, 2018 at 00:35#1394150 likes
I mean exactly what you said that we have a whole array of templates to choose from, but even when we seem to choose a template that choice was inspired by a previous template. Your personal desires are rooted within the human condition, the desire for more resources, happiness and 'love' now how these desires express themselves is where the sense of individuality comes in.
This is where I disagree with you. I think that my desires are rooted in my physical being, physical needs, instinct and such. not the templates which are offered to me by society.
All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time, you chose to join this forum because the prospect of not joining did not entice you, I chose to respond to your comment because the prospect of not responding did not alure me.
And I do not agree that choices are necessarily negations. When something I like is offered to me I choose it without considering and negating other options. You can observe this in habits. So very often a choice is simply an affirmation without any negation at all. I do agree that we have the option to turn things down, and the capacity to say no is very important, but I do not agree that affirming necessarily involves negation. You can know what you want, and proceed toward that without an consideration as to what you don't want. This is evident from all the times in which we get what we don't want (make mistakes) from being to hasty.
I also think that affirmation and negation are in a very important sense categorically different. These are two very different ways to approach a choice. When I know what I want, and see something I want, I'll affirm it without hesitating to negate other possibilities. But if I'm not sure what I want, or must make a choice without any clear indication of what is the right choice, I may proceed through a process of elimination, negating the most unfavourable options first. So affirmation follows directly from knowing what you want, and involves certitude, while negation follows from being uncertain as to what you want. And when something is certainly unwanted, it will not even be considered to the point of needing to be negated.
Plato explored this categorical difference as the difference between pleasure and pain. He argued that pleasure could not be a simple negation of pain, because then all pleasure would have to follow from a negation of pain, so we would have to desire pain in order to negate it, to receive pleasure. So he found that pleasure, (what is desired), is in a completely different category from pain, (what is avoided). And this is why I argue that we can choose things, what is desired, pleasures, without having to negate any other options as undesirable, or painful. This indicates that pleasure and pain are in completely different categories and one is not a simple negation of the other.
Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion of your post. You do not work out what you want by discovering what you don't want, these are categorically different. That would be like saying that you figured out that you like apples, because you dislike oranges. It doesn't work that way. You can't determine what you want by excluding what you don't want.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover There is a certain inertia to changing one's mind. There would have to be , because the world would be meaningless to us without some predicable or anticipatable dimension to it. The fact that we aren't just blindly shaped by every 'stimulus' that bombards us, but instead interpret and actively construe our reality gives us a sense of ongoing coherence and self-consistency. But it is also the reason why our deepest beliefs(political, religious, ethical) are resistant to change.
So from our own standpoint we are free to choose and desire what we will, but from a larger cultural standpoint what we will is constrained by the era and cultural environment in which we live.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 03, 2018 at 01:12#1394260 likes
So from our own standpoint we are free to choose and desire what we will, but from a larger cultural standpoint what we will is constrained by the era and cultural environment in which we live.
It's quite obvious that what we can do is constrained by the forces around us. I don't think I can jump to the moon for example, and if I break the law I am subject to punishment. But these constraints in no way indicate that we are not free to choose. Freedom of choice does not mean that we are unlimited in what we can do.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover not the forces around you, the history of the way you construe the world is what constrains your present options. In this discussion with me the crossing of your history with your reading of my text will channelized your interpretation of my intent, and thus constrain it. By the same token, my background frames my response to your ideas. Over the course of your life, a thread of continuity will characterize the movement of your thinking at a super ordinate level.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 03, 2018 at 02:56#1394580 likes
not the forces around you, the history of the way you construe the world is what constrains your present options.
I understand what you're saying, but how is "the way you construe the world" any more constraining than the forces around you? I can't choose to think something which I haven't the capacity to think, just like I can't choose to jump over the moon. Each of these constrains me in its own way, but neither is complete or absolute. So freedom of choice persists despite these different types of constraints.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I meant constrain in a relative way. The idea of social constraint is pretty vague. In a country or city there are myriad social groups with their own norms, but they only constrain individuals within these groups to an extent. Every era produces individuals who are ' ahead of their time' to an extent. What you would never see is an individual who is two or three eras ahead of his or her time.
