The problem is isolating what would be instinct. Instinct to me, seems like a drive you cannot but help. So an instinct to eat perhaps, go to the bathroom, prefer that which is physically pleasurable or raises levels of oxyctocin, dopamine, and serotonin. However, those are so broad to not really be helpful to consider how they are motivating. For example, reading a book might be pleasurable, but to say that the pleasure of reading the book is instinct, is a bit more than a stretch as far as I'm concerned. — schopenhauer1

I can't go too deep on this. I don't know enough. Stephen Pinker is talking about language. He says there is a drive for children to learn it. It's not a mechanical robotic drive. It just feels right. Think about a sex drive. That also feels right. I assume it's an instinct. There are lots of things in my life like that. Certain things just feel like the right thing to do. I don't think all of them are instincts, but I don't think those that are feel different than my desire to go outside on a nice day. When I eat something, it's important to me what bowl and silverware I use. It feels right, good, to hold them in my hand. I really have no idea where that came from. We do things that feel like the right thing to do. They're what we want to do. And sometimes we don't do them because we rationally decide it is not a good time.

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing? — Andrew4Handel

When I was working, I had to make decisions all the time. Most of them were small with limited consequences, but some were important. As I noted before, for most of them, even some of the more important ones, it didn't really matter what decision I made as long as I made it and then took responsibility for the results. It's funny, but since I've retired I sometimes find myself spending five minutes deciding what sandwich to get at the deli. They guys behind the counter laugh at me. I go in there a lot.

Studies have shown there is a strong emotional component to decision making. Some people with traumatic damage to a part of the brain with a role in emotion are no longer able to make even very simple decisions. Things like whether or not to put their clothes on or to eat.

Like many, I visit the TPF have a scan and decide which topics or questions interest me enough to respond to. And that in itself is a bias. Difficulties with decision-making and anxiety I can relate to. 'Existential crises' not so much; my entry-level was wiki. I learned a bit but not the experience.
[Although I have had various critical turning points, I've not labelled them as such...]

Also, we choose the replies to questions that make sense to us; we agree/disagree/ignore or find stimulating. More questions arise. Or not. We reply. Or not. Either way, a choice has been made.

So far, there has been no reply to my post. That doesn't matter. I learned from the search and the writing up of what I found. Some of that chimes readily with others here who have shared their thoughts.

The agony or the paradox of choice. Sometimes it's about doing the best you can, given your capabilities, and knowledge at any given moment. It can be rational, intuitive and involve a final 'leap of faith'.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice — Amity

I wonder if you watched the TED Video and have any thoughts.

What struck me were the cartoons Barry Schwarz used. In particular, 2 related to your:

I do come from a fundamentalist religious back ground with regular hell and damnation sermons which I rejected in my late teens. So I have been forced into existential thought and decisions from day one.

Now as a non believer I have struggled to retain meaning after leaving the extensive rules and regulations and mandates of religion to making a new meaning from scratch. — Andrew4Handel

The cartoons are at about the 07:20 mark.
1. The 10 Commandments written in stone
2. The 10 Commandments DIY kit.

From 2, it looks like you have a blank slate, a bit like your 'making a new meaning from scratch'.
I query this.
You are far from alone in rejecting the religion you were brought up in.
However, some of the values remain; you retain the capacity to turn them over and keep those that make sense. As you grow you add your own meaning to life.

What matters to you. What matters to me is trying to keep a balance of my time, energy, emotions etc.
We all pretty much know what we should do to maintain a healthy body, mind and spirit.
The inter-relationships.
For me, and others, there can exist a gap between theory and practice.
It's easy to dish out advice to others; it's quite another thing to change one's own patterns of thoughts and behaviour. Guilty as charged.
But that's what's called being human. We are not robots. We are not perfect. We do the best we can.
We could be kinder to ourselves...and others...

I limit the time spent on here. About 30-45 mins. Almost up.
Before I go, @Andrew4Handel - How long have you been presenting the same questions on discussion forums? You remind me of someone, also called Andrew, from an OU course whose situation was as near yours as to be your twin brother. That was quite some time ago...

