There is a break in the evolutionary balance between instinct, environment, and learning. his creates a situation whereby the human is in a sort of error loop of reasons and motivation rather than instinct. — schopenhauer1

Very interesting - and I think, true. But incomplete, because no intelligent animals lives entirely by instinct: they also think and learn and decide. Having undertaken a course of action, they sometimes either to fail to carry it through or abandon it for various reasons. Instinct, emotion, reason; need, reaction, strategy.

I don't have a developed thesis; I just got here. Definitely an interesting subject for thought.

Very interesting - and I think, true. But incomplete, because no intelligent animals lives entirely by instinct: they also think and learn and decide. Having undertaken a course of action, they sometimes either to fail to carry it through or abandon it for various reasons. Instinct, emotion, reason; need, reaction, strategy.

I don't have a developed thesis; I just got here. Definitely an interesting subject for thought. — Vera Mont

Thanks for comments. So I did predict that answers were going to focus on the idea that animals too have some sort of deliberation, and that may be true, but can you think of how this is different than human deliberation? I am specifically thinking of reasons as motivations, not just intention in general. An animal might desire food, and they might even plan to some extent. But there is still something altogether different regarding this and what a language-bearing being such as a human does. It is this implication of this unique ability that I want to explore.

Humans are an existential animal. That is to say, why we start any endeavor or project (or choose to continue with it or end it) is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so. — schopenhauer1

In my experience, both of myself and others, this is not true at all. I think this misunderstanding is a consequence of people not being aware of their own motivations and where they come from.

We generate things that might excite us. Or we generate things we feel we "must do" (even though there is never a must, only an anxiety of not doing based on various perceived fears). — schopenhauer1

We've had this conversation before. You and I have a different understanding and experience of what it is like to be a human. I don't think that everyone thinks, feels, and lives the same as I do. It seems as if you think they do.

So I did predict that answers were going to focus on the idea that animals too have some sort of deliberation, and that may be true, but can you think of how this is different than human deliberation? — schopenhauer1

I don't think it is different in kind, though we do a lot more of it, for a lot more diverse goals.

I am specifically thinking of reasons as motivations, not just intention in general. — schopenhauer1

Only in the diversity. We need things, want things, desire things, want to avoid and evade and escape from things, just like other animals. Only our things are more complex, and much of the complexity is self-generated, while much more is social, or group-generated.

An animal might desire food, and they might even plan to some extent. — schopenhauer1

It might be worth your while to watch real live animals. Video footage will do, if there isn't a cat or dog in your world.

This is a constant theme and I am going to continue it as I see it of utmost importance to the human animal. Humans are an existential animal. That is to say, why we start any endeavor or project (or choose to continue with it or end it) is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so. — schopenhauer1

I think I'd rather say as a condition of existential ethics one presumes a kind of freedom in talking that way. I wouldn't say that all human beings, qua their humanity, are existential. Something I like to highlight in reference to existentialism is how in spite of the existential condition, people by and large do not act in this deliberative manner -- including me!

But that doesn't go against an existential creed -- I'm not a pure being of active deliberation. I have attachments arrived at by means other than making a choice. And I'm comfortable with that. Now, with respect to the existential condition, which I believe to be the case, the one thing I could point out is just because I'm comfortable doesn't mean I'm free of choice. I could choose against my comfort. And, in fact, sometimes it is good to do so.

But there's probably not a good rule for such times. Hence my hesitation on your focusing upon "deliberation"

Humans are an existential animal. That is to say, why we start any endeavor or project (or choose to continue with it or end it) is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so. We generate things that might excite us. Or we generate things we feel we "must do" (even though there is never a must, only an anxiety of not doing based on various perceived fears). — schopenhauer1

I think this is largely accurate.

the human is in a sort of error loop of reasons and motivation rather than instinct. — schopenhauer1

I think this is nice line and it resonates with me.

