The anti-utilitarian nature of economic equality.

[The One and Only...]

I thought about this earlier, so I thought I might share my view.

The logic is simple: what matters is not material wealth, but pleasure derived through life.

Different people have different opinions on what is pleasureable. Some enjoy having time off work to spend spend time with family, etc. Others have a work-a-holic attitude and would rather maximize utility out of material objects.

What this means is obvious. Economic equality would necessarily lead to inequal pleasure, since some humans derive more pleasure from material wealth than others. Hence, equality of pleasure is nonexistant.

The true way to achieve equality would be to distribute material wealth according to each individual's material pleasure rate, modified for the pleasure rate derived from nonmaterial experiences. As this would be horribly impractical, if not impossible, there is only one thing to have: capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.

[Protoclown]

i hate you

[The One and Only...]

The sentiment is mutual.

[AChimp]

A Jedi craves not pleasure. >:

[The One and Only...]

A jedi is not a hedonist, either.

[Drew Katsikas]

The threads you are making are just masturbation. NO ONE WANTS TO READ THESE BUT YOU. >:

[theapportioner]

A person's idea of what is pleasurable is shaped by the very forces of capitalism. Capitalism, for many, fits because it reshapes cultures and societies, not because of something inherently 'utilitarian' about the concept. It's like saying that the church should be kept around because it gives people 'spiritual pleasure'. This is true, but only because it's been around for a bit and people have gotten used to it, dependent on it.

[mburbank]

You are way prouder of your logical abilities than you ought to be. You'er like a young violin player who wants to wow people by playing really difficult pieces though he flubs multiple sections instead of playing something simpler and learning to do it well.

Your initial statement about pleasure and money is reasonably solid, though pedestrian. After that it all falls apart. Your 'obvious' conclusion is full of holes. Economic equality wouldn't 'lead' to ineqal pleasure a state that already exists. Not solving a problem isn't the same thing as creating it.

You then state that we can't make people equally happy and bizarely conclude that this means capitalism is the best system. That's like saying you can't make an apple pie with oranges so thebest thing to do is play golf.
your final statement 'capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.' is supported in no way by any part of your argument. In addition, as far as I know there is no reliable system by which 'pleasure ratios' can be measured .

Stop the chin music. Your hubristic pride is going to thwart any potential you might have. You come across as an overly loquacious trained monkey. Try applying the critical skills you demonstrate to you own statements. Show a little rigour. You are a swirly begging to happen.

[The One and Only...]

Your initial statement about pleasure and money is reasonably solid, though pedestrian. After that it all falls apart. Your 'obvious' conclusion is full of holes. Economic equality wouldn't 'lead' to ineqal pleasure a state that already exists. Not solving a problem isn't the same thing as creating it.

Ok, but that is a technicality that remains irrelevant to the point.

You then state that we can't make people equally happy and bizarely conclude that this means capitalism is the best system. That's like saying you can't make an apple pie with oranges so thebest thing to do is play golf.

Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice.

your final statement 'capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.' is supported in no way by any part of your argument. In addition, as far as I know there is no reliable system by which 'pleasure ratios' can be measured.

You don't need to measure the ratios, you just need to use logic. Capitalism rewards those who function better in the market with higher salaries, which helps both the person who enjoys lots of cash and the one who wants more family time. One gets richer, one can work less. Thus, capitalism modifies the amount of pleasure received correspondant to level of function in the market. Utimately, this leads to greater pleasure for all, but we are escaping the point, which was that economic equality does not lead to equality of pleasure. That said, surely you can recognize that capitalism lowers the inequality of pleasure among persons when compared to systems like socialism?

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Your argument is so simplistic that I have to ask you, why are you wasting our time? People derive pleasure, so they go out into the market and work to maximize that pleasure; you're point though? Please keep the Ecomonics 101 to yourself.

[mburbank]

"Ok, but that is a technicality that remains irrelevant to the point. "

A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.

"Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice."

I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.

"Capitalism rewards those who function better in the market with higher salaries"

Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.

"economic equality does not lead to equality of pleasure."
experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.

"That said, surely you can recognize that capitalism lowers the inequality of pleasure among persons when compared to systems like socialism?"
Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.

Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.

[AChimp]

http://www.cocolabelle.com/IMM/DivineLink.jpg

YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR MONEY.

Saved. :picklehat

[The One and Only...]

A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.

You assume that I need to examine something in order to know it. All I need to have are a few self-evident (or, more appropriately, commonly induced) axioms. Happiness is subjective. That is precisely my point.

I am a product of the marginalist revolution (aka when economists realized that value is subjective). Now, clearly every person seeks to maximize the utility of their life. The amount of happiness derived from something is dependant upon the individual. What that means is that a system which allows people to choose what to purchase, how much to work, and how much to invest in education in return for future profits will allow those people to maximize the utility of their life.

With economic equality, however, this becomes distorted. Some people become happier; and some less happy. However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.

Now I realize that is a equilibrium thesis, in which every person is immortal and no wealth is handed down. But it is still very appropriate for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that many will receive gratification by knowing that their money will go down to the family. In any case, such hand downs are usually minor; the big cases of them are so few that they can be nearly discounted.

Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.

I just addressed this. Despite that, haven't you noticed that you are pointing out those who have strong ties to government? Michael Powell is outside of the market.

experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.

Pleasure can be measured by brain reactions. Justice does not exist any more than natural rights do. Even if it did, I would ascribe to Nozick's version of justice rather than Rawls.

Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.

Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.

I've already made a strong case for my argument.

[theapportioner]

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'. It is only in spite of the system that we have protections against that sort of thing, that we have freedoms protecting the happiness of those who choose not to enter the "enterprise". Therefore capitalism by itself cannot achieve "optimal social happiness".

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion. Even slaves can learn to be happy.

[Brandon]

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'.
This is an unfortunate side effect of liberty. But, like you said, we have a legal system set up to keep others from encroaching upon our freedoms.

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.
I think you've grossly underestimated the role of fulfillment of instinct in pleasure. You may have taken the dialectical materialism a little too far.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion.
Thing is? That's a simplistic view. Few people choose to make money as an end in itself. The money either is used to represent status, buy pleasurable things, or (of course) attract a mate.

Even slaves can learn to be happy.
I couldn't disagree more. Captivity will never be satisfying to any animal, and we're no exception.