It seems that you have found your meaning and developed a distinct and dedicated view of life.
For me, it's been a fascinating discussion. Glad you decided to start it :sparkle:

I'm with Tom Storm - We do the best we can.
— T Clark

But some people want more from life.

I probably do. — Andrew4Handel

You're making assumptions that the best you can be has to be banal. Some people make it exceptional.

You're making assumptions that the best you can be has to be banal. Some people make it exceptional. — Tom Storm

Banal and exceptional are not the only two choices. I aim at satisfying. Simplifying your desires is easier to achieve than increasing your exceptionality. Some of us weren't meant for greatness. For us, pretty good is good enough.

Banal and exceptional are not the only two choices. I — T Clark

Sure; never said they were. Note also, that this idea of 'exceptional' will itself consist of a spectrum of possibilities, my idea of exceptional might be very different from yours, or Andrew's.

Sure; never said they were. Note also, that this idea of 'exceptional' will itself consist of a spectrum of possibilities, my idea of exceptional might be very different from yours, or Andrew's. — Tom Storm

Sure. I was talking to A4H more than to you. It's nice here in the middle. I always think of lines from Carl Dennis' poem "Aunt Celia 1961," which I've posted on the forum before.

As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.

Carl Dennis' poem "Aunt Celia 1961," — T Clark

Nice. There's a thread in this idea too.

I come at this and a lot of issues from an antinatalist (procreation skeptic) position which I see as having relevance on a lot of issues.

I think we are in an existential position with existential dilemmas. Up to a million people a year commit suicide and say no to more life.
We seem to be the only species that can do this and the only species that can ask any questions including philosophical and existential ones like "why am I here?" and "what is it all about?" and we are making decisions from a position of that level of awareness about our existence.

But this situation is created by parents choosing to create new profound sentient individuals. This was my first post topic ever on the old philosophy forums. My existential dilemmas are not self created.

So the first constraints on our choices come from our parents based on the country and culture they give birth in and the motives they have. My parents brought me up in a religious cult and spent my whole childhood indoctrinating me so obviously that is an ineradicable part of my later decision making processes.

When I go to the supermarket and chose what to buy for dinner that seems trivial but is is just another choice imposed on me because my parents created me and they didn't create me by accident or like an automaton like some animals might but with desires and stated goals.

I attempted suicide twice when I was younger by overdosing. I am not suicidal now but that was due to the burdens placed upon me then. Parents can be giving their children serious burdens. So I don't see anything trivial or mundane or inevitable about the human situation and I don't treat us like just another animal governed by biology or a giant lumbering gene robot as Richard Dawkins described us once.

I think these narratives hide the fact that we are here through our parents explicit choice often and it is not a neutral non ideological choice. And in that vein that I will elaborate on in next post we are effected sometimes profoundly by other peoples choice including our parents. And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism.

Here are some of the many issues I think are relevant in decision making.

1. Upbringing influences the kind of choices we can or do make.
2. Religious belief or atheism guides decision making
3. Physical disability effects decision making
4. Cognitive issues like Autism and ADHD, OCD, brain damage etc impact decisions
5. Decision often effect others from mild to major effects
6. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Consequences of actions don't care about motive.
7. there is a vast amount of information for sentient humans to process and that our brains do process.
8. Decisions are made at the level of consciousness and also with unconscious influences
9. Defence mechanism will influence choice justification.
10. At least one or more persons will disagree with your choices
11. We may or may not have free will and may never know.
123. Inaction and stoicism has consequences.

I was tempted to leave a "So what?" but that would be dismissive of the effort and time taken.

As social beings, we have stories. Many are about the power and control of others over us. Stories let us know we are not alone; there is a connection of minds. We live and learn.
Thanks for sharing yours.