This is a theme which occurred to me around the time I was leaving high school and pondering what went into human purpose - why people as adults held particular jobs and had families and set up homes. It all seemed frightfully preordained and predictable and utterly lacking in visceral inspiration.

Ooooo. Some interesting disagreement! :)

What do you make of habit?

Did I disagree? That's not my intention.

What do you make of habit? — Moliere

Depends on what you count as habit. An addiction is a kind of habit. I work in the area of addiction and mental illness - people seem to become dependent on patterns. Some personality types more than others. Making substantive change in life is often about developing new patterns (habits).

I think some people are more drawn to predictability and familiarity and ritual than others. Take Kant - he was so predictable people used to set their watches by his daily walk (or se we are told). Perhaps habits are ways of making ourselves more comfortable in our environment. No doubt there is a fancier psychological explanation which would probably bore me rigid. :wink:

The sentence I had in mind was "Humans are existential animals" and that was the part I had meant to disagree with, especially in regards to deliberation: it just seemed too... false? Most people do not deliberate their every action, after all. I wanted to correct this notion to something more like "people *could* deliberate their actions"

Maybe too fine a distinction, since you're noting you agreed :)

But that's why I asked about habit. Habit, to me, seems like the obvious counter-example that people do things deliberately. We often do things not for a reason, but simply because we did it yesterday (no and! And is post hoc).

I hear you. Sometimes where we are being deliberate we are actually unconscious of what it is that is informing our choices. We can be deliberate and clueless simultaneously. I do think the familiarity of patterns is a factor.

Cool.

I agree the familiarity of patterns is a factor. I think that's a large part of why I wanted to push against this notion of deliberation! "familiarity" is a comfort, one which I also go back to: I like what's familiar. I'm sure others do too.

And you're right in saying we can be both. I think that's why I wanted to highlight how existential ethics presupposes freedom. "The unconscious" basically unseats freedom. It stops freedom from being an ethical consideration -- and it's not the only theory which limits freedom either. Including, from the angle I've been talking, material freedom.

I think I'm just trying to point out that condition. There are times...

where we are being deliberate we are actually unconscious of what it is that is informing our choices. We can be deliberate and clueless simultaneously. — Tom Storm

And that's a point to undermine existential ethics. If there ever is a time we are not free, then it's not bad faith -- it's a lack of freedom.

Nice. In my life I have never assumed that people have access to freedom in any radical sense. Some people certainly have more choices and some have a more radically imaginative power that affords them opportunities to perceive and pursue more choices. But I'm afraid freedom hasn't been a theme which has preoccupied me much.

Do you have a working definition of what it is to be a person with freedom in choice and deed? But perhaps this is derailing the OP.

I think this is nice line and it resonates with me. — Tom Storm

Glad it resonated.



So let me give some phenomenological aspects here:
1) You "wake up" and get out of bed. You decide to go to the bathroom. Perhaps this is habit/routine, though. It is just something you do because you have done it. You reflect and say "Nah, I'm going straight to coffee this morning. I'll worry about that other stuff in a minute". You broke the routine. You recognized it and did something else. You gave a reason for it, even if post-facto (you want a caffeeine fix before anything else, besides, it might help you um, do the other thing better :grimace:).

2) You brush your teeth out of habit/routine when someone calls your name from the bedroom. You instantly lookback as was more or less reflexive to react to a stimuli, especially one that seems to be addressing you. This perhaps is more in line with normal animal behavior.

3) You decide to work in the garden. No, you don't want to do it today. You know the plants need attending, but the hot sun is annoying and you really just want to be lazy. But no, you feel a sense of duty to the plants. You must. You cannot watch them die. But of course, you can do anything you want.

Anyways, the variations are endless. But the point is there is a deliberative aspect whereby reasons are there (post-facto or not) with some degree of reflectivity and habitual routines, but these are much more malleable and in fact, they all kind of feed in and out of each other, with a heavy emphasis that there is a self-reflective element, even if not quite deliberative (we may KNOW we are addicted but still always decide against breaking it. In fact there seems to be almost no decision to be made, one is doing it).