[Anonymous]

My girlfriend's kitten never tries to run away :/

[The One and Only...]

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'. It is only in spite of the system that we have protections against that sort of thing, that we have freedoms protecting the happiness of those who choose not to enter the "enterprise". Therefore capitalism by itself cannot achieve "optimal social happiness".

I did not mean to suggest that capitalism could attain optimal social happiness. I meant to say that it is the system which will come closest.

In addition, you have a very different view of capitalism from me. Tell me, what abuse do you speak of?

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.

I have a very different view of human nature. I don't believe that it can be changed by culture. Suppressed? Certainly. But suppression rarely increases pleasure.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion. Even slaves can learn to be happy.

Invisable hand.

[theapportioner]

I think you've grossly underestimated the role of fulfillment of instinct in pleasure.

Of course it's a part of it. But "fulfillment of instinct" can be achieved via means other than the pursuit of material wealth. Intellectual achievement, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of expression, sexual satisfaction, social stability etc. are all things that are considered pleasurable. As far as I can tell, there is nothing special about capitalism that makes it easier for those who pursue these things.

Few people choose to make money as an end in itself. The money either is used to represent status, buy pleasurable things, or (of course) attract a mate.

No, but that wasn't really my point. Capitalism is an engine to generate wealth. Often, what people do with that wealth (to seek a mate etc.) is outside of capitalism.

Captivity will never be satisfying to any animal, and we're no exception.

Don't underestimate the abilities of the human mind.

[Brandon]

I think you've grossly underestimated the role of fulfillment of instinct in pleasure.

Of course it's a part of it. But "fulfillment of instinct" can be achieved via means other than the pursuit of material wealth. Intellectual achievement, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of expression, sexual satisfaction, social stability etc. are all things that are considered pleasurable. As far as I can tell, there is nothing special about capitalism that makes it easier for those who pursue these things.
I was more opposed to your idea that what it pleasurable to humans is shaped by culture. Instinct exists outside of it.

Don't underestimate the abilities of the human mind.
Yes, the human mind has a remarkable ability to shine shit, but it would always amount to self-delusion in the case of captivity. Our desire for freedom is a very strong impulse.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism isn't without its faults. I just objected to a few of your premises.

[The One and Only...]

How does capitalism make it harder for those who have nonmaterial pursuits, exactly?

[MLE]

Even slaves can learn to be happy.

Case in Point: Submissives.

[mburbank]

Resolved: OAO is repulsive.

[sspadowsky]

Is it boring in here, or is it just OAO?

[Emu]

Honestly, I haven't understood a word he's said since he joined.

[Dole]

OAO you're a fucking cock, and if you dont get beaten up on an almost daily basis there is no justice in the world.

[Buffalo Tom]

Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice.



When a group corners a market and kills all competition to their products and services, then people have nothing but the illusion of choice. A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly, whether it is possessed by a totalitarian regime like Stalin's Soviet Union or a multinational corporation like Microsoft. I'll wager that if you ask any capitalist, he/she would festishistically tell you of his/her fantasy to control his/her company's target market.

You are the worst kind of pedant. You make grand pronouncements as if you are Archimedes leaping from his bathtub. At least he had formulated something important to merit his rash actions. You, on the other hand, are intellectually naked, and, let me tell you, I'm laughing hysterically at the meanness of your cerebral member.

I hereby dub thee the Cliff Clavin of I-Mockery.

[Zhukov]

Monopolies don't happen with Libertarianism. Remember?

[theapportioner]

I like his ambition, but his sloppy thought suggests to me that his ambition far outdistances his abilities.

[The_Rorschach]

Why is it stringent Capitalists and Communists alike try to reduce all human endeavour to economics?

[theapportioner]

The One and Only writes:
However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.

You assume that the 'amount' of pleasure one can have towards something is unbounded, like wealth. But you haven't shown me that this is a valid assumption. To a degree it makes sense to say that a person's pleasure (or time etc.) could be exchanged for money but only to a limit. Does it make sense to say that a billionaire like Warren Buffett has 1000000000 more pleasure 'units' than say, me? Or that he would be 100000000x unhappier if he had a middle class salary, compared to me, who would be 1000x happier? Not to mention, there are many more people who would love to make 100 grand a year, than people who make over 1 million. If you can't back up your assumption, then all talk of 'net losses of happiness', in an utilitarian sense, become nonsense. People can't 'contain' unlimited repositories of 'pleasure units'.

More generally, you model capitalism in this particular case as a static tool that simply sorts out 'pleasure units' in a more efficient way. But capitalism is much more than a 'static tool'. It is generative, socially transformative, dynamic. It not only sorts out needs and wants, it creates them. It's not like some of us had a latent desire in our minds for a DVD player or a Britney album that was satisfied when they were invented and introduced to us. Hardly. New wants, new needs, new dependencies. It upheaves social institutions that have been satisfactory for many years and creates new ones. Our notions of vacation time etc. are -created- by a capitalist system. It creates and reinforces a culture of materialism. For the better? Regardless of the answer, that was not your point - you said it makes people happier. And you haven't demonstrated this.

[The One and Only...]

Tom, a monopoly only exists when people choose to go to the business. If they become unsatisfied, there demands will either be met or a new business will form. Not only that, but people do not have to purchase whatever has been monopolized.

Furthermore, I was speaking about the freedom to work as one sees fit.

The One and Only writes:
However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.

You assume that the 'amount' of pleasure one can have towards something is unbounded, like wealth. But you haven't shown me that this is a valid assumption. To a degree it makes sense to say that a person's pleasure (or time etc.) could be exchanged for money but only to a limit. Does it make sense to say that a billionaire like Warren Buffett has 1000000000 more pleasure 'units' than say, me? Or that he would be 100000000x unhappier if he had a middle class salary, compared to me, who would be 1000x happier? Not to mention, there are many more people who would love to make 100 grand a year, than people who make over 1 million. If you can't back up your assumption, then all talk of 'net losses of happiness', in an utilitarian sense, become nonsense. People can't 'contain' unlimited repositories of 'pleasure units'.

If Warren Buffett does not derive pleasure from his wealth, why does he maintain it?

Furthermore, I already pointed out that capitalism modifies pleasure rates by merit within the market system. That, in turn, will lead to higher pleasure over time.

I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units. Is not life more pleasureable now compared to then?