I think these narratives hide the fact that we are here through our parents explicit choice often and it is not a neutral non ideological choice. — Andrew4Handel

Narratives don't hide the fact that we are born as a result of choice or otherwise.
That is our beginning. We are here with all our selves and masks and acts.
We are affected by others and our own thoughts.
We can blame others or we can accept that we also have flaws. We have control over our minds.
We choose what matters.

You've been around the block with these issues for years. Listening, or not, to many points of view.
What leaves you dissatisfied with all the responses?
What are you trying to achieve?

Before I go, Andrew4Handel - How long have you been presenting the same questions on discussion forums? You remind me of someone, also called Andrew, from an OU course whose situation was as near yours as to be your twin brother. That was quite some time ago. — Amity

That was probably me.

That was probably me. — Andrew4Handel

I thought it must be. You made quite the impression and still are :sparkle:
Take care.

And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism. — Andrew4Handel

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
But perhaps that is for another thread...

On Quora a while back I asked "How does Physics describe volitional motion?" I have yet to have a response.

This relates to this issue. If we are governed by physical laws how do they cause us to chose (or force us to act if you don't believe in free will?

We know we chose and make complex movements like typing on the computer or painting an elaborate art work.

Is this governed by conscious control as it seems? How is consciousness able to move our bodies so we can act? Are there laws governing our choices.#

In psychology there various perspectives Humanism is based on Existentialism and puts humans at the centre of decision making and with a so called existential freedom. Two other perspectives the Psychoanalytic and the cognitive think the unconscious is the main actor and we are more driven by either hidden psychological influences or automatic cognitive processes.

And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism.
— Andrew4Handel

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
But perhaps that is for another thread... — Amity

I am judging by the way stoicism is applied. I am not referring to the whole philosophical school but the common usage as a psychological tool.

I am referring to the definition "the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint."

Tell me more about how you think modern stoicism is commonly applied as a psychological tool.
How is it a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism?
Where do you see this happening?

From where did you pick your chosen definition? I think it reflects the ancient view.

That was the top web search definition.

I would apply the psychoanalytic critique to stoicism.

I believe people have motivated beliefs and ideologies. Who is the stoic? Why are they stoical?

A privileged person telling a disenfranchised person to be stoical is way of preserving the power imbalance. The people requiring the most stoicism are the most disenfranchised and least fortunate.

Outside of this critique I think stoicism can be a defense mechanism against anxiety. Away to not confront fears or our existential dilemma by limiting exposure to the emotional ramifications of our situation.
In one of her books Germaine Greer talks about an elderly woman was sedated after she was running up and down a ward afraid of dying.

Was this for the woman's benefit or for the observers benefit?

Tell me more about how you think modern stoicism is commonly applied as a psychological tool. — Amity

I think Cognitive behavioural therapy is an off shoot of stoicism. Training people to cope rather than resist or examine.

It can reframe reasonable responses to trauma as pathological. It is using a biased notion of reason to undermine ones own instinctual reason. I don't people would develop trauma for irrational reasons.

.

I feel that we are in a nihilistic position where we can't can justify any of our actions by reference to rules, objectivity or teleology. — Andrew4Handel

The topic would better be called 'Deciding what to be'. What to do follows from what one is. — unenlightened

More than the best you can do?

You're not happy with what you are doing. So do something different.

Me, I'm going out to trim one of the shrubs in the back yard, and work out where to plant the second lot of corn.

It really is that simple. And that hard. — Banno

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing? — Andrew4Handel

Me, I'm catching up on some of my self-assigned homework on a lazy lab day while looking forward to some time off.

I'd reiterate -- it really is that simple, and that hard.

I empathize with your line of questioning so, so much. There's a reason I like all those existential authors ;) -- but I think these are the answers I agree with the most. You really do just pick something and see what happens.

I wonder if you watched the TED Video and have any thoughts. — Amity

Barry Schwartz seems to be considering different types of choice to me and advocating reducing exposure to choice to create less stress. And this seems to be in relation to aspirational or capitalist choices. I think the communist tried his solution.