So anyways, the point is, this is all recognized and understood by yours truly. I get it. We don't have to parse this understanding out and belabor this point. Rather, I want to re-adjust back to what the OP is really getting at and that is that we are existential animals. So, what I mean is more the self-reflective element. We KNOW we could do otherwise (even if comfort of habit makes us decide one way mostly). This is an exhaustive extra layer. It is a continual judgement that rides on top of things. I don't just survive by learning mechanisms and instincts combining. I DECIDE to do something, sometimes against what I would really like to do (I don't want to tend to the plants, but I don't want to see them die) and JUDGE things (I don't like seeing the plants die). I don't have to do any of that though (I can watch the plants die and live without a garden).This is more what I mean for it to be existential. I am not denying that we can do things by routine, but it is the fact that we know that we can fall into a routine, that it is quite iterative above and beyond simply routine.

it is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so — schopenhauer1

That our existence is a series of deliberate acts is a fiction created by our minds, which SEEM to make decisions based on rational considerations. The fiction is created when desire or need compels our brains to come up with a method to satisfy desire/need. It seem like we sought the solution voluntarily.

Signmund Freud famously said "We are not masters of our own houses." We don't have much intellectual control over the wishes and needs that drive our thinking and behavior. We share this feature with the rest of the animal kingdom to which we belong.

There is a tremendous range of possible outcomes in the way our wishes and needs are, or are not rsolved. This variety adds to the sense of our voluntary invention, but it's not voluntary. Life isn't any less enjoyable (or horrible) because we aren't in charge. Further we can reflect upon our lives, ad come to understand at least some of the terms under which we exist.

BUT, reflective understanding or not, we're still not doing a whole lot 'deliberately'.

Please see my last reply. It will shortcut this.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/783929

You "wake up" and get out of bed. You decide to go to the bathroom. Perhaps this is habit/routine, though. It is just something you do because you have done it. — schopenhauer1

No, it's something you do because otherwise you'd soil your nightclothes. Bodies have imperatives that cannot be denied.

You broke the routine. You recognized it and did something else. — schopenhauer1

Maybe you can. At my age, when nature calls, I answer, no excuses, no delays. After a long sleep, most people can't decide to put off urinating. And once you're in the bathroom, it's more efficient to take care of the ablutions than make a detour.

You brush your teeth out of habit/routine — schopenhauer1

And because neglecting oral hygiene is both painful and expensive in the long run.

when someone calls your name from the bedroom. You instantly lookback — schopenhauer1

Someone? Who's likely to call from the direction of your bedroom? Someone who matters to you. Of course you respond; it may be important.

But of course, you can do anything you want. — schopenhauer1

And everything you do has consequences. As a rational animal, you know the probable consequences, so you weigh the risks against the rewards.

In fact there seems to be almost no decision to be made, one is doing it). — schopenhauer1

People do have routines and habits, yes. Those routines were developed because they worked for that person. When they stop working, we change them. Addiction and external constraint may be factors, so that our autonomous choices are limited. And if we only have to make seven decisions in a hour instead of 49. So what?

I am specifically thinking of reasons as motivations, not just intention in general. An animal might desire food, and they might even plan to some extent. But there is still something altogether different regarding this and what a language-bearing being such as a human does. It is this implication of this unique ability that I want to explore. — schopenhauer1

I used to wonder about the meaning of "instinct" - as in when people say, or experts say, "animals act on instinct, humans on reason". I thought, humans have instincts too. Don't we act on instinct, too?

But a sociology professor once made a point about the use of the word. When an expert say instinct, they mean a trait or behavior exhibited prior to intelligence. Of course, what is intelligence? Intelligence as reasoning -- a deliberative weighing of alternative options or decisions. Animal instincts do not rely on options. When you throw food on the ground for the animals, they do their instinct and grab, or even fight over, the food. They're not going to stop and divide evenly and fairly the piece of meat so everyone can eat. They don't feel shame either for wanting to take the whole piece. There's no shame in fighting over food among animals.

