What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response.. — schopenhauer1
Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation. — schopenhauer1
Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being. — schopenhauer1
A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:O — Agustino
Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :sThe question is why do we seek goals in the first place? — schopenhauer1
Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?We do not sit there like a rock. — schopenhauer1
No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality. — schopenhauer1
For you, but I experience my purpose as given, not as chosen. I also choose to pursue it, but I experience it as given first, and chosen later.For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats. — CasKev
It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. — intrapersona
What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato. — Agustino
Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it. — Agustino
Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one: — Agustino
Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s — Agustino
Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock? — Agustino
No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.
That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.
Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.
Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc. — Agustino
No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered.So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? — schopenhauer1
Yeah, you failed to illustrate how this digging leads you to conclude to boredom and survival as the only motivators of human behavior.I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says. — schopenhauer1
Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty?Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention? — schopenhauer1
Not 'need'. We choose to.In other words, we need to always be doing. — schopenhauer1
You have not shown this to be the case.motivated from an angst. — schopenhauer1
Yes, you perhaps see red herrings, but you don't see that your theory claims to explain human motivators, but it clearly doesn't explain my motivations at all. It fails, because it is too narrow and dogmatic.I perhaps see — schopenhauer1
Well, what's wrong with asking you what justification you have for believing what you believe?or what justification we have — schopenhauer1
I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine.My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures). — schopenhauer1
Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom. — schopenhauer1
Hmmm yes, I think this is correct. Someone who cares deeply about something or someone else cannot be bored, because caring moves him to do things. The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom doesn't not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. — Janus
I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery. — Janus
The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation. — Agustino
Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy; and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. — Agustino
I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something. — Agustino
Hmmm... Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated.That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point. — Janus
Yes. It's a defense mechanism.Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. — Janus
I would say both.It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though. — Janus
But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. It must be directed towards some other, selfless end. To what end are you cultivating your self? This is what I mean when I critique these "programs of self-cultivation". I agree with Plato that in the final analysis, parts of our being shouldn't be rejected (our will, for example, shouldn't be rejected) but integrated within the greater whole harmoniously.Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation". — Janus
But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. — Agustino
Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated — Agustino
The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed. — Agustino
Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better.The way I see it, self-cultivation, provided it is not done for self-aggrandisement, is an end in itself, practiced out of love. Why do you want to be a better artist, writer, musician or whatever? — Janus
I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system"I can't think of any coherent sense in which boredom could be considered to be a manifestation of will. Can will exist at all in the total absence of interest? — Janus
I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis.Yes, but on the other hand God's authentic will is only to be found in and by individuals; it is something that must be found within, not in any outward authority or institution. — Janus
No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered. — Agustino
Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty? — Agustino
I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine. — Agustino
Where did I talk about his own experience? This isn't even about reading what I said charitably, it's simply about reading it. If you can't even do that, discussion is difficult.So it is a legitimate theory if Plato uses his own experiences and conceptual analysis, but not if I do? — schopenhauer1
Gibberish.You just contradicted yourself. You stated that my basis was not legitimate but was exactly the same one you are using (or Plato rather). You have got yourself in a little bind there. Also, it seems like since this is the case, you are not just being a hypocrite but committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, as Plato obviously is your authority on these matters. — schopenhauer1
I'm pretty sure birds can feel emotions - like fear or angst - too. But regardless, this isn't even relevant. The analogy was between goal-seeking and singing. Had nothing to do with angst.Your analogy makes no sense in this case. Angst is part of the human experience and not part of a birds. Therefore there is no analogy here. — schopenhauer1
So why don't humans seek goals because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of humans? This is in fact a thesis that has some evidence to support it (René Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World).Birds sing because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of the bird, and humans goal-seek due to their propensities that I have stated. — schopenhauer1
Yep. Still don't see the link between angst and goal-seeking.Just because they both have innate tendencies does not mean they have to have the same innate tendencies. But that should be obvious. — schopenhauer1
Show me.When you keep on questioning the root of your goals, they go back to very basic drives. — schopenhauer1