More generally, you model capitalism in this particular case as a static tool that simply sorts out 'pleasure units' in a more efficient way. But capitalism is much more than a 'static tool'. It is generative, socially transformative, dynamic. It not only sorts out needs and wants, it creates them. It's not like some of us had a latent desire in our minds for a DVD player or a Britney album that was satisfied when they were invented and introduced to us. Hardly. New wants, new needs, new dependencies. It upheaves social institutions that have been satisfactory for many years and creates new ones. Our notions of vacation time etc. are -created- by a capitalist system. It creates and reinforces a culture of materialism. For the better? Regardless of the answer, that was not your point - you said it makes people happier. And you haven't demonstrated this.

I disagree. Human nature cannot be changed. The creation of the DVD player did not ignite your desire - your desire laid latent. I'm sure you have wanted something that does not exist?

In any case, you assume that the creation of desire is bad. It is not; pleasure is superior to contempt.

[theapportioner]

I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units.

You're going to have to do better than that. Prove it. Show me a neuroscientific correlate to 'unlimited desire', that's one approach. Otherwise you are full of hot air.

I disagree. Human nature cannot be changed. The creation of the DVD player did not ignite your desire - your desire laid latent. I'm sure you have wanted something that does not exist?

In any case, you assume that the creation of desire is bad. It is not; pleasure is superior to contempt.

So, from my birth, I had a little inactive nugget in my brain that corresponded to my 'DVD pleasure' thoughts. It activated with the invention of the DVD player. Yes, that makes complete sense now!!!!

Heroin addicts desire heroin. Nuff said.

[theapportioner]

According to Lacan, desire is constituted as lack - one desires what one does not have. Creating more objects of desire would more likely make people less happy, non?

[Brandon]

If we've all agreed that pleasure is tied to instincts, and exists independent of an economic system...

...then why are we still insisting that people can't be happy until their economic system is "just so"?

People aren't interested in the products themselves. They're interested in what the products promise in instinctual terms. A guy buys a nice car to impress women so they'll fuck him. A woman buys a sexy outfit to either look good compared to other women or attract men. People buy DVD players not because they want a DVD player, but because they want to be better entertained.

I see no reason why people can't pursue their instinctual drives in a system where the economy is controlled.

[mburbank]

There is no such thing as a pleasure unit. You have no way of knowing if Warren Buffet feels any pleasure at all, let alone how much. You cannot measure the misery of the man who flipped your burger, either. Emotions are entirely subjective. They are not heat or light or money. That you can't see this distinction is testament to dleayed developement.

Nor can you say 'if he doesn't like it, why does he do it?' Peoples motivations are not torque or horsepower.

There are differences between hard science and soft, soft science and conjecture.

If you care to play this sort of game you'd do well to shut up and actually listen to what Appotioner is telling you, since he knows how to do it as opposed to gluing buzzwords and regurgitated book jacket copy together with wads of arrogance.

Case in point. "Tom, a monopoly only exists when people choose to go to the business." That might be true if it were a monopoly on gumballs. The closer to something the business comes to things people actually need, the less merit your statement has. People have all sorts of freedoms of choice. You can choose to freeze in the winter, choose to starve, choose to die. Maybe you think big Pharma isn't a monopoly. And maybe a sprightly chicken like you doesn't need medicine.

"Furthermore, I already pointed out that capitalism modifies pleasure rates by merit within the market system."

Great. Let me 'point out' to you that we can feed the hungry of the world on the meat of the monkeys flying out of your ass. Now we have both pointed out something and hopefully see the difference between pointing things out and substantiating them.

"I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units."

Let me give you one. There are no such things as pleasure units.

[The One and Only...]

You're going to have to do better than that. Prove it. Show me a neuroscientific correlate to 'unlimited desire', that's one approach. Otherwise you are full of hot air.

Consider this. Throughout all of human history, man has always desired for more than what he has.

Even if desire were not infinite, can you concieve of it ending anytime soon? And what, pray tell, if you are like me and believe that desires are latent in the mind from birth, sort of system will lead to the end of desire the quickest?

So, from my birth, I had a little inactive nugget in my brain that corresponded to my 'DVD pleasure' thoughts. It activated with the invention of the DVD player. Yes, that makes complete sense now!!!!

Think of it this way. Capitalism, as a system, can only correspond to already existing desires to make a profit. In order to find out if a good is desired, it uses quantitative analysis in the form of polls, recent trends, and sometimes even common sense. If the data shows a high possible profit, it creates the item.

The only thing you have left in your defense is that ideas create desire. If so, what, pray tell, is your solution? To end all ideas? Have fun with that. I don't think humanity would find it very enjoyable.

Futhermore, I again ask: why is the creation of desire a bad thing? I desire much, but I do not lose any pleasure because of it. Yet I know that if those desires were filled, I would be much happier.

You are so far into dialetical materialism that you have become blind to reality.

Brandon, I do not think that pleasure comes from the fulfillment of instincts alone. It has become obvious to me that you are a devotee of Nietzche before any other.

Max, there is such a thing as a pleasure unit, it is just difficult to quantify.

Point in case: I step on your toe. You lose pleasure because of this. Therefore, the utility of my stepping on your toe was negative. I give you a million dollars. You gain pleasure because of this. Therefore, the utility of a million dollars is positive.

So long as you can admit that pleasure varies among different circumstances - which, I assume, you all do - then units of pleasure can be assumed to exist. They just cannot be calculated at the current time. The subjectivity of pleasure is irrelevant: what is pleasureable to one is pleasureable to him; what is not, is not. The subject nature is, after all, my point.

Your analogy with the burger flipper is flawed; I already pointed out how capitalism modifies pleasure ratios. You have not yet truly refuted this.

Monopolies, in a market, can only sustain themselves as long as they provide services at reasonable prices - if not, they subject themselves to competition. In any case, I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that monopolies have a high probability of ever forming in laissez-faire, except in the most bizarre of cases.

You should know enough by now to see that even if competition were, somehow, knocked out the picture forever, monopolies would still make the most money at an optimal interaction between supply and demand. This is why monopolies do not endlessly jack-up costs.

The choice of death is still a choice. After all, the "freedom to starve" is a key line of rhetoric for libertarians in bashing the Welfare State.

[Brandon]

Brandon, I do not think that pleasure comes from the fulfillment of instincts alone. It has become obvious to me that you are a devotee of Nietzche before any other.
Desire is an instinct too, isn't it?