I think knowledge creates choice and that you cannot unlearn what you know. We are never going to be in a situation of relative ignorance again especially after having a high level of education.

My issue was of the way that choices of any nature have no way to be resolved. In religion issues are resolved by a gods commandment. The undermining of meaning is when you cannot replace the alleged Authority and purpose of God.

Religion still seems to benefit peoples mental health by giving them a degree of reassurance, axioms or structures and something bigger than themselves. The existential crisis comes I think from overburdening the individual with the onus to make their own rules and meaning.

If you think a deity is in control then you can content yourself with pottering away at whatever and achieving a small goal. If you follow a religions morality then there are no moral questions.

The rules are not found, nor innate, but chosen, by you, and you have to choose.

Welcome to existentialism. — Banno

And the rules that are chosen by you come already constrained in their sense by the contingent intersubjective community you are immersed in as well as your own history of habitual construals. Welcome to postmodernism.

I think Cognitive behavioural therapy is an off shoot of stoicism. Training people to cope rather than resist or examine.

It can reframe reasonable responses to trauma as pathological. It is using a biased notion of reason to undermine ones own instinctual reason. I don't people would develop trauma for irrational reasons. — Andrew4Handel

Cognitive therapy is a realist approach. It’s ‘ bias’ is in assuming there is a ‘correct’ and ‘realistic’ way to conform to the facts of the world. You should investigate client-centered and constructivist approaches , which jettison Cognitivism’s realism in favor of a situational , relativistic approach focusing on practical goal-oriented sense-making rather than correctness.

Unlike the Satrean existentialist notion of freedom and choice , they recognize that our choices come already constrained by our pre-existing frameworks of intelligibility that are formed through social interchange within our cultural environment. The point is that not all choices are equal. Some ways of sense-making will work for us better than others, and we discover this through trial and error.

And the rules that are chosen by you come already constrained in their sense by the contingent intersubjective community you are immersed in as well as your own history of habitual construals. — Joshs

:grin:

The only problem with that is how you said it.

Yep, you choose within the world.

Welcome to postmodernism. — Joshs

I don't think so.

And the rules that are chosen by you come already constrained in their sense by the contingent intersubjective community you are immersed in as well as your own history of habitual construals. Welcome to postmodernism. — Joshs

That made me laugh a lot. Thanks Joshs.

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing? [...] Life presents us with deep mysteries (I studied consciousness as part of a degree) I grew up in a really religious milieu. I won't be happy not knowing or not trying to know.

To me understanding why I exist and knowing how to act are fundamental. I already sit around getting fat on junk food pottering around the internet. That will end up being my existence. The path of least resistance. I see it as defeatism. — Andrew4Handel

One response to the question: "How is it possible to do the act of choosing?" is:

"How is it possible not to do the act of choosing?" when our life is full of choices.
Here we are as a result of the choices made up till now; in the key of minor or major.
Some are inconsequential, others significant.
All make up who you are and how you live your life.

If knowing how to act is fundamental, other questions arise as to the meaning and consequences of action or inaction. How to act for the best or worst when there seems to be no way of telling the outcomes. What outcome is the one you hope to achieve?

How well is your time being spent to effect the desired aim or goal?
If your current actions/decisions lead to an attitude of 'least resistance' - 'defeatism' - fatalism - why go down that path?
What you consume - in every sense - matters.
Choices made today will impact your life tomorrow; that is what we know simply by looking and learning.
Success is never guaranteed; that's another one.

One way to help make better decisions is via knowledge.
Gather the required information by effective research methods.

My main dilemma on this thread though is not morality per se but choosing out of a seeming infinity of choices and with modern technology at our finger types such of the masses of information and behaviours on the internet we have even more choice daily. — Andrew4Handel

That really shouldn't be much of a dilemma for someone who has studied at university level and gained a degree. You are taught how best to research and choose the relevant and most reliable sources.
So, this is why I question your approach to justifying your claims about s/Stoicism.

