12/12/2009 10:02:21 PM EST

Human Nature?

posted by Thothlike

I’ve heard a lot of people claiming that this or that is human nature (it seems that the opinions are as many as there are people in the world)… so I thought I’ll invite everybody to state their opinions and start an honest and open discussion on this very subject to see if we can’t solve this little mystery…

I’ll start…

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
So what is human nature?

Well I believe that human nature can be boiled down to 2 basic goals… that being self preservation (the survival and prospering of oneself) and preservation of the species (the survival and prospering of the human race… whether it be your family or your city or your state or your country or the entire race)…

Those 2 goals are expressed in our two most basic instincts (i.e. the survival instinct and our sexuality) but the roads towards those 2 goals take many forms…

These 2 goals are why some people believe that taxes are bad (it infringes on me and my family’s prospering by taking my hard earned money and letting me have less to feed and house and clothe myself and my family… and it hurts free enterprise which infringes on the country’s ability to prosper)… and why some people believe that taxes are good (it furthers the prospering of my country by helping the government afford projects for the common good and it doesn’t infringe on me and my family’s prospering because I can afford it and still feed and house and clothe myself and my family)…

They are why some people believe that public healthcare is bad (it infringes on me and my family’s and my countrymen’s survival by offering a worse product by taking away the competitive incentive you get from free multitude of choices under private healthcare thereby shortening me and everybody else’s life expectancy and general health)… and why some people believe that public healthcare is good (it furthers the survival of me and my family and my countrymen by offering a better product by creating a larger risk pool and not being profit driven and denying no one thereby lengthening me and everybody else’s life expectancy and general health)…

They are why (and I could go on for hours)…

But if you listen closely to the arguments in every belief we have and choice we make (political and religious and moral/ethical and… etc.) as humans they are all related to what we believe it will mean for the survival and prospering of both our self and our community (small or large)…

Now some of those beliefs are factually wrong (a certain tax level can’t be both infringing and furthering the prospering of you and your community… and public healthcare can’t be both infringing and furthering the survival of you and you community… all at the same time) but that’s not the point… the point is that even if what someone believe is wrong he/she still believes what he/she does (right or wrong) because of the believed infringement or furthering of those 2 goals…

So what does that say about human nature… well it say that every belief or choice humans have ever believed or made is human nature… there are only 4 ways to go against human nature… 2 are necessary and two are directly in opposition to human nature…

The 2 that are necessary are when the 2 goals become mutually exclusive and you have to choose between one and the other (i.e. between selfishness and altruism… between saving or the prospering of yourself and saving or the prospering of others) thereby going against one of your goals to further the other…

And the 2 that are directly in opposition to human nature is when you choose against one of your goals without the benefit of furthering the other (i.e. suicide and celibacy)…

So to summarize… human nature is to further the survival and prospering of oneself and everybody around you and when they conflict choose one or the other… and everything else are just different roads (right or wrong) to further those goals… and the only truly unnatural actions one can take are suicide and celibacy…

Now come with your belief in what human nature is and let's have a discussion…

Love Thothlike

< TYT Wins! | Bad conservitive web comic reviews. >
 Display:
Human Nature? | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
no thanks (none / 0)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 12/12/2009 10:16:39 PM EST

And there is no map (none / 0)
There is definitely, definitely, definitely no logic to human behaviour.

by OneHitKill on 12/13/2009 03:04:49 AM EST

Yes, there is. (none / 0)
Logic is one of the influences on our motivations for our behavior, even if logic is not always determinitive.  In addition, at the other end of our behavior, logic can be used to understand it.

Logic plays a big part in human behavior, both in motivating it and in accurately observing it.  But I'll concede that the decisions that we make to behave in certain ways are not always logical.  I'll even concede that logic may play a smaller role in motivating behavior than emotion does.  But I think that both are always there, combining to form our motivations.

Other factors that contribute to our motivations are intelligence, learning, biology, and the environment.  But I suspect that they all get filtered through logic and emotion.

To say that logic plays no part in human behavior would be to deny that we can understand a lot about ourselves.  But we can.  We can know what things are true and what things are false -- not always, but often.  Besides, we are not slaves to our emotions.  We can change how we feel about things, and that requires the use of logic.

Oh, and one other thing:  we often crave logic.

Anyway, thanks for linking the clip.  Good stuff.  I've always like Bjork.

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 04:03:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Björk is so cute!!! (none / 0)
I really love this interview from a German TV-show. The first seconds are German, but the actual interview is in English and Björk is speaking in her extremly cute Icelandic accent. I prefer this accent to the British accent she is capable of.

Listen to it to it and fall in love!

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 12/13/2009 07:28:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
logic does not motivate (none / 0)

Logic may calculate, order, and categorize but our base motivations are, fundamentally, entirely a-logical. 

 example:

If I feel hunger while in a grocery store I don't immediately grab food off a shelf and scoff it right there.  Instead, I take it to the register, buy it, and eat it outside.  Though logic informed me that had I eaten it right then and there in the store I'd have fulfilled my impulse to eat but I would have been arrested.  In the example I weighed my two relevant motivations: to not get arrested + to eat.  Logic then informed me how to attain both yet, had logic not been there, I would still have had my motivations to both eat and not get arrested.  Conversely, had I not had any basic motivations but only logic then I'd have made no action.

 

Conclusion: Motivations come first, then logic, then (in most cases) action.  Without logic, we would simply be being of impulse.  Without motivation, we would be forever inactive.

by Tashi Freeman on 12/13/2009 12:45:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
Why don't you "grab food off a shelf and scoff it right there"?

Because you would get in trouble if you did.

That is a logical decision.  Sure, you can say that fear plays a part in that decision, but only  a part.  Fear is just the motivator for the use of logic.  Logic motivates the resultant behavior.

Logic helps you avoid getting into trouble.  No?

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 01:33:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (none / 0)
I should have added, that we're talking about human behavior.  Fear (emotion) may motivate the use of logic, but in my example, logic determines the behavior.  Both can be said to motivate the behavior.  Neither of them works alone to motivate the behavior in my example.

Oh, and there's another aspect, too: I'm hungry.  How can I solve that problem?  By eating.

That's simple logic.

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 01:36:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
quick and dirty (none / 0)
Occam's razor, baby....Occam's razor.

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 06:10:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You'd think so, wouldn't you. (none / 1)
But this is actually a complicated problem.

Consider this:

I have a discomfort.  My discomfort is caused by low blood sugar or a signal from some hormone, but I don't have enough knowledge to understand that.    All I do know is that I have learned to associate this particular discomfort with hunger.  I feel hungry, I don't like this feeling, and I want to do something about it.

I've learned that by consuming various substances I can alleviate this feeling.  Some substances taste good and work great at making me feel better.  Other substances might kill me, so I have to be careful what I consume.  It might be safest if I rely on what my parents taught me and watch what happens to others when they eat things that my parents never talked about.

But how can I obtain food?  If I go over to that big guy and take his, he might kill me.  I could ask him, though, and maybe that would work.  Or, I could check if I have any food in my kitchen.  Or, I could go to the store and buy some food.

On the other hand, I'm bