Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. Do you think it's possible for a person to work contrary to his desires or wants?
Contrary to some desires or wants...but in the service of others...sure.
One could, for example, work against the want to survive by killing themselves...but it's something that's motivated by a different desire.
This is getting pretty darn specific. I don't think you by definition work in favor of a desire when you choose. I think when you choose against a bad desire (like the desire to stay in bed), in that moment you use reason and force yourself through pure will to transcend your immediacy (staying with desire) and go with the better path.
The very fact that you see it as a "better path" indicates a set of desires (that is, a desire to stay upon this better path).
Why get up? I know it's not something you necessarily think very hard about...but you agreed it's a choice. You could stayed in bed, you could've gotten up...so why choose to get up?
Also, what is this "pure will"? Are you just referring to willpower?
This goes back to my distinction between want/desire as a feeling and as reflecting a preference or action. We use these interchangeably all the time.
Yeah. Nietzsche (who didn't believe in free will, basically considering the will a useful metaphor) said that when reason and desire clash, the will reigns. We exert our wills in proportion to how much we push against desire or lack of desire.
Yes, I agree. A desire can motivate, but to have a motive isn't limited to desire.
I'd think that a motive entails both a reason for action and the desire for action. That's why one can say that one feels "motivated" to do something, and why one can pump up someone's motivation with a pep talk. Unless one wants to make a distinction between the energy to do something and the desire to do something, it seems to me that desire is intrinsically a part of that concept.
If God is lacking in desires, that paints an odd picture of his psychology. It makes God seem mechanical, or at best Spock-like. Even the Buddha wouldn't deny that he has motivations -- just that he is is clinging to them.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ok...
So why get up? Or should I skip that part and we can go into this "better path" you mentioned and why that's important to you?
Why does one exert willpower in any given situation?
If I exert my willpower to not eat a bowl of ice cream, is it not because I desire/want to avoid the unhealthy aspects of that particular temptation?
Why do a good thing? If you avoid eating ice cream, it's because you want in the sense of preference (and not feeling) to avoid the unhealthy aspects of this temptation.
Let me ask you: if you choose through reasoning to follow a smaller desire (the harder one, like getting up after little sleep) over a bigger one (the easier one, like staying in bed), how is it about desire?
It seems in this case, because you're going with the smaller desire, to be about something more than desire, which is why a smaller desire is chosen.
And again, related to this, if reason is different than desire, then by reasoning we're detaching ourselves from desire momentarily, which means desire isn't necessary in all situations to determine outcome. Reasoning here becomes an instance of determining preference, which people equate with desire in a second sense.
You can see how much jumbled semantics in everyday use has contributed to our disagreement here. I'm saying there's desire in the sense of conscious or unconscious feeling inclining a person in a certain way, and there's also desire in the sense of preference, which doesn't involve feeling and refers only to one's abstract idea of the good in a particular situation.
The point at which you want to stop anthropomorphizing your God seems to be rather arbirtrarily chosen. (IOW, it doesn´t help me making sense of God). I am not seeing how "God has preferences, intentions" is any less anthropomorphic than "God has desires".Motivation implies a goal, which implies finitude, and therefore incompleteness. As such, God wouldn't fit this picture. Yes, it makes him seem Spocklike, but the moment we speak like this we're anthropomorphizing. Thinking of a person without desires is not the same as thinking of an omnipresent God as without desire. That's why I have trouble with calling him "personal", although I use this metaphor a lot.
The point at which you want to stop anthropomorphizing your God seems to be rather arbirtrarily chosen. (IOW, it doesn´t help me making sense of God). I am not seeing how "God has preferences, intentions" is any less anthropomorphic than "God has desires".
And, while we are at it, as long as you guys call God "him" you better not be surprised when people assume that your God concept is anthropomorphic at its very core, anyway.
Yes, it is a very powerful and in many ways attractive metaphore that we learn about very early.I was thinking just today that perhaps the childish notion of a man in the sky granting wishes is the most easily understandable version of god after all.
Yes.He has a body, a location, a limited set of powers (which aren't understandable anyway but who cares) and he watches his flock and interacts with them.
There's still a lot of problems with that version, mind you, but it seems less so than when we make him this infinite, omni-magnificent, time bending, mind-reading, entity that for some strange reason has a problem stringing together a sentence and instead reveals himself through "feelings" of awe and wonder.
The point at which you want to stop anthropomorphizing your God seems to be rather arbirtrarily chosen. (IOW, it doesn´t help me making sense of God). I am not seeing how "God has preferences, intentions" is any less anthropomorphic than "God has desires".
And, while we are at it, as long as you guys call God "him" you better not be surprised when people assume that your God concept is anthropomorphic at its very core, anyway.
I think you're making a distinction that's of no consequence there.
What's the reason I got out of bed after little sleep? I had to work early and I want to be on time.
What's the reason I want to be on time? Because I want to keep my job...
Why do I want to keep my job? So I can continue providing for myself and my wife.
Why would I want to provide for my wife? Because I love her and I desire her love in return.
I know that you probably think it's entirely unrelated to getting out of bed...
...but consider what would happen if I no longer loved my wife nor cared for her love. Would I still care about getting to work on time? Quite possibly not...these things don't happen in a vacuum.
...and the only way you arrive at intentions is desires.It's not arbitrary if you can provide a justification. If God relates to the universe, he does so through intentionality; that's the only way you really relate to anything.
I didn´t even mean to address the gender specific thing (which is an issue, also), but the personal pronoun used for an allegedly impersonal force.And calling him "him" has justifiable quibbles by the more moderate and reasonable theologians; God actually encompasses both genders (insofar as gender is a useful construct), as is reflected in Meister Eckhart's statement that God is the great father because he created the universe, but is also the great mother because he sustains all things.
The implication of all that is that God acted "as if" He wasn't depressed...... I see this a lot with clinically depressed folks, and one of the treatments is to stop waiting for motivation or desire, and instead act "as if" you weren't depressed, the action itself creating a chain reaction of dopamine releases that creates motivation and makes a person less depressed.
So, IMV, God created the universe without a want in terms of a desire, but colloquially "wanted" to create the universe because he willed it into existence.
It looks as if this interpretation needs something like Harry Frankfurt's second-order desires, i.e. desires about desires. In the case of acting to counter depression, the first order desire would be dysfunctional or negative (the depression), and the second order desire would be the desire to stop feeling that way, which, given suitable prompting, would provide the motivation for corrective action - making it an effective desire, which Frankfurt associates with the will, in contrast to first-order desires, that are not deliberative.Your view seems to be that motivation in the sense of desire is needed for action to be possible. I'm saying that with many people, depressed or not, it's required to act against the grain of motivation (or when it's lacking entirely) in order to do the best thing.
It seems to me that what motivates you is either your desire to do the things you have to do that day, or your desire to avoid the consequences of not doing them.Any reason, potentially. My motive for getting up in the morning is based in reasons (things I have to do that day); these reasons might create desires, but many times these desires aren't sufficient to get me out of bed (especially if I didn't get enough sleep, etc.).
I don't follow you; can you explain?OTOH, desire can filter out which reasons are most apparent to us; if I want to kill someone, it's not very apparent that his being alive is a good thing.
Reasoning is motivated by desire.So are you saying that reasoning itself is a type of desire, because if reason is different than desire, then by reasoning we're detaching ourselves from desire momentarily, which means desire isn't necessary in all situations to determine outcome.
This effectively makes it random.... at some point you choose without influences (motivations, desires, reasons), and this choice has no explanation or reasons...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?