And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism.
— Andrew4Handel

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
But perhaps that is for another thread...
— Amity

I am judging by the way stoicism is applied. I am not referring to the whole philosophical school but the common usage as a psychological tool.

I am referring to the definition "the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint."

That was the top web search definition. — Andrew4Handel

I think you know better than to have made that choice. But perhaps that is your way of highlighting how or why we choose as we do to inform ourselves. Also, the importance of how certain philosophies of life are analysed, criticised and judged. The need to ask the right questions in our search and how readily we accept any 'answers'.

Your choice of top web search definition is a result of typing in 'What is stoicism?'.
From the 2 dictionary definitions, you chose the first 'stoicism' with a small 's'.
A case of cherry-picking. You know that.
The second as a condensed version of Stoicism is not much better:
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

I'll cut to the chase. Time budget an' all that.

A link for those interested:

This article highlights Stoicism’s similarities to modern mindfulness and acceptance-based CBT and its potential as an approach to building emotional resilience.

Socrates considered philosophy to be, among other things, a form of talking therapy, a sort of medicine for the mind... — Stoic Philosophy as a Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy

https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/stoic-philosophy-as-a-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-597fbeba786a

Apparently, it takes 29 minutes to read or longer to listen to. Your choice.

Here are some of the many issues I think are relevant in decision making.

1. Upbringing influences the kind of choices we can or do make.
2. Religious belief or atheism guides decision making
3. Physical disability effects decision making
4. Cognitive issues like Autism and ADHD, OCD, brain damage etc impact decisions
5. Decision often effect others from mild to major effects
6. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Consequences of actions don't care about motive.
7. there is a vast amount of information for sentient humans to process and that our brains do process.
8. Decisions are made at the level of consciousness and also with unconscious influences
9. Defence mechanism will influence choice justification.
10. At least one or more persons will disagree with your choices
11. We may or may not have free will and may never know.
123. Inaction and stoicism has consequences. — Andrew4Handel

All of these CAN influence decision making, sure. But they also don’t have to be as limiting as we tend to think. The thing about human adaptability is that we can find ways around most of our perceived limitations, and most readily by working together. When we get past the assumptions that all decisions are to be made as individuals and are somehow cemented into who or what we become, we can recognise that many of our decisions are made and then revised from moment to moment, based on how we allocate and perceive access to attention and effort over time. Our decisions or choices are rarely the conceptual ‘event’ we wish them to be.

I’ve found that there are people who perceive decisions like particles, and others who perceive them as wave-like. This can make it difficult to understand each other. Those of us who perceive a wave can miss the most opportune moment trying to map the whole terrain. Those who perceive a particle can fail to recognise alternative routes to the same destination.

I think your view of inaction and particularly stoicism - as stifling dissent and rational criticism - suggests a particle-like perception of wave-like decision-making. The Tao Te Ching suggests that the best course of action may not be mine to make, and that what is observed as inaction or stoicism on the part of an individual may simply be their understanding of a more efficient and mutually beneficial flow of energy within the world. There is a difference between criticising the status quo, effecting change and being seen to be accomplishing something. The most effective leaders are often those who appear to achieve nothing themselves.

The observability of my actions don’t encapsulate the full extent of the decisions I make. Patience, self-control and gentleness - the in-actualisation of perceived capacity - can be as much about understanding consequences as action.

If it is all a matter of choice, why choose a world that spins meaninglessly? Why not choose one that revolves for a purpose that you are a part of?

Animals know what to do to live without some outside force motivating them. — T Clark

I didn't notice this claim before.

Isn't the environment the outside force motivating animals?

I tend to view animals as more driven by outside forces than us. Once we have food and shelter we can then live the life of the mind so to speak. That has been given as a reason by some for poor mental health such as too much introspection and to little interacting with our natural instincts.

I think the inner outer distinction is complex because theories of perception can make it so that we live solely in our head with mental representations of an external world that are misleading.

Misleading perceptions and false beliefs can be a source of motivation. Evolutionary theorists/psychologists have to defend the idea that we have evolved accurate representations of the world to preserve truth claims.