I had not read your response to Storm, Mont, or Moliere.

As a rational animal, — Vera Mont

Well, maybe, sort of, sometimes, or not.

Humans are an existential animal. — schopenhauer1

If by "existential" you mean reality-denying, I agree with you.

There is something more I am trying to say, — schopenhauer1

Only that because we’re existential, we’re more than animal, as a couple of others have also noted.

To find meaning in what one does or is, regardless of the degree of volition giving rise to the doing or being. As an example, you might be in the Army and be assigned to a hospital ward to assist with the disabled. At first you find this task upsetting, possibly revolting in some instances, but as time passes you have a change of heart and find deep meaning in your work.

Another example, you are young, casting about for a purpose in life, and an older friend gives you an amateur artist's kit while you are recovering from an injury. You find you have a natural talent and love what you've discovered, making it the vital theme of your life from then on.

In both examples meaning arises and is embraced. Once it is triggered, you are hooked.

That is to say, why we start any endeavor or project (or choose to continue with it or end it) is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so — schopenhauer1

Every animal is more than just an "animal". Don't be speciesist :smirk:

No, it's something you do because otherwise you'd soil your nightclothes. Bodies have imperatives that cannot be denied. — Vera Mont

Yes it can, you can indeed soil your nightclothes. But that would be uncomfortable otherwise. You have a reason not to.

And because neglecting oral hygiene is both painful and expensive in the long run. — Vera Mont

And there is a reason.

Someone? Who's likely to call from the direction of your bedroom? Someone who matters to you. Of course you respond; it may be important. — Vera Mont

Sure, another reason.

People do have routines and habits, yes. Those routines were developed because they worked for that person. When they stop working, we change them. Addiction and external constraint may be factors, so that our autonomous choices are limited. And if we only have to make seven decisions in a hour instead of 49. So what? — Vera Mont

So my point was the extra burden of the extra effort for motivation.

Going back to the garden, or a job we rather not do otherwise than getting paid. We provide narratives and reasons to ourselves for why we start, continue, or finish a project or task. Maybe not the only way we operate, but certainly a large and very human aspect of it, that I don't believe is the same for other animals. We can debate its origins in the human (language-based cognition, episodic memory vs. other forms, going beyond associative memory, etc.). But that's not the focus of my OP. It is the extra burden of this existential situation.

Every time I bring this idea up, it is like there is a bug in this forum where no member quite understands what I am getting at but wants to debate animal cognition, losing site of the focus, and throwing up red herrings or getting lost in non-essential tangents rather than productive dialogue on our existential situation.

I used to wonder about the meaning of "instinct" - as in when people say, or experts say, "animals act on instinct, humans on reason". I thought, humans have instincts too. Don't we act on instinct, too? — L'éléphant

Funny you say that, I heard a segment from a scientist who conducted studies to show how what we often contribute to instinct in animals is actually a learned aspect. Thus "instinct" is really a placeholder not for true "innate" mechanisms, but a combination of innate and learned mechanisms which are associated with less deliberative, very specific behaviors to stimuli. But though interesting, still a digression, so I'll copy and paste my generic response:

So my point was the extra burden of the extra effort for motivation.

Going back to the garden, or a job we rather not do otherwise than getting paid. We provide narratives and reasons to ourselves for why we start, continue, or finish a project or task. Maybe not the only way we operate, but certainly a large and very human aspect of it, that I don't believe is the same for other animals. We can debate its origins in the human (language-based cognition, episodic memory vs. other forms, going beyond associative memory, etc.). But that's not the focus of my OP. It is the extra burden of this existential situation.

Every time I bring this idea up, it is like there is a bug in this forum where no member quite understands what I am getting at but wants to debate animal cognition, losing site of the focus, and throwing up red herrings or getting lost in non-essential tangents rather than productive dialogue on our existential situation.