And what the hell is wrong with being a devotee of Nietzsche?

[The One and Only...]

Desire is an instinct too, isn't it?

Yes, but I think you have a very narrow view of what is an instinct. And I like to mess with your head.

What if I told you that reason is an instinct?

And what the hell is wrong with being a devotee of Nietzsche?

Nothing, but what else have you looked at? Don't forsake everything just to read more of the same arguments by different people.

[Brandon]

Nothing, but what else have you looked at? Don't forsake everything just to read more of the same arguments by different people.
I've read a great deal of philosophy in the last few years and my personal views changed quite frequently as I read more and more. Nietzsche, though, has made the biggest impact on me.

What if I told you that reason is an instinct?
Explain. I know that was an idea of Hume's, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

[The One and Only...]

Explain. I know that was an idea of Hume's, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

Actually, I did not know that this idea had been thought of before. That said, considering who Hume was, he probably had different reasoning for it than mine.

First, consider what is meant by instinct. We shall define it precisely as this: "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli."

Now, it becomes relevant here to remember my principle of induction - that when we are born, we do not know anything (although I don't disagree with the belief that certain things are inborn, I don't think that they constitute knowledge) and that all so-called "assumed" axioms are really the results of a vast inductive argument.

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.

I realize that I have opened up a can of worms that I need to deal with when I admit this - such as how can I possibly maintain that correct logic is objective, and that I have allowed a very large room for intuition as subconscious reasoning - but I will address this when it becomes more relevant and less tangent from the point.

[Brandon]

Explain. I know that was an idea of Hume's, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

Actually, I did not know that this idea had been thought of before. That said, considering who Hume was, he probably had different reasoning for it than mine.

First, consider what is meant by instinct. We shall define it precisely as this: "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli."

Now, it becomes relevant here to remember my principle of induction - that when we are born, we do not know anything (although I don't disagree with the belief that certain things are inborn, I don't think that they constitute knowledge) and that all so-called "assumed" axioms are really the results of a vast inductive argument.

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.

I realize that I have opened up a can of worms that I need to deal with when I admit this - such as how can I possibly maintain that correct logic is objective, and that I have allowed a very large room for intuition as subconscious reasoning - but I will address this when it becomes more relevant and less tangent from the point.
I agree, actually. Granted, we aren't born with perfect reasoning (the logic of children is crude and prone to fallacies), but it does seem to be a characteristic, natural ability of ours.

In the evolutionary scheme, it would make sense as well, considering exceptional intellectual ability was the primary factor in human survival and, later on, dominance.

EDIT: On second thought.. no, that's absolute garbage. We only learn to reason after either experiencing the world or being taught how to do it by others. If we were born with the instinct of reason, children wouldn't need to be taught mathematics.

[theapportioner]

Consider this. Throughout all of human history, man has always desired for more than what he has.

Even if desire were not infinite, can you concieve of it ending anytime soon? And what, pray tell, if you are like me and believe that desires are latent in the mind from birth, sort of system will lead to the end of desire the quickest?

Utterly ridiculous on all counts. First, you skirt my question. And once you have something, you no longer desire it. Desire is not additive in the way you have proposed. And you proposed that DESIRE FOR CERTAIN OBJECTS are innate. This idea is so goddamn laughable, it needs no more explication. Your concept of 'human nature' is totally, utterly confused. Short of physical modification of human brains, desire won't end - we will always desire what we LACK. It does not follow that creating more objects of desire (capitalism does this) leads to more happiness. On the contrary, capitalism works as people have new wants and needs. Neverending chain of desire production. For capitalism to grow, desire for new things has to be created. If everyone were content, capitalism would be dead.

Think of it this way. Capitalism, as a system, can only correspond to already existing desires to make a profit. In order to find out if a good is desired, it uses quantitative analysis in the form of polls, recent trends, and sometimes even common sense. If the data shows a high possible profit, it creates the item.

Bullshit. Total crap. First of all, the latter part of this quote doesn't follow from the former. And again, there is no 'preexisting desire' for a new product, say the newest fashion. We are introduced to it via advertisements and such. Advertisements implant the idea, the desire in one's head (one could use the word 'meme' here). These new products are desired because they fall into existing social conventions - a need to 'look cool' or 'be up with the latest fads', and so on. The ads tell us that this is the way to do it. Once again, your concept of 'human nature' is ridiculous (I don't even understand why you call it this). Desire for something is CREATED.

The only thing you have left in your defense is that ideas create desire. If so, what, pray tell, is your solution? To end all ideas? Have fun with that. I don't think humanity would find it very enjoyable.

Futhermore, I again ask: why is the creation of desire a bad thing? I desire much, but I do not lose any pleasure because of it. Yet I know that if those desires were filled, I would be much happier.

You are so far into dialetical materialism that you have become blind to reality.

Creation of desire itself isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism, however, is a neverending source of desire production. Though I do not deny that capitalism has its valuable points, always desiring cannot be good for human mental health. Capitalism thrives as long as peoples' desires are NEVER filled. NEVER.

[theapportioner]

And what the fuck does this have to do with the dialectic? I certainly do not subscribe to it, nor have I suggested that. Stop dropping terms just to impress the readers. It's childish.

[Brandon]

See, I tend to believe that it's the nature of conscious lifeforms in general to constantly desire more and more--to feel incomplete. An existentialist like Sartre would claim that consciousness itself implies incompleteness, since something wholly complete would not need to think, act, or make choices.

The Buddhists recognized the role of desire in human nature very early. The entire philosophy is based upon the idea of learning to expect and want progressively less until you care nothing for anything worldly. If you ask me, though, any attempts to transcend or eliminate desire are unlikely to succeed.

Besides: if you don't believe in reincarnation, why waste the opportunity to partake of this lovely world of ours?

I think there is an "acceptance paradox" when it comes to desire. If you accept that you're never going to feel fully complete, regardless of what you do, it can give you some measure of peace.

So while capitalism certainly feeds off of desire, I don't think it's wholly responsible for creating it.

[theapportioner]

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.


Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').

[Brandon]

Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').
Good point.

[mburbank]

I think someone should slam OAO's 'pleasure unit' in a car door.

[The One and Only...]