Again, take the example of the girl and the rose that I gave you. If it's just a post-facto rationalization it would be perfectly acceptable for you to say I give her the rose because I'm bored. But it's not. And saying that does nothing to explain my actions - using your framework you cannot even make sense of what I do.Everything else is a romanticization, a post-facto rationalization. — schopenhauer1
No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. Plato didn't have cases like myself who cannot be accounted by his theory. YOU, on the other hand, do. Your theory takes into account only your personal experience, and fails to take into account the experience of other people. And I'm not talking here about the idiotic masses who live their life without knowing what they're doing, but the more cultured, educated and intelligent people around.So it is clear to me you cannot see the contradictions in your own arguments, especially the ones you just made about Plato when compared to what I said. — schopenhauer1
No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that.You accuse me of being uncharitable — schopenhauer1
This isn't even about reading what I said charitably — Agustino
You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't.Frankly, your arguments are mere assertions and simply shows you have a particular animus to this view for personal reasons probably related to cherished theological views. — schopenhauer1
No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. — Agustino
Well, I'll grant you that, I skim your posts because I am bored with them. I still say you read pretty uncharitably though. I have long drawn out arguments with posters here that are frustrating and highly contentious but I still somewhat enjoy them. For whatever reason, I do not like your style and thus put minimal effort in these discussions. I'm also as of recent very busy but still feel compelled to answer posts (to my unhappiness).No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that. — Agustino
You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't. — Agustino
Okay, sure.Plato wrote some stuff- some thought-providing stuff, but he is not god or a prophet, man. He is was a brilliant intellect for sure, and we can all study his work and draw from it, but his thinking, like any other thinker, is still prone to many criticisms and flaws, like anyone else. — schopenhauer1
If I do that, I end up many times with the answer that it's an expression of my being to pursue that goal. There's no further reason. It's not to avoid boredom or to survive.Here's a thought experiment- for every goal you do question the reason for why you did it. — schopenhauer1
Why is a child raised by monkeys anymore normal or natural than a child raised by human beings? I would think that quite the contrary, that child would not represent the natural condition of man, but quite the contrary - the unnatural one. For example, he may not be able to speak - that isn't the natural condition of man.When I consider things like this, I sometimes think of what a child raised by monkeys on an island would do. — CasKev
This is a hypothetical, quite frankly, I personally would like not to adventure there, since I'm not quite sure what such a child would feel. I think "gathering food" is learned in a community, as is socializing.We have basic instincts that drive us to gather food, create shelter, and socialize (play with the monkeys). — CasKev
Well, baby animals don't sit around doing nothing either. Exploration is one of the primary ways infants (not only human infants) learn. Even baby cats play around a lot more than adult cats. Why so? Because playing and exploring their environment is how they learn, both about their own powers and about how their environment works. And of course, the baby wouldn't be always doing something when the monkeys left. Sometimes he would be just resting and dozing off. I can bet that in less industrialised civilisations than ours, people rest a LOT more than we do.It's hard to imagine that it would sit like a cat, just passively taking in the surroundings until the monkeys returned - that would get boring pretty fast for such an intelligent mammal. — CasKev
But again, this may be true for yourself and schopenhauer1, all that I'm arguing is that it's not true for everyone. I gave myself as a counter example, you're free to indicate how I am motivated by boredom.The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing — CasKev
I think schopenhauer1 has the better argument. The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing — CasKev
And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. — Agustino
Survival happens by accident--at least most of the time. Once in a rare while (we hope) survival is at stake -- you find yourself tiring as you try to overcome the riptide that seems intent on drowning you, some thug is pointing a gun at you -- but most of the time it is just a question of whether or not we are going to be very bored. — Bitter Crank
So in general the angsty-drive of humans generally lands in the spectrum of survival, boredom, and/or discomfort and all taking place in the environment the individual finds themselves in. — schopenhauer1
I would add that this underlying drive becomes more evident to people who have suffered from depression, where there is little motivation to do anything other than survive, and somehow pass the time with as little effort as possible. — CasKev
People who are quite happy with the life experiences and socially constructed norms they have encountered thus far would be more likely to deny these as motivating factors, in favor of self-affirmation and other such ego-based desires. — CasKev
It's an interesting thing. For me, I don't do things for mental pleasure. Rather mental pleasure sometimes is a result of it. I do things, at a proximate level of motivation, to better myself and my understanding of the world. So that's where my sense of satisfaction comes from. Being successful at that.When you think of things you do for mental pleasure, where does the sense of satisfaction come from? — CasKev
It means I understand my own perception better. It means my skills have improved. It means I've learned more about the world. It means I'm capable to communicate more about the world.You paint something you think looks nice. So what? — CasKev
So you have a lot to teach the world through your paintings.I'm the greatest painter that ever lived! So what? — CasKev
Love can be conducive to procreation, but that's not the driving force. It's more like a possible result.I think love falls into the survival and procreation category. Being part of a larger group that cares about your existence increases your chance of survival, and courtship and intimacy can be linked to procreation. — CasKev
Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better. — Agustino
I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system" — Agustino
I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.