This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Most people care way too much about nothing.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The happiness isn't a consequence, it is exactly the end that you seek. Even though you might die, knowing that you went sky-diving will still give you that happiness that you sought out.
Speak for yourself. Knowing that I died far outweighs knowing that I sky-dove (?) in my book. You can accomplish ends without gaining happiness.
Post by
TheMediator
The happiness isn't a consequence, it is exactly the end that you seek. Even though you might die, knowing that you went sky-diving will still give you that happiness that you sought out.
Speak for yourself. Knowing that I died far outweighs knowing that I sky-dove (?) in my book. You can accomplish ends without gaining happiness.
Yes, you are happy that you sky-dove. You are unhappy that you died. However, if you go sky-diving, then you must believe that the happiness outweighs the chance of unhappiness. The belief might not be justified, but that's what you believe.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, you are happy that you sky-dove. You are unhappy that you died. However, if you go sky-diving, then you must believe that the happiness outweighs the chance of unhappiness. The belief might not be justified, but that's what you believe.
I've already said it; I can guarantee that sky-diving won't make me happy--roller-coasters sure don't, and this is a roll-coaster x1000.
Essentially your whole argument is based on what you think I believe. A little presumptuous, no?
I read James Joyce this morning. That guy makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall...that's not why I read him. I read him because there is a goodness/beauty in the work itself. The reading itself was the end of my reading.
Post by
TheMediator
Essentially your whole argument is based on what you think I believe. A little presumptuous, no?
I don't know what you believe. But underneath your beliefs, you are guided by wanting to fulfill your desires, whether or not you know that you are. I'm not going argue with you about that because that's the way it is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Essentially your whole argument is based on what you think I believe. A little presumptuous, no?
I don't know what you believe. But underneath your beliefs, you are guided by wanting to fulfill your desires, whether or not you know that you are. I'm not going argue with you about that because that's the way it is.
Inclinations, not desires.
You need an inclination towards an end even begin motion towards that end. There is no inclination to write poetry in a rock, so it cannot even begin to move in that direction. Likewise in humans there must be an inclination present for any motion to the end to occur.
Desires are a completely different matter. I desire food right now....I haven't eaten in 9 hours. I am, however, not going to act on that desire. Desires are completely extrinsic to the act, though for some people and some actions they can become an end themselves.
So, yes, I'm inclined to go sky-diving, to read James Joyce, and to philosophize, but that doesn't mean
de facto
that I desire it.
Post by
TheMediator
You are using those activities as a vehicle fill some other deeper want. That is what makes you animal like - animals can do things to that they may or may not prefer to do, but they do it because ultimately their end is filling their want.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You are using those activities as a vehicle fill some other deeper want. That is what makes you animal like - animals can do things to that they may or may not prefer to do, but they do it because ultimately their end is filling their want.
The second I define the terms in use, you start throwing in new terms: "prefer" and "want."
Stick with the terms in use or define how your new terms are different.
Post by
TheMediator
You are using those activities as a vehicle fill some other deeper want. That is what makes you animal like - animals can do things to that they may or may not prefer to do, but they do it because ultimately their end is filling their want.
The second I define the terms in use, you start throwing in new terms: "prefer" and "want."
Stick with the terms in use or define how your new terms are different.
Alright, I'll say it straight up - do you deny that the actions you take are ultimately due to the instincts that determine what we do or do not want?
It seems to me that every action that a person takes is to due to the instincts that he has - you are instinctively driven to what you believe will bring happiness to yourself, in whatever form that is - filling your belly, pleasuring you, giving you the feeling of security, whatever. Now, there may be more complex constructs that we can understand that other animals cannot, but ultimately those constructs are merely a way to represent something that is a means to those things that instinctively we are driven towards. Its basic psychology.
Post by
241152
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Desires are a completely different matter. I desire food right now....I haven't eaten in 9 hours. I am, however, not going to act on that desire.
Do you desire food, or do you desire that your hunger is sated?
And do you desire food, because you want to sate your hunger, because your hunger is causing you disutility?
Are you inclined to read the book, because you want to bang your head against a wall, or because you want to gain insights into another view point?
Or are you inclined to read the book because you want to see the beauty and the grace in the work?
Have you asked yourself why you desire something, or why you're inclined to do something?
You're reading a book for the sake of reading it, but there is still an end to the reading, much the same way as the dog eventually catches its tail. You're still not demonstrating that there's any difference, except that you can come online and tell us what your motive is, and the dog can't.
I personally think that if anything (in plain english), a person's ability to know why they're inclined to do something, as opposed to relying on instinct, is more what sets conscious animals apart from others.
Hyper, you might not want to use examples from your own life, it can attach you to an opinion and make it harder for you to think objectively.
Good point that. It's so easy to do though, because our own examples make so much sense to ourselves.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Desires are a completely different matter. I desire food right now....I haven't eaten in 9 hours. I am, however, not going to act on that desire.
Do you desire food, or do you desire that your hunger is sated?
