Don’t know if it is possible unless sleepwalking or in a trance. — schopenhauer1
Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1
We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. — schopenhauer1
I agree. Your statement reminds me of the kind of stuff Immanuel Kant wrote about in his life. If you haven't read any books about him I suggest that you should because I believe it is likely you share some of the same thoughts as he did and his work might help you with some of your questions.And this is where all the problems lie. It makes us wholly existential and not just causal. It is our fall into time. Exile from Eden. We make the cultural standards and personal reasons to meet those standards. We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. We know we could do otherwise but we also know doing so might lead to future negative consequences.
Being caused to do something is instinct, or conditioning. Having reasons is based on self-aware goals. “I need to get to X”. “I want to get Y accomplished”. Sometimes we are not aware of why we want X. Schopenhauer’s theory of a general Will fits. Survival, comfort-seeking, boredom, embedded in cultural and symbolic thought. — schopenhauer1
Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1
Having reasons is a burden. — schopenhauer1
Is this just something they did when the survivors where willing to be civil about the situation and accept their fate? For some reason I imagine sometimes the stronger/more vicious survivors would decide to kill some of the other survivors so they wouldn't have to bother having to test their luck with drawing straws or whatever.They used to draw lots you know ... shipwreck survivors ... to decide who was gonna die so that the others could feed — Agent Smith
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
Most interesting.[/i]
The survivors probably lied about drawing lots - any detective worth his salt can figure that out.
Danke for bringing that to my attention. This reversion to basic instincts is well-documented. A reminder of our animal ancestry/heritage - we're all just one bad day away from becoming the guy you don't wanna meet in a dark alley. I hope some of us can keep their sanity & humanity despite.
— Ms. Marple — Agent Smith
My dog's behavior appears intentional. I've never found the attempt to categorize humans in an entirely special class persuasive. It appears just to be one of degree. — Hanover
So this is the hill you stand on... Ok, so maybe all animals have reasons since we don't "really" know.How do you know that "we are the only animals with reasons"? — 180 Proof
How do you know that our so-called "reasons" are not just ex post facto rationalizations — 180 Proof
IS the argument here that some people are capable of atrocities, therefore all people are atrocious? — Banno
Thing is, we get to choose our reasons. "They're only as good as the world allows them to be".
So don't put people on an island without food. Build a world that allows people to work for each other. — Banno
Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1
The idea of reasons is connected to the development of language. It is the basis for logic and concepts. Rationality and reasoning are done on that basis but that doesn't mean that other aspects, such emotions don't come in as well, and irrationality. It is one thing to be able to find reasons and that is a starting point for philosophy and another to follow them always. It may be easier to come up with the a posteri or a priori aspects of reason than to live according to Kant's moral system. So, human beings are rational but even then human reason is limited and it probably requires a lot of discipline to develop reason to its furthest possibilities. — Jack Cummins
It's an interesting dualism (over here are humans who have reasons, over there is the rest of the universe that does not have reasons) that seems to boil down to "over here is language, over there is no language".
How else do we decide as to who has reasons? I mean this seriously : What should we assume if we meet a space-faring race that we can't communicate with? That they are simply sophisticated tool-using lizards (or mermen, or whatever)? Only humans have a claim on this ill-defined thing?
A number of species seem to recognize themselves in mirrors - bonobos, elephants, magpies. If they're self-aware, do they not have reasons for acting?
The point is, it's one of those poorly defined concepts that we all assume we know. Like saying, "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it." (By the way, it's probably NOT true that elephants can paint - at least not without a lot of cruel training.) — Real Gone Cat
Reasons are attributed post hoc, to cats and horses and hedges as well as to philosophers. — Banno
You are missing the obvious. Society requires us to have reasons for our actions. It is the "burden" of being civilised, or even just socialised. — apokrisis
Most folk thus grow up learning to just fabricate excuses for their actions. They become expert sophists. They explain away why they did what they did in some socially-acceptable formula of words.
Actually learning how to act on reason is rarer. Rather than an imposed burden, it becomes an effective skill. It means life can be lived with rational goals in mind. Life can be shaped by measurable purpose. — apokrisis
"Social formulas" idea seems to make reasons a sort of nominalism.. Completely post-hoc fiction.
"Acting on reason" idea seems to imply some sort of "higher reason" like the Stoic idea of Universal Reason that is accessed by the sage.
Rather, reasons are formed by way of a being that can self-identify as an individual that can produce outcomes in the world and knows there are choices that lead to those outcomes. — schopenhauer1
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.