You, like anybody, have a worldview that includes within it tastes in music and art, political, ethical and scientific understandings. That worldview continually evolves in its own way over time, but also constrains. The relevance of my point Ian less about you than it is in understanding the point of view of those you encounter. Grasping their viewpoint as emanitng from a larger worldview allows you to attempt to plug into their thinking from the leading edge of their understanding , rather than from where you are at. It also prevents frustration on your part when they fail to see things your way. Most of the current political polarization is the failure of both sides to recognize the limits of the worldview of the other side to allow them to effectively interpret countering ideas.
Yes that is what I mean by artificial, it is a construct, a mental formulation, in essence it holds no grounds in reality. So is the desire for more truly a natural experience or is it fabricated by and only utilized by the human condition?
I think the "problem" lies in humans being at the boundary between animal and something else. The faculty of reason seems to be crystallizing in the human mind and it is, naturally, at odds with our more primitive reptilian brain (occupied primarily by base desires). Our higher mental faculties seek something, for lack of a better word, grander - a purpose over and above food, sex and shelter. Of course, evolutionary theory can reduce everything, even our desire to flourish, to the three basic needs (food, sex, shelter). However, I think our "higher" desires are sufficiently unique to deserve a value of their own.
Cavacava I just want to redirect you to the question, "is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". Desire is fundamental yes, however the prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?
desire is forged by the society and its history where we are cast.
The "prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?", the problem with this question I see is that societal constructs are foundational in every society. The necessity of such constructs are organic to the conception of a functional human society. So the phrase "the prospect of attaining more than what you have", is dynamic in many societies, but it is not the only possibility.
Some like Buckminster Fuller argued that less ought to be more, and Occam's Razor is rarely dulled by complex stubble. These too are viable constructs in current Western society.
In practice we cannot escape the constructs that form our beliefs, even in a pluralistic society. Our practices are empirical and they are unaffected by theory.
This is where I disagree with you. I think that my desires are rooted in my physical being, physical needs, instinct and such. not the templates which are offered to me by society.
If you think that your desires are merely rooted only to your physical needs you clearly haven't
fully investigated this. Take the practise of psychology for instance, quite a fair share of experiments have enabled us to pry into the human psychology and infer that evidence to most of the human population. Now some of it may be inaccurate and not appealing to scientific procedures but we still have somewhat of a stencil in understanding human behavior. You can stand aside and say that your particular desires are distinct from the collective and it may appear that way I am not disputing that, but your preferences and desires are always modulations of the culture and society that you inhabit
All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time
Now I did not say that these negations will be blatantly obvious to you I did say 'overtly' and in most cases it is overt. If you look at the root word of decision Latin it means to cut off, meaning cut you off from any other course of actions but the one you chose, even language demonstrates this. As I said the word negation may be a bit crude but my point is that when you make a choice you are eliminating all other choices that you weren't necessarily conscious of.
I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature?
I agree, but despite the dynamic expression of this, in different types of societies, that desire is still there. A person may say that less is more however in having less you actually have more, more freedom of movement, more independence and more self reliance. The prospect of more seems to be imbued in the human condition now whether or not it is organic I don't know?
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 03, 2018 at 22:56#1396680 likes
If you think that your desires are merely rooted only to your physical needs you clearly haven't
fully investigated this. Take the practise of psychology for instance, quite a fair share of experiments have enabled us to pry into the human psychology and infer that evidence to most of the human population. Now some of it may be inaccurate and not appealing to scientific procedures but we still have somewhat of a stencil in understanding human behavior. You can stand aside and say that your particular desires are distinct from the collective and it may appear that way I am not disputing that, but your preferences and desires are always modulations of the culture and society that you inhabit
I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires.