Well, maybe, sort of, sometimes, or not. — BC

So my point was the extra burden of the extra effort for motivation.

Going back to the garden, or a job we rather not do otherwise than getting paid. We provide narratives and reasons to ourselves for why we start, continue, or finish a project or task. We can stop at any time in any task's duration, but we carry on anyways. We can literally move to another location on the other side of the planet if we had the means to get there. Sure, that would cause other things, but then we have to judge and decide on that situation. We may have a tendency to do things, but at all times, we are judging based on standards, values, ideas of what we think is good or preferable. Maybe not the only way we operate, but certainly a large and very human aspect of it, that I don't believe is the same for other animals. We can debate its origins in the human (language-based cognition, episodic memory vs. other forms, going beyond associative memory, etc.). But that's not the focus of my OP. It is the extra burden of this existential situation.

Every time I bring this idea up, it is like there is a bug in this forum where no member quite understands what I am getting at but wants to debate animal cognition, losing site of the focus, and throwing up red herrings or getting lost in non-essential tangents rather than productive dialogue on our existential situation.

We can literally move to another location on the other side of the planet if we had the means to get there. Sure, that would cause other things, but then we have to judge and decide on that situation. We may have a tendency to do things, but at all times, we are judging based on standards, values, ideas of what we think is good or preferable. Other animals might prefer, but they don't base it on standards, values, future they fear if the do or don't do something, etc. It's more "in the moment", though it could be associative. That is not to say they don't fear or even project into the future to some extent, but it's not the same phenomenology that I am discussing for a language-based fully existential, self-reflective animal like a human. I am NOT positing that animals have no "reasoning" to some extent, so please don't red herring this again :roll:.

That being the case, I can let the plants die, but I decide not to. That being said, I can stop working and not work, but then the anxiety of leaving people without saying a word, the anxiety of looking for another thing, of not getting money, etc. You see, I just decided that these things were important, though I could decide otherwise. Perhaps freedom from work is most important to me at all costs to the point I'd rather live under an underpass than work for the Man. You see, we have a large degree of deliberative freedom, and this causes the burden of knowing we can do things which we didn't necessarily "have" to do, but do "anyways" because we decide things continually to do or not do. This, whilst praised in the main, is I see a burden of the human. This is the error loop where nothing is justified.

I drank the coffee because I wanted to. It's a routine sure, but it's a routine based on a heuristic whereby if someone asked "Why are you drinking coffee" I'd say, "Because I like coffee". Yeah but why have something you like? Then it would be something like, "I prefer to satisfy my preferences if I can". But these are all narratives. I could decide that I will not satisfy my preferences. I might decide that I don't like the other affects of coffee besides the caffeine or taste. I could decide any number of things and deliberate on it. In the end, I went with a decision and gave a narrative to it. Often we default to routine as a justification, but because we can decide otherwise, that too was simply a justification. It is still part of the error loop.

@Moliere @BC, @L'éléphant @Vera Mont @Tom Storm @Wayfarer

So my point was the extra burden of the extra effort for motivation. — schopenhauer1

Huh? Extra beyond what basic standard of burden? There is a reason for everything that happens or is done in the world, even if we don't know all the reasons.

We provide narratives and reasons to ourselves for why we start, continue, or finish a project or task. — schopenhauer1

We're a narrating species. Our entire memory-bank is an archive of stories we told ourselves about ourselves and what we saw, heard, felt and thought about.

We may have a tendency to do things, but at all times, we are judging based on standards, values, ideas of what we think is good or preferable. — schopenhauer1

Yes. And?

Often we default to routine as a justification, — schopenhauer1

No, we don't. We don't justify our routine actions, and don't feel any compulsion to justify them. Only when we decided to do something unexpected, contrary to routine, or counterproductive, do we feel any need for justification, and the one we give may not be the real reason.