I desire food--Mexican food to be more exact. I'm
inclined
to satifying my hunger, just as every human and animal is. I could just as easily fulfill that inclination with a feeding tube...I don't desire that though.
And do you desire food, because you want to sate your hunger, because your hunger is causing you disutility?
It depends on the circumstances. Right now I desire food because I'm hungry. Sometimes I crave (desire) certain foods even when I'm not hungry. You too need to understand the distinction between desire and inclination.
Are you
inclined
to read the book, because you
want
to bang your head against a wall, or because you want to gain insights into another view point?
I know for a fact James Joyce has nothing to offer me as far as insights (hence the whole application of head to wall reapeatedly).
Secondly look at the two words I underlined. To want something is a act of the will (generally in accoradance with desire). Inclination has nothing to do with the will--even rocks have certain inclinations.
Or are you
inclined
to read the book because you
want
to see the beauty and the grace in the work?
Ditto.
Have you asked yourself why you desire something,
Emotions + circumstances + reason + pleasure + pain (+ more stuff) -> desire
or why you're inclined to do something?
Inclination is something innate in the thing allowing it to move towards the object of inclination as an end.
You're reading a book for the sake of reading it, but there is still an end to the reading, much the same way as the dog eventually catches its tail.
If you're reading for the sake of reading there is no end, no satisfaction (ie
making full
). You'll keep reading everything until there is nothing left to read.
You're still not demonstrating that there's any difference, except that you can come online and tell us what your motive is, and the dog can't.
Motive has nothing to do with this. It's acting for and against desires that's in question.
I personally think that if anything (in plain english), a person's ability to know why they're inclined to do something, as opposed to relying on instinct, is more what sets conscious animals apart from others.
I'm confused. I pretty much stated the same thing
here
in fewer words, and you replied
here
that it's not proof against animals apart from humans.
Hyper, you might not want to use examples from your own life, it can attach you to an opinion and make it harder for you to think objectively.
Good point that. It's so easy to do though, because our own examples make so much sense to ourselves.
My whole arguement is that humans
can
act for a speculative end. Keyword can. I can only use individual examples.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think Mediator is saying that no actions are the goals themselves. I agree. Nothing on earth performs something, with the goal being to perform the action. Cheetahs don't run or play just to run or play, they do it to hunt or for fun. Babies stick things in their mouth, not to achieve the goal of sticking something in their mouth, but because they like new experiences.
I'm arguing that humans can act for speculative end. That makes your cheetah example completely worthless.
And I agree that babies always act for a practical end. They don't have the intellectual capacity to do something for its own sake.
Post by
MyTie
TBH if life is that pointless dude just end your own then you don't have to worry about peoples aimless stuper in this world, i beleive we all are importanat and hey if someone else is wasting their life good on em thats what they chose to do, best thing to do is better them, become the next richard branson or be like bill gates and steal an idea.
lol im blabbing but yeah interesting thread nonetheless. we should just all unite as 14 million WOW players and use our pots and spells to take on the world :P
I'm starting something new. I'm calling it "Brilliant Post of the Day Award". How it works is I find something so remarkably and unabashedly incorrect, rude, or ignorant, and then I sarcastically give it "Brilliant Post of the Day Award".
The post I have quoted is the first recipient. Congratulations! You have won yours for combining suggestive suicide with a brazen lack of punctuation.
Post by
Squishalot
I personally think that if anything (in plain english), a person's ability to know why they're inclined to do something, as opposed to relying on instinct, is more what sets conscious animals apart from others.
I'm confused. I pretty much stated the same thing here in fewer words, and you replied here that it's not proof against animals apart from humans.
You mean, this?
However, know that you can make a decision is thinking.
i.e. Consciousness? Have we ever proved that animals don't have consciousness?
I said that the ability to know you can make a decision is essentially consciousness. Then you tried to prove that animals don't have consciousness. I haven't contradicted myself in this respect, because the statement you just quoted clearly states my view that knowing more about your decision making or inclinations is what consciousness is about.
So where's the confusion? I'm still on track.
To want something is a act of the will (generally in accoradance with desire). Inclination has nothing to do with the will--even rocks have certain inclinations.
Inclination is something innate in the thing allowing it to move towards the object of inclination as an end.
So, yes, I'm inclined to go sky-diving, to read James Joyce, and to philosophize, but that doesn't mean de facto that I desire it.
Did you just compare your philosophical tendencies to a rock?
I personally don't believe that you can be
inclined
to do anything other than increase utility (self preservation being something innate). The reading of James Joyce, sky-diving, there is nothing innate in you as a person to move you towards these objects, only a series of past experiences that shape your consciousness and desires.
definition of innate: a) existing in one from birth; b) inherent in the essential character of something; c) originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience.
You, as a personality, are nothing more than the byproduct of your genetics and your environment. Innateness in personality can only come from your genetics - what you are born with - rather than what you experience through your environment. Unless you can demonstrate that your inclination to go sky-diving stems purely from a genetic instinctive purpose that you were born with (and note - this will only be represented as risk-taking, rather than sky-diving specifically), your assertion that you're
inclined
to sky-dive is false.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.