Now I did not say that these negations will be blatantly obvious to you I did say 'overtly' and in most cases it is overt. If you look at the root word of decision Latin it means to cut off, meaning cut you off from any other course of actions but the one you chose, even language demonstrates this. As I said the word negation may be a bit crude but my point is that when you make a choice you are eliminating all other choices that you weren't necessarily conscious of.
This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will?
I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature?
Evolution, some say, has no goal. It's purposeless, blind and is simply random mutation of genes interacting with a changing environment. The ''higher'' forms of life - reptiles, birds, fish, mammals (humans) - are most susceptible to environmental catastrophies. On the other hand microbes are more resilient and the most likely lifeforms to survive severe changes in the environment. So, it seems humans aren't at the top of the life-pyramid as you suggest. So, I don't know what to make of ''evolution itself may be proof of flourish''.
I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires.
Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will?
I really do not see how my argument has changed, I have just altered the wording that's all. Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours. I did not say we are forced the correct word would be influenced, all your desires and behaviours have influences and that is where I argue that free will is incompatible with the way things actually are. If my desires are continuously influenced by those around me can I ever state that my desires exist in isolation, segregated from society at large? No, its just a new modulation of the collective, Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness.
The Chinese word for nature is Ziran, meaning that which happens of itself. they believe that nature is purposeless with no 'director'. Also, in English the prefix auto means self in latin translated, which echoes this chinese philosophy too. These points are actually also very similar to the scientific perspective of evolution, that it is just blind energy, just mutations with no direct goal. In my opinion, however you attempt to put down this vital energy of life in descriptions, it doesn't alter the fact that it is perpetuating itself with every resource possible. That requires what we colloquially call intelligence. the precision of every genetic coding to make you 'you' is close to impossible to be fathomed, but here we are. Nature may not have a clear purpose from our perspectives but we ourselves are descendants of that nature, so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose.
so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose.
I'm in agreement here. I've said this many times on the forum: The universe is in flux, it's dynamic and changing every moment. To think otherwise - to have a static worldview - is an error. Here are a few issues I find are relevant to your point:
1. God may or may not have existed but God could exist in the future
2. Life may or may not have a purpose but it could develop one in the future
3. Suffering may or may not be a truth (pessimism) but it could be dealt with in the future.
Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society.
As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires.
Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours.
I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire. How is that possible? The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense.
Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness.
This is not true, and you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Saying yes to a particular option does not mean that you have said no to the other possibilities. You see a favourable option and you say yes. You are not saying no to all the other possibilities because they remain unknown to you. To say no to them you must consider them and reject them, but when you see a favourable option and accept it without considering other possibilities, this is not the same thing as saying no to the other possibilities.
In a nutshell, the future is open, brimming with possibilities and one of them is that God can come into existence. Toning down on the omni-powers of God, we could have a Good, Knowledgeable and Powerful being in the future but the future is limitless in potential.
As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires.
You've just said what I've been telling you this whole time, society gives you the choices but your still saying that free will exists? Please analyse what you have just said here and refer it to my template example.
I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire
how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ?
This[quote="Metaphysician Undercover;140041"]The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense.
Your mind is more vulnerable than you think, if it infiltrates the mind it will coarsely infiltrate the body.
how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ?
None. You can decide but ultimately can never know how you decide. There is a deeper level of unconscious decision making that suggests itself. This motivation is the essence of the determined self.
You can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will.
Free will is nothing more than freedom from outside coercion. The will is not free of itself, but determined by antecedent causes.
Yes I agree, the will is not free itself, although it appears as if it is from the perspective of an illusionary self. Tell me what are your views on consciousness? Very broad question I know but its something that I have been truly interested in.
Comments (44)
I think that desire is an organic process in nature.
Desire seems to be built into life, as described in the Four Noble Truths. However, desire can be moderated be replacing one big desire with many little ones.
In many cases, desires cannot be quantified so the word "more" cannot be appropriately used to describe the situation. Possibly one can describe it as a feeling of intensity.
Achieve, is entirely subjective, and I don't believe I think in this manner. I think more in terms of learning something new.
Hi.