Utterly ridiculous on all counts. First, you skirt my question. And once you have something, you no longer desire it. Desire is not additive in the way you have proposed. And you proposed that DESIRE FOR CERTAIN OBJECTS are innate. This idea is so goddamn laughable, it needs no more explication. Your concept of 'human nature' is totally, utterly confused. Short of physical modification of human brains, desire won't end - we will always desire what we LACK. It does not follow that creating more objects of desire (capitalism does this) leads to more happiness. On the contrary, capitalism works as people have new wants and needs. Neverending chain of desire production. For capitalism to grow, desire for new things has to be created. If everyone were content, capitalism would be dead.

I used empirical fact to support my argument. At least one member in society has always seeked for more, or else no change would ever occur.

I did not say that desire is additive, I said that our desires can not be fulfilled. Humanity will always desire what it lacks. Capitalism just develops what we desire. Again, you have not proven that desire is inherently bad - in fact, I would refuse to live in a world without desire.

It is far from "rediculous" to assume that certain objects are desired innately. You provide nothing to back up such a statement. After all, is not food an object which is innately desired?

The reasons objects are desired is because of what objects can do. Food can stop hunger, and glasses can correct vision impairment. Both of these ends - the end of hunger and vision impairment - are desired, and objects can supply them. The form of the object is all but irrelevant; suffice to say they want the most efficient form for the object as possible.

I find the neverending chain a beautiful creation that allows us to continually progress. How could you ever want to end it?

Bullshit. Total crap. First of all, the latter part of this quote doesn't follow from the former. And again, there is no 'preexisting desire' for a new product, say the newest fashion. We are introduced to it via advertisements and such. Advertisements implant the idea, the desire in one's head (one could use the word 'meme' here). These new products are desired because they fall into existing social conventions - a need to 'look cool' or 'be up with the latest fads', and so on. The ads tell us that this is the way to do it. Once again, your concept of 'human nature' is ridiculous (I don't even understand why you call it this). Desire for something is CREATED.

Bullshit. Total crap. The need to 'look cool' is still a desire that was not created and was inherent. Again, the form of the object is irrelevant - it still remains that the object was desired, though perhaps not comprehended.

According to your theory, there would be no way to quantify desire. Everything would be desired equally. But clearly this is not the case, because people desire things in different intensities and amounts. Sometimes, they do not desire things AT ALL. Clearly, certain objects can fulfill desires better than others, which makes them more profitable.

Futhermore, all that I said about the actions companies take is true - people within corporations do not just spontaneously come up with ideas, they recieve customer feedback and assign human resources appropriately.

You also have not provided anything through reason or fact to support your argument.

Creation of desire itself isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism, however, is a neverending source of desire production. Though I do not deny that capitalism has its valuable points, always desiring cannot be good for human mental health. Capitalism thrives as long as peoples' desires are NEVER filled. NEVER.

So, you admit that ideas create desires? While I disagree with that, let us assume that is correct. Ideas are not going to end, so desire will not either. In that light, capitalism seeks to make everyone as happy as possible by keeping up the production of desire.

Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').

Define reasoning, and then I'll dig in. We may be functioning under different operators. After all, doesn't that completely eliminate spatial reasoning?

[mburbank]

Shut your pleasure unit

[theapportioner]

I used empirical fact to support my argument. At least one member in society has always seeked for more, or else no change would ever occur.

You wanted capitalism to -solve- the problem of desire, to reduce it in an efficient manner. You wanted people to be -happier-. Now you have 180'ed on your original points.

I did not say that desire is additive, I said that our desires can not be fulfilled. Humanity will always desire what it lacks. Capitalism just develops what we desire. Again, you have not proven that desire is inherently bad - in fact, I would refuse to live in a world without desire.

Dude. Stop shooting from the hip and -read- what I have to say. I already said that creation of isn't necessarily bad. Where are we now, 15 posts back in time???? Besides now you are conceding some of my points without due credit. Gimme what is my due, bitch.

It is far from "rediculous" to assume that certain objects are desired innately. You provide nothing to back up such a statement. After all, is not food an object which is innately desired?

Hunting for food and picking berries started before capitalism did. It is "rediculous" to say that we innately desire reality TV, or mobile phones with cameras, or Prada shoes, or titanium golf clubs, or 100 foot yachts. You pick the least relevant examples in your defense of capitalism's relation to 'innate desire'. There is no gene in my DNA that corresponds to "Prada shoe desire".

I find the neverending chain a beautiful creation that allows us to continually progress. How could you ever want to end it?

Yes, we have reached a summit with "Joe Millionaire". Thank you, Adam Smith.

Bullshit. Total crap. The need to 'look cool' is still a desire that was not created and was inherent. Again, the form of the object is irrelevant - it still remains that the object was desired, though perhaps not comprehended.

You can stick your pleasure unit in your inherent crap. OF COURSE the form is relevant; reality TV is a new "form", as is the automobile. These have only been recently desired (and sometimes, fetishized). Capitalism exploits and manipulates psychological drives by creating new objects and "forms" that are to be desired. But humans create objects of desire independently of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm arguing here not to totally dump capitalism, but to challenge your original point. Capitalism will only make people desire more and more. The agents of capitalism don't want you to desire less. Can desiring more be bad? Of course. Look at cigarette addiction. Or worse, heroin addiction. Can it be good? of course. Can it be ambiguous? Of course. Capitalism isn't interested in creating "good" desire over "bad" desire - capitalism is only interested in creating desire, period. And bad desire does not lead to happiness. *stomps foot down*

And to avoid confusion, good and bad here are in the moral or value sense of the terms. I am not talking about human mental health - as for that, one example that's close to home is the college admissions process. My brother just sent in his applications. My parents, in their desire for him to get into a good school, had went through a lot emotionally, let's just leave it at that. So, on instance where excessive desire does not lead to good mental health. Capitalism doesn't care either way.

And as an aside, 'looking cool' can't possibly be innate because the meaning of the term depends on the social context of its use. One desires to 'look cool' depending on one's social circumstance. I don't think a nun goes out of her way to 'look cool'. Or is 'looking cool' innate for some people and not for others? Or take heroin. I don't desire it. If I never did it, I won't desire it for the rest of my life. But if I shot up every day you bet I'd desire it. It may be said that we have a propensity for heroin addiction. But is that the same as saying my desire for heroin was innate? Absolutely not. Do you even know what you are talking about??? You are soooo far out of your league here.

Face it, your concept of human nature is trash.