Every time I bring this idea up, it is like there is a bug in this forum where no member quite understands what I am getting at but wants to debate animal cognition, — schopenhauer1

You brought up other animals, made a comparison.

losing site of the focus, and throwing up red herrings or getting lost in non-essential tangents rather than productive dialogue on our existential situation.

I have been trying to discern a focus, and failing. You think "an existential animal" has some kind of burden by thinking about itself. I don't get what productive dialogue about this could produce.

Huh? Extra beyond what basic standard of burden? — Vera Mont

There is no burden like this for other animals, for example. They have burdens, but not this burden.

We're a narrating species. Our entire memory-bank is an archive of stories we told ourselves about ourselves and what we saw, heard, felt and thought about. — Vera Mont

Ok, I agree here.

Yes. And? — Vera Mont

The burden of continuing, stopping or justifying any action we take. Go to work, whatever. We make stories up that is it.

No, we don't. We don't justify our routine actions, and don't feel any compulsion to justify them. Only when we decided to do something unexpected, contrary to routine, or counterproductive, do we feel any need for justification, and the one we give may not be the real reason. — Vera Mont

This is bullshit because you smuggled in the value of "counterproductive" there is no objective "productive" that means "this is what I should be doing". You are making a narrative a statement of obvious truth, which it isn't. I'm surprised you did that. We seem to agree these justifications are a narrative, not a hard fact. But we may say, "This leads to me not getting resources in the future". It is still a narrative that we are judging whether we want or not want. I can stop working at any time. I can stop living at any time, though both may be painful in the present or future and we do give ourselves a narrative that these decisions lead to things which we deem negative.

You brought up other animals, made a comparison. — Vera Mont

Because it is another way-of-being that is not ours and people automatically want to contest that. If people can't figure out how a dog is different than a human, then we have bigger problems and I don't want to discuss that meaningless exercise in contrarianism in this thread, because I think the differences are more obvious than people who are debating it are trying to earnestly appeal here.

I have been trying to discern a focus, and failing. You think "an existential animal" has some kind of burden by thinking about itself. I don't get why this needs discussing. — Vera Mont

Right, you aren't getting it.

This is bullshit because you smuggled in the value of "counterproductive" — schopenhauer1

It's not smuggled in. It's right out ion the open. The kind of actions for which we seek justification are the ones we consider wrong, exceptional, peculiar, questionable, or use whatever term you like for "that which is not producing desired results."

there is no objective "productive" that means "this is what I should be doing" — schopenhauer1

That's quite possible, and it's also possible that we can never agree on what we should be doing, just as you must have meant something by "productive dialogue" that I did not understand .

You are making a narrative a statement of obvious truth, which it isn't. — schopenhauer1

I was expressing a firmly held opinion, based on observation of human behaviour. I have, never, not once, heard anyone else explain why they went to the bathroom in the morning before making coffee, (though I can imagine someone who made that detour explaining that they're in a hurry and want the coffee ready when they're done in the bathroom) or why they brush their teeth (though I have heard excuses why someone doesn't), or why they eat rather than starve (If they do choose to starve, they have some compelling reason, like a hunger strike, or religious fast or dieting), or go to work (but there are plenty of justifications for not going to work!), or tend the vegetables they planted rather than let them die (though people who neglect their garden do give an explanation why or how that was unavoidable), or answer when someone calls their name (but they justify failing to respond). I assumed all this time that other people also think these habitual actions have obvious reasons that do not require explanation.

Right, you aren't getting it. — schopenhauer1

Is anyone?

I assumed all this time that other people also think these actions have obvious reasons that do not require explanation. — Vera Mont

Reasons. You said it. I’ll walk you through it. Someone decides to keep working even though they don’t want to. Why?

You can stupidly debate me on this point but a cow let’s say doesn’t say that it hates to chew it’s grass and cud but knows it must to survive. It doesn’t have the burdens of reasons, that is.