I think desire is an organic process, a part of our nature as humans, but what we desire is forged by the society and its history where we are cast.
Good reply. However, we are creatures of free will and therefore despite what society gives us to form our habits of desire, we ultimately still choose our own goods to be desired.
Yes, I agree with this, but I've been thinking that we can only choose what is possible to choose. I mean by this that it would been virtually impossible for any educated person in the 1300s to think that religion ought to be separated from science, they were one and the same for the people at that time.
Society has its own bibliography, and most of our choices are limited by it because it is all that we know. For the most part we can only choose between known choices. What we don't know, is not an option.
What about you? You are an animal, and apparently have desires behind the equilibrium set by nature.
Schopenhauer notes that "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." Desires, wants, arise without our conscious will.
In terms of the achieving, I did say achievements in the broadest context Rich. So to be more precise in my wordings let me deliver it to you like this. The desire to accumulate more resources (resources dont always need to be physical, their are internal resources too) than the equilibrium set by nature only belongs to man. If we experience an internal feeling of anxiety for example we do not desire it to perpetuate, in fact we desire the opposite. To learn something new takes discipline, which is forged by miniture achievements. You may not perceive them as achievements because you love what you are learning, but in a metaphysical sense you are evolving, because you had the desire for more resources, knowledge is a resource too. So learning something new is a form of attaining more resources the more resources the higher the quality of life.
So the word more is quite relevant, I can make the assumption that Buddha or Maharaj had more internal resources than I have. In possessing these internal resources they were able to shift themselves away from the contemporary human suffering. I can also make the assumption that the internal resources that they had did not fall on their lap, they had to desire more out of life to get more out of life.
So again is this desire to get more out of life truly an organic process or is it artificially created by what we define as 'more'?
Hi
Cavacava I just want to redirect you to the question, "is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". Desire is fundamental yes, however the prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?
Hi
To say we have free will to decide what we want is incorrect, we always operate on a template. We either negate the template and form a new one out of that negation or we can accept the template and move on. The free will I think comes in where we are able to change the location of our focus. I can shift my focus of attention away from a habitual desire but I cannot negate the template.
Hi
Very good points Crank. If i had to incorporate your premise then there is a potential that the universe made a mistake in the creation of human beings. Why is it that we are the only known organisms that go against instinct and desire, basically we can oppose nature.
I agree that desires and wants arise without our conscious will but your forgetting the aspect of our desire to entertain or disprove the desires and wants. Even in our opposition of the inevitable desires and wants we have, we still are going against nature, so is this quality artificial or organic?
Hi
I agree with everything you said Steven but let me redirect you to the question. "Is the desire to achieve more in life an organic process?". So we may have friends, we may fit in, we may attain connectivity but the desire for more of those experiences is inevitable, even if you have enough friends, connectivity and social status.
There is a difference between humans and other animals. It's our ''superior'' intellect and this permeates every other aspect of our mind, including desire. Humans desire food, shelter, mates, like all animals but we also have one other desire - eudaemonia/flourishing - that is, to say the least, exclusively human in character. People may define eudaemonia differently but the point is it isn't found in animals. So, human desire may be said to be unique thus. Have I understood you correctly?
Our desires are not fixed. They constantly change - shaped, altered, modified by cultural, psychological, social, economic, whathaveyou influences - but the fact remains that our desire to flourish sets us apart from animals. Is this artificial? What do you mean by ''artificial''?
Hi Mad
That was a great response to the question thank you, look I need to be honest I have not heard of eudaemonia I will have to do my research but you did mention flourish so I will work with that. I believe every organism has an embedded code to flourish but this is mainly physical which has a boundary. Animals work with their instincts, only when the environment stimulates them to flourish mentally do they evolve. We on the other hand seem to have something special as you have stated, we can desire more than what the environment gives us.
Yes that is what I mean by artificial, it is a construct, a mental formulation, in essence it holds no grounds in reality. So is the desire for more truly a natural experience or is it fabricated by and only utilized by the human condition?
I don't know what you mean by this. As far as I understand, I do not operate on a template. Care to explain yourself?