According to your theory, there would be no way to quantify desire. Everything would be desired equally. But clearly this is not the case, because people desire things in different intensities and amounts. Sometimes, they do not desire things AT ALL. Clearly, certain objects can fulfill desires better than others, which makes them more profitable.

OF COURSE desire CAN'T be quantified!! It has no absolute values! It only makes sense to talk about it in relative terms (more than, less than). It only makes sense to talk about 'amount of desire' in a relation of comparison for a single person. You can't even generalize it to the population because the flows of desire are so subjective, complex, and dynamic. Even the assigning of say, degrees of depression from 1-10 is quite methodologically flawed, and there are a number of articles out there that show how so. And depression is a far simpler problem as there are a number of effects of depression that are conserved in depressed people. And if you tried to quantify desire, how would you know you had desire quantified? An all-too common error of social scientists and economists is the synecdochic fallacy. And finally, would this quantification be in any way useful in determining the amount of desire of a single person?

I only brought up 'pleasure units' to parodize your idea.

Futhermore, all that I said about the actions companies take is true - people within corporations do not just spontaneously come up with ideas, they recieve customer feedback and assign human resources appropriately.

The focus group was an invention of Robert Merton's, maybe 30 or so years ago. Are we to believe that ONLY NOW is capitalism working the way it should be??

You also have not provided anything through reason or fact to support your argument.

Wrong. I think you are just afraid to think about it.

Define reasoning, and then I'll dig in. We may be functioning under different operators. After all, doesn't that completely eliminate spatial reasoning?

I'll get to this more later. But reasoning entails understanding, and understanding entails assigning meaning. This isn't possible without language. And even a parrot that imitates its owners speech patterns cannot be said to 'understand'. As for spatial 'reasoning' (confused use of the word in this context), well, fish seem to know where to swim. Nothing special or uniquely human about it. Higher forms of spatial intelligence also depend on language.

[The One and Only...]

You wanted capitalism to -solve- the problem of desire, to reduce it in an efficient manner. You wanted people to be -happier-. Now you have 180'ed on your original points.

I did not want capitalism to solve the "problem" of desire. I wanted it to make people happier. The two are not the same.

Hunting for food and picking berries started before capitalism did. It is "rediculous" to say that we innately desire reality TV, or mobile phones with cameras, or Prada shoes, or titanium golf clubs, or 100 foot yachts. You pick the least relevant examples in your defense of capitalism's relation to 'innate desire'. There is no gene in my DNA that corresponds to "Prada shoe desire".

Capitalism is one of the oldest systems on earth. It just wasn't called capitalism.

The form is irrelevant, it is what the object does. You aren't listening to me.

Yes, we have reached a summit with "Joe Millionaire". Thank you, Adam Smith.

You speak of that as if it were inherently bad.

You can stick your pleasure unit in your inherent crap. OF COURSE the form is relevant; reality TV is a new "form", as is the automobile. These have only been recently desired (and sometimes, fetishized). Capitalism exploits and manipulates psychological drives by creating new objects and "forms" that are to be desired. But humans create objects of desire independently of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm arguing here not to totally dump capitalism, but to challenge your original point. Capitalism will only make people desire more and more. The agents of capitalism don't want you to desire less. Can desiring more be bad? Of course. Look at cigarette addiction. Or worse, heroin addiction. Can it be good? of course. Can it be ambiguous? Of course. Capitalism isn't interested in creating "good" desire over "bad" desire - capitalism is only interested in creating desire, period. And bad desire does not lead to happiness. *stomps foot down*

All you are doing is spouting crap about capitalism and ignoring how the system works.

Cigarette and heroin addiction are not inherently bad.

Desire for certain ends are inherent because of the instinctual drive. The mind works on the axiom that in order for these ends to be met, something must fulfill them, and that those things are axioms. The form of the object is not desired, but the object is.

And to avoid confusion, good and bad here are in the moral or value sense of the terms. I am not talking about human mental health - as for that, one example that's close to home is the college admissions process. My brother just sent in his applications. My parents, in their desire for him to get into a good school, had went through a lot emotionally, let's just leave it at that. So, on instance where excessive desire does not lead to good mental health. Capitalism doesn't care either way.

There is no morality, and pain and suffering are integral, necessary parts of life. Without pain, there can be no pleasure. But this is aside from the point. Did you not forget that *SHOCK* capitalism modifies pleasure ratios in inegalitarian manners?

The point of this thread was to show that capitalism is more egalitarian in pleasure distribution than economic equality, not to say that it is absolutely perfect.

And as an aside, 'looking cool' can't possibly be innate because the meaning of the term depends on the social context of its use. One desires to 'look cool' depending on one's social circumstance. I don't think a nun goes out of her way to 'look cool'. Or is 'looking cool' innate for some people and not for others? Or take heroin. I don't desire it. If I never did it, I won't desire it for the rest of my life. But if I shot up every day you bet I'd desire it. It may be said that we have a propensity for heroin addiction. But is that the same as saying my desire for heroin was innate? Absolutely not. Do you even know what you are talking about??? You are soooo far out of your league here.

Innate desires differ because of genetical variance.

Face it, your concept of human nature is trash.

Your concept is even worse.

OF COURSE desire CAN'T be quantified!! It has no absolute values! It only makes sense to talk about it in relative terms (more than, less than). It only makes sense to talk about 'amount of desire' in a relation of comparison for a single person. You can't even generalize it to the population because the flows of desire are so subjective, complex, and dynamic. Even the assigning of say, degrees of depression from 1-10 is quite methodologically flawed, and there are a number of articles out there that show how so. And depression is a far simpler problem as there are a number of effects of depression that are conserved in depressed people. And if you tried to quantify desire, how would you know you had desire quantified? An all-too common error of social scientists and economists is the synecdochic fallacy. And finally, would this quantification be in any way useful in determining the amount of desire of a single person?

I only brought up 'pleasure units' to parodize your idea.

Desire, pleasure - these are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain. I am a materialist. EVERYTHING can be quantified, it is just that some things are too complex and have too many variables to accurately do so.

Hence, I believe that the future is already written out for us and cannot be changed, because I am a determinist (although I believe in free will too).

The focus group was an invention of Robert Merton's, maybe 30 or so years ago. Are we to believe that ONLY NOW is capitalism working the way it should be??

The price system is a method of trial-and-error that serves the same function as quantitative analysis in determining what to produce, although the latter certainly helps.