Sure.
You as an individual, you have a bundle of experiences that are stored in your brain. These experiences are then stored as information in your neural pathways so that the next time you experience that phenomenon your brain has the appropriate responses for it. For example if you want to start your own business but you recall that society at large has given you a template that you need money, and to get money you need a job, it will create resistance within you. We can oppose this template by starting our own business negating the prospect of getting a job, but we are still operating on the template of money. There are certain things we may be able to bypass but the fundamentals remain the same, our desires are intertwined with society, because even in opposing them and forming new ideologies or habits of our own, we cannot escape seeking a template that has already been created by a collection of other individuals.
Of course our templates may differ but the basis and foundation remain the same for every individual in society. Does that make sense?
I don't see how my want for something can be interpreted as a template given to me by society. Let's say that I desire sexual pleasure, how is this a template given to me by society?
It appears to me like you have everything backwards. Society doesn't tell me that I need money, and therefore I have a desire for money. I have desires for many different things, and society tells me that to get these things, I need money, and so I transform my desire into a desire for money in order that I can get what I truly desire. So the template doesn't form my desire, it only transforms it. And it isn't even the template really which transforms it, I transform my desire, to be consistent with the template.
Quoting Fumani
So the template doesn't negate free will. It has to be chosen. And even after choosing a particular template, we can switch templates at any moment. Therefore we do not really operate on a template, as you suggested, because we are always choosing different templates right and left, as we see fit, and the templates are nothing more than tools which are at our disposal, if we so desire to use them.
You are making the assumption that your desires are separate from society at large. Look we need money to get the things we want, that is our template, I operate by it and you operate by it. Out of this template I may attain things that are different from you but the template that I worked with was money. In order to get the things you desire we have to follow the law of society which states that in order to accumulate objects or experiences you need to exchange your money for it.
Free will by its own definition is the ability to choose any course of action. Now do you honestly think you decide the course of your actions when you already contain a template for which course of action is right or which course of action is wrong?
We can spend years on in reconstructing our templates to suit our preferences and we may even succeed in altering them but whatever you replace that template with will still be interlinked with the previous template. No matter how good you try make yourself, your template will always be based on what you think is evil or what is not good for you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You cannot choose a template without negating another, a choice implies that there is a selection of options that are available. Now you choose one and you make the proclamation that you chose it on your own accord but you merely chose it based on either your instinct (biochemistry in your body) or a new template that you are trying to adopt.
Basically what I am saying Meta is that templates cannot be avoided, they are constructs that you operate under. Free will from your particular perspective is just the ability to move from one template to another, but every template that you can operate from is and was created by society, whether its supported by the majority or minority. The amount of people supporting that template matters not it can be a billion or just a hundred it doesn't change the fact that it is a template created by man and you are obligated to operate by one, your will is not free in that regard.
Yes of course I am making that assumption. It appears blatantly obvious to me, that my personal desires are completely distinct from society as a whole. Do you not agree? I would not think that society is expressing its desires through me. My desires are intrinsically selfish, stemming from my own physical needs. But I may conform, to want what I think society wants from me.
Quoting Fumani
Yes, that is honestly what I think. I choose a template according the situation in which I find myself, as the means to the end. Since each situation varies due to its own particular circumstances, it is impossible that I already contain a template within me as to which course of action is right or wrong with respect to each situation I will be in. The templates only consist of general principles, and I must choose the ones best suited to the particular situation.
Quoting Fumani
Why would choosing a template require negating another? Imagine having hundreds of templates laid out on the table, each with its own principle of application. Depending on my situation, I choose the one I think is best suited for my purpose. I don't negate the others, I leave them accessible to me for when I am in a different situation and require a different template.
Quoting Fumani
I agree that templates cannot be avoided, and that if I am to be a human being I will necessarily use them. But I do not agree with your logic which concludes that because we use templates we have no free will. There may be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of existing templates. We are able to dismantle them and create new ones out of combining parts from different ones. So the number of possible templates is countless. With that amount of freedom of choice, how do you conclude that the use of templates indicates that the will is not free?
on the surface level it appears that way, your personal desires may seem to be different as I stated, when I say template I dont mean that it is based on frivolous desires such as you liking the colour orange or liking a particular smell, I mean exactly what you said that we have a whole array of templates to choose from, but even when we seem to choose a template that choice was inspired by a previous template. Your personal desires are rooted within the human condition, the desire for more resources, happiness and 'love' now how these desires express themselves is where the sense of individuality comes in. But we are operating through the same stencil, we are humanity and humanity is comprised of individuals, and we as individuals perceive ourselves to be separate from others. Is that not a template? has this template not been reinforced to you by other individuals also operating on that same stencil?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
All choices overtly or covertly are negations most of the time, you chose to join this forum because the prospect of not joining did not entice you, I chose to respond to your comment because the prospect of not responding did not alure me. Maybe negation is the wrong word to use but its our ability to oppose a desire that is the underlying truth. You chose the one best suited for you because you were able to realize what was not best for you, to determine what you like you must know what you dont like, its the inescapable polarity that exists in all choices.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It appears as if you are choosing your templates but as I stated above, you work out what you want by discovering what you dont want. There's no pure decision or pure choice because our preferences are lent by already existing templates. The amount of templates may be countless it doesn't matter your preferences will always coincide with the things you dont prefer. You cannot choose a favorite color without seeing the other colors, you cannot know you love philosophy without being exposed to shallowness. So your idea of will comes in when you decide to choose a template but if we had to truly investigate why you chose it the reason will be evident that there was no will involved. You like what you like either because somebody as liked it or the chemistry of your body signals to you that you should like it, you dont stand aside from these processes, they happen to you and there only appears to be a will involved because a thought occupies our consciousness that says I am the one who chose that, and I am the one that chooses my experiences, it's an illusion, its just a thought.
This is where I disagree with you. I think that my desires are rooted in my physical being, physical needs, instinct and such. not the templates which are offered to me by society.
Quoting Fumani
And I do not agree that choices are necessarily negations. When something I like is offered to me I choose it without considering and negating other options. You can observe this in habits. So very often a choice is simply an affirmation without any negation at all. I do agree that we have the option to turn things down, and the capacity to say no is very important, but I do not agree that affirming necessarily involves negation. You can know what you want, and proceed toward that without an consideration as to what you don't want. This is evident from all the times in which we get what we don't want (make mistakes) from being to hasty.
I also think that affirmation and negation are in a very important sense categorically different. These are two very different ways to approach a choice. When I know what I want, and see something I want, I'll affirm it without hesitating to negate other possibilities. But if I'm not sure what I want, or must make a choice without any clear indication of what is the right choice, I may proceed through a process of elimination, negating the most unfavourable options first. So affirmation follows directly from knowing what you want, and involves certitude, while negation follows from being uncertain as to what you want. And when something is certainly unwanted, it will not even be considered to the point of needing to be negated.
Plato explored this categorical difference as the difference between pleasure and pain. He argued that pleasure could not be a simple negation of pain, because then all pleasure would have to follow from a negation of pain, so we would have to desire pain in order to negate it, to receive pleasure. So he found that pleasure, (what is desired), is in a completely different category from pain, (what is avoided). And this is why I argue that we can choose things, what is desired, pleasures, without having to negate any other options as undesirable, or painful. This indicates that pleasure and pain are in completely different categories and one is not a simple negation of the other.
Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion of your post. You do not work out what you want by discovering what you don't want, these are categorically different. That would be like saying that you figured out that you like apples, because you dislike oranges. It doesn't work that way. You can't determine what you want by excluding what you don't want.
So from our own standpoint we are free to choose and desire what we will, but from a larger cultural standpoint what we will is constrained by the era and cultural environment in which we live.
It's quite obvious that what we can do is constrained by the forces around us. I don't think I can jump to the moon for example, and if I break the law I am subject to punishment. But these constraints in no way indicate that we are not free to choose. Freedom of choice does not mean that we are unlimited in what we can do.