Wrong. I think you are just afraid to think about it.

Yeah, right. I don't have an open mind.

I'll get to this more later. But reasoning entails understanding, and understanding entails assigning meaning. This isn't possible without language. And even a parrot that imitates its owners speech patterns cannot be said to 'understand'. As for spatial 'reasoning' (confused use of the word in this context), well, fish seem to know where to swim. Nothing special or uniquely human about it. Higher forms of spatial intelligence also depend on language.

Understanding does not require a linguistic classification. I can logically determine that if I don't want a book to wet in the rain, I put it in my backpack without having to talk to myself.

[Brandon]

You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

You claim to be a materialist, yet you also claim to be a radically doubting rationalist.

"EMPIRICISM IS MORONIC BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS...
...BUT I HAVE PEDANTIC OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATERIAL WORLD ANYWAY."

Desire, pleasure - these are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain. I am a materialist. EVERYTHING can be quantified, it is just that some things are too complex and have too many variables to accurately do so.
All of a sudden you're on the side of science, are you? Well now, your challenge is to prove what causes what: does consciousness cause the chemical reactions, or do the chemical reactions cause states of consciousness?

Hence, I believe that the future is already written out for us and cannot be changed, because I am a determinist (although I believe in free will too).
If the future is written out for us, we have no free will, Mr. Logic. Compatabalism doesn't mean accepting the extreme, contradictory stances of determinist and free will camps--it means synthesizing them.

[theapportioner]

Ok. You are sounding weaker and weaker with every post - on the verge of nonsense. I'm going to move on to other things.

Two comments though:

Innate desires differ because of genetical variance.

If this were true, you would find inheritance patterns in families. Now, does this make any sense whatsoever in the context of the nun who does not desire to look cool??? Or the child of an irresponsible alcoholic father, who takes on a fatherlike role in the household, and becomes 'good person' whose desires are not the same as the fathers? Or a firstborn son who desires to be a president, and a 2nd son who would rather rebel?? Your idea of genetic determinism is hopelessly out of date.

I can logically determine that if I don't want a book to wet in the rain, I put it in my backpack without having to talk to myself.

A bird gets out of the way of torrential rain, too. Just as a bird isn't 'logically determining' anything, you too are 'logically determining' nothing. Learned experience, habit, desire, instinct etc. do not equal reason. That you put your book in your backpack is an arational action, almost a reflex like scratching an itch or biting ones' nails when nervous. Sure you can 'rationalize' these too but only by thinking about it, using language to understand why. Unless again, you want to subsume all of this into reason - but then it becomes a semantic issue and the word 'reason' has many relevant meanings that would be rendered diluted by this act.

[The One and Only...]

You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Yes.

You claim to be a materialist, yet you also claim to be a radically doubting rationalist.

Just because reality is material does not mean that we know what those material things are.

Also remember that I am arguing on the point of PRACTICALITY here, accepting several of the established "axioms".

"EMPIRICISM IS MORONIC BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS...
...BUT I HAVE PEDANTIC OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATERIAL WORLD ANYWAY."

In pure theory, I deny that there must be a reality to begin with. But for the purposes of this argument, I have to assume certain things.

All of a sudden you're on the side of science, are you? Well now, your challenge is to prove what causes what: does consciousness cause the chemical reactions, or do the chemical reactions cause states of consciousness?

Chemical reactions cause consciousness. To think otherwise would invoke the problems of mind-matter dualism.

Remember, I am operating on pseudo-practical terms now.

If the future is written out for us, we have no free will, Mr. Logic. Compatabalism doesn't mean accepting the extreme, contradictory stances of determinist and free will camps--it means synthesizing them.

You have a narrow view of compatabalism.

If this were true, you would find inheritance patterns in families. Now, does this make any sense whatsoever in the context of the nun who does not desire to look cool??? Or the child of an irresponsible alcoholic father, who takes on a fatherlike role in the household, and becomes 'good person' whose desires are not the same as the fathers? Or a firstborn son who desires to be a president, and a 2nd son who would rather rebel?? Your idea of genetic determinism is hopelessly out of date.

Sure it does. The science of genetics has not been perfectly figured out yet, and there are always the factors of mutation. Not every gene can be written in a four-box Punnett square.

Futhermore, you forget that the desires themselves are not so important here; rather, what fulfills them is.

A bird gets out of the way of torrential rain, too. Just as a bird isn't 'logically determining' anything, you too are 'logically determining' nothing. Learned experience, habit, desire, instinct etc. do not equal reason. That you put your book in your backpack is an arational action, almost a reflex like scratching an itch or biting ones' nails when nervous. Sure you can 'rationalize' these too but only by thinking about it, using language to understand why. Unless again, you want to subsume all of this into reason - but then it becomes a semantic issue and the word 'reason' has many relevant meanings that would be rendered diluted by this act.

But reason is defined as thought, and I did, in fact, have to think about putting my book into my backpack. So my point remains.

[theapportioner]

The science of genetics has not been perfectly figured out yet

Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.

But reason is defined as thought,

Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.

[The One and Only...]

Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.

Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.

Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.

Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.

[Brandon]

Chemical reactions cause consciousness. To think otherwise would invoke the problems of mind-matter dualism.
You have a narrow view of compatabalism.
Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.

If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will. You also contradict yourself in saying:

But reason is defined as thought, and I did, in fact, have to think about putting my book into my backpack. So my point remains.
According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.

[The One and Only...]

Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.

If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will.

That is only because of the way in which you define free will. (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)

According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.

How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.

[sspadowsky]

I think what we need to do here is take a serious look at the egalitarian ruminations that evade our collective gestalt. Think about it: As Munchausen once said, "Wherever there be platitudes, fatalistic entropy is sure to follow." While my college-level philosophy book embraces such atavistic haberdashery, I am not certain I am inclined to proselytize. What are your thoughts?

[Brandon]

That is only because of the way in which you define free will.
The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.

How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.
"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.

[theapportioner]

Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.

Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.

What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.

Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.

So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday.

[Brandon]

Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.
I don't even think OAO knows what the hell ideas he's embracing anymore. He seems to just adopt whatever views are contradictory to the majority of the thread for the sheer pleasure of being a little prick.

I'm actually nostalgic for Vinth as our designated troll.

Anyway, since you brought up Cartesian duality, what's your take on Sartre's conception of consciousness (being-for-itself)? I'm not quite sold either way. I mean, it seems like he's moved away from Descartes' "ghost in the machine," since his idea of consciousness is more similar to Hume's (a mere transitory filter), but some critics still accuse it of being mysticism.

[theapportioner]

Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.

[Brandon]

Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.
According to Sartre, "nothingness" is consciousness (the being-for-itself). It exists only as a negation of being, contingent on yet able to control being-in-itself, which is a pretty unusual theory. It is what creates "free will" and is the director of all emotions. What sets him apart from Descartes is his rejection of the idea that this consciousness is the "self" or has an essence of its own. The self exists to Sartre, but outside of us, as the synthesis of all our previous actions and psychic states. A good description might be that one's "self" and "reputation" are the same in Sartre's world. Obviously there's no real way to "prove" this is the case--it just seems to have been the result of reflection.

What keeps me unwilling to totally reject Sartre's ideas is the fact that, while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states.

[theapportioner]

Ahhh, thanks. That clarified a lot of things for me. It is strange that he uses the term 'being-for-itself' when it is meant to be a negation of being, tho'.

Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?

[theapportioner]

"while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states."

Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.

[Brandon]

Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?
It seems to be a very radical sort of free will. I know that he rejects any sort of "human nature," believes that our choices shape what we are, and seems to think that our biological wants and needs are, for the most part, under the control of consciousness. I know Nietzsche accepted a more compatibilist view of determinism and free will, thinking that while we can make choices, the idea that there aren't subtle internal or external forces influencing us is absurd. Sartre, on the other hand, doesn't seem to make any concessions to determinism, but it's been awhile since I've read Being and Nothingness, so I'd have to double-check.

The basic drive of being-for-itself, he says, is to become "God"--a complete entity lacking nothing yet possessing cognition and subjectivity at the same time. Since consciousness itself is a lack, says Sartre, such a quest is futile. Attitudes towards others mirror this desire for "completeness." His concept of sexual desire, for example, places less emphasis on biology than it does on his belief that being-for-itself attempts to "possess" and merge with another subjective lifeform.

Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.
True.

EDIT: Well, the Nietzsche position on the free will debate seems pretty clear on second thought:

The error of free will. Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free will": we know only too well what it really is--the foulest of all theologians' artifices aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is, dependent upon them. Here I simply supply the psychology of all "making responsible."

[The One and Only...]

The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.

That is not the only definition.

"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.

Consciousness is merely awareness. I can still be consciously reasoning, even though that is only occuring because of my brain.

What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.

I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.

So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday

I'm not making up definitions. Rationalists have used that one for quite some time. Why do you think I quoted it?

[theapportioner]

I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.

If you look more closely at the twin studies, you'll see that some traits are more heritable than other traits and tastes. For instance there is quite a range for various properties of intelligence. Or humor. Plus, keep in mind that many of these separated twins are raised in quite similar environments - most likely middle class, English speaking, etc. Take a newborn orphan twin from war-torn Congo and raise him in the US, leaving his brother behind - then come talk to me. Or take a twin and give him NO FAMILY WHATSOEVER and see if his personality develops in the same way. Nor are teratogenic effects ruled out - the twins shared the same womb. Maybe one would call this 'nature' but it is not genetic.

All it proves is that genes have some hand in shaping the totality of human personality. This is obvious, come on. It does NOT prove genetic determinism - otherwise you'd have no variances across all particular characteristics of personality. You say human nature does not change - you would HAVE to hold this radical genetic deterministic position.

Genes and environment operate in a complex dynamic - there is more evidence now that a large combination of genes operate to produce even one aspect of personality. Also, thresholds are important - a certain threshold of environmental stimuli is necessary to cause the over- or underexpression of certain genes, such as perhaps in the case of schizophrenia. Or are we to say that in recent years Americans are getting fatter, and their IQs on the whole are increasing, solely because of genetic drift or selection??? Others are getting with the program; you should too.

[The One and Only...]

Perhaps I should clarify. Human desires do not change, because desire is a evolutionary tool that makes us fulfill instinctual goals. Human nature, on the other hand, can be changed in so far that different people in different situations can draw different conclusions.

I presume that I am using your definition of human nature here. In actuality, I would say that human nature stays the same: the conclusions drawn are merely different because of adaptive reasoning.

[Brandon]

That is not the only definition [of free will].
YES, YES IT IS! If your choice is caused it is, by definition not free! If you add deterministic elements to the concept of free will, it isn't "free will" anymore, it's compatibilism. Oh, and did I mention that I consider compatibilism garbage?

According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.
This is nothing more than a desperate rationalization on the part of Hume. That hypothetical "could have" is nothing more than a phantom, a non-issue. The decision was caused. End of story. This psuedo-doctrine of compatibilism probably arose out of the terrifying realization among thinkers like Hobbes and Hume that determinism would completely undermine the traditional conception of justice and ethics. They made a last-ditch attempt to salvage man's responsibility for his actions.

But I can see why you're unwilling to dispose of free will, Mr. Laissez-Faire. If man isn't totally free, the primary justification for libertarianism is destroyed. Wouldn't that be the most beautiful irony? Your pompous alleigance to chemical and genetic determinism backfiring in your fat, middle-aged face.

[Ant10708]

I don't think he is even 20.

[The One and Only...]

That's probably because I'm not.

You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.

Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.

Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.

I have a different base for libertarianism.

[Brandon]

You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.

Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.

Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.
I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.

I have a different base for libertarianism.
Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.

[The One and Only...]

I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.

You have a different view of freedom. I view freedom as the liberty to, not the liberty from.

For example, I can be free to see a doctor, but I cannot be free from having to worry about healthcare expenses.

Sometimes they overlap, but this is an irrelevant point.

Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.

Libertarianism is simply the most practical of political theories.

[mburbank]

If philosiphy were a newfangled ride on mower, OAO would have mulched himself by now.

If philosiphical terms were a box of mac and cheese, OAO would be putting the cheese powder in his coffee and bliding himself with the uncooked noodles in the vein hope they might turn out to be contact lenses.

If logical progression was a bionical, OAO would have chunky plastic bits in his urethra.

[Zhukov]

Libertarianism is a good idea on paper, but it doesn't work in real life.

[The One and Only...]

You do realize that is a classic argument made against every political ideology except conservatism, right?

[Zhukov]

Yes.



But this time it is true.