I understand what you're saying, but how is "the way you construe the world" any more constraining than the forces around you? I can't choose to think something which I haven't the capacity to think, just like I can't choose to jump over the moon. Each of these constrains me in its own way, but neither is complete or absolute. So freedom of choice persists despite these different types of constraints.
You, like anybody, have a worldview that includes within it tastes in music and art, political, ethical and scientific understandings. That worldview continually evolves in its own way over time, but also constrains. The relevance of my point Ian less about you than it is in understanding the point of view of those you encounter. Grasping their viewpoint as emanitng from a larger worldview allows you to attempt to plug into their thinking from the leading edge of their understanding , rather than from where you are at. It also prevents frustration on your part when they fail to see things your way. Most of the current political polarization is the failure of both sides to recognize the limits of the worldview of the other side to allow them to effectively interpret countering ideas.
I think the "problem" lies in humans being at the boundary between animal and something else. The faculty of reason seems to be crystallizing in the human mind and it is, naturally, at odds with our more primitive reptilian brain (occupied primarily by base desires). Our higher mental faculties seek something, for lack of a better word, grander - a purpose over and above food, sex and shelter. Of course, evolutionary theory can reduce everything, even our desire to flourish, to the three basic needs (food, sex, shelter). However, I think our "higher" desires are sufficiently unique to deserve a value of their own.
The "prospect of attaining more than what you have, now is that artificial or organic as well?", the problem with this question I see is that societal constructs are foundational in every society. The necessity of such constructs are organic to the conception of a functional human society. So the phrase "the prospect of attaining more than what you have", is dynamic in many societies, but it is not the only possibility.
Some like Buckminster Fuller argued that less ought to be more, and Occam's Razor is rarely dulled by complex stubble. These too are viable constructs in current Western society.
In practice we cannot escape the constructs that form our beliefs, even in a pluralistic society. Our practices are empirical and they are unaffected by theory.
If you think that your desires are merely rooted only to your physical needs you clearly haven't
fully investigated this. Take the practise of psychology for instance, quite a fair share of experiments have enabled us to pry into the human psychology and infer that evidence to most of the human population. Now some of it may be inaccurate and not appealing to scientific procedures but we still have somewhat of a stencil in understanding human behavior. You can stand aside and say that your particular desires are distinct from the collective and it may appear that way I am not disputing that, but your preferences and desires are always modulations of the culture and society that you inhabit
Quoting Fumani
Now I did not say that these negations will be blatantly obvious to you I did say 'overtly' and in most cases it is overt. If you look at the root word of decision Latin it means to cut off, meaning cut you off from any other course of actions but the one you chose, even language demonstrates this. As I said the word negation may be a bit crude but my point is that when you make a choice you are eliminating all other choices that you weren't necessarily conscious of.
I agree, our higher faculties seem to be the product of evolution, but evolution itself may be proof of flourish. Every species with the progression of time becomes better suited for the environment and all the weaker species perish. Could this be the 'flourish' aspect of nature?
I agree, but despite the dynamic expression of this, in different types of societies, that desire is still there. A person may say that less is more however in having less you actually have more, more freedom of movement, more independence and more self reliance. The prospect of more seems to be imbued in the human condition now whether or not it is organic I don't know?
I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very similar physically, so this would account for the fact that people throughout the population have similar desires.
Quoting Fumani
This is completely different from what you argued before. You said that when we choose one thing, it is because the others are unappealing. Now you have changed to say that choosing one thing cuts you off from the others. This doesn't support your argument now, that we have no freedom to choose what we want, we are forced to because the other possibilities are what we do not want. And this was fundamental to your claim that there is no free will involved with such choices. Since it is now clear to you that we are not forced to choose what we do, because we apprehend the other possibilities as unappealing, do you see that we really do have free will?
Evolution, some say, has no goal. It's purposeless, blind and is simply random mutation of genes interacting with a changing environment. The ''higher'' forms of life - reptiles, birds, fish, mammals (humans) - are most susceptible to environmental catastrophies. On the other hand microbes are more resilient and the most likely lifeforms to survive severe changes in the environment. So, it seems humans aren't at the top of the life-pyramid as you suggest. So, I don't know what to make of ''evolution itself may be proof of flourish''.
Its disproving by the fact that they are not merely rooted by your physical needs, they are rooted in your psychological needs as well, I find this to be blatantly obvious. You are not just a physical creature, you possess an intellect and higher faculties and they are heavily influenced by society.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I really do not see how my argument has changed, I have just altered the wording that's all. Cutting off all other possibilities and focusing on one does not imply free will, the decision you made could have just be an unconscious trigger driven by a desire that you cant really say is yours. I did not say we are forced the correct word would be influenced, all your desires and behaviours have influences and that is where I argue that free will is incompatible with the way things actually are. If my desires are continuously influenced by those around me can I ever state that my desires exist in isolation, segregated from society at large? No, its just a new modulation of the collective, Negation also means and implies an absence of all other potential choices that you had, if you say yes to something your invariably saying no to something else, even if there is an absence of investigation or conscious awareness.
The Chinese word for nature is Ziran, meaning that which happens of itself. they believe that nature is purposeless with no 'director'. Also, in English the prefix auto means self in latin translated, which echoes this chinese philosophy too. These points are actually also very similar to the scientific perspective of evolution, that it is just blind energy, just mutations with no direct goal. In my opinion, however you attempt to put down this vital energy of life in descriptions, it doesn't alter the fact that it is perpetuating itself with every resource possible. That requires what we colloquially call intelligence. the precision of every genetic coding to make you 'you' is close to impossible to be fathomed, but here we are. Nature may not have a clear purpose from our perspectives but we ourselves are descendants of that nature, so maybe through us evolution is developing a purpose.
I'm in agreement here. I've said this many times on the forum: The universe is in flux, it's dynamic and changing every moment. To think otherwise - to have a static worldview - is an error. Here are a few issues I find are relevant to your point:
1. God may or may not have existed but God could exist in the future
2. Life may or may not have a purpose but it could develop one in the future
3. Suffering may or may not be a truth (pessimism) but it could be dealt with in the future.
Please further explain this?
As far as I can tell, my intellect and society present me with choices, they do not present me with needs. My physical body presents me with needs and desires, while my intellect and society present me with options (choices) for fulfilling those needs and desires.
Quoting Fumani
I can't fathom what you are saying. You are suggesting that I might make an impulsive, non-consciously driven decision, and that decision is driven by someone else's desire. How is that possible? The other person's desire would have to get inside my body (not my mind because it's a non-conscious decision), and cause my body to make this decision. That's nonsense.
Quoting Fumani
This is not true, and you don't seem to be able to grasp it. Saying yes to a particular option does not mean that you have said no to the other possibilities. You see a favourable option and you say yes. You are not saying no to all the other possibilities because they remain unknown to you. To say no to them you must consider them and reject them, but when you see a favourable option and accept it without considering other possibilities, this is not the same thing as saying no to the other possibilities.
In a nutshell, the future is open, brimming with possibilities and one of them is that God can come into existence. Toning down on the omni-powers of God, we could have a Good, Knowledgeable and Powerful being in the future but the future is limitless in potential.
You've just said what I've been telling you this whole time, society gives you the choices but your still saying that free will exists? Please analyse what you have just said here and refer it to my template example.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
how many decisions do you make that are actually conscious ?
Your mind is more vulnerable than you think, if it infiltrates the mind it will coarsely infiltrate the body.
None. You can decide but ultimately can never know how you decide. There is a deeper level of unconscious decision making that suggests itself. This motivation is the essence of the determined self.
You can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will.
Free will is nothing more than freedom from outside coercion. The will is not free of itself, but determined by antecedent causes.
Yes I agree, the will is not free itself, although it appears as if it is from the perspective of an illusionary self. Tell me what are your views on consciousness? Very broad question I know but its something that I have been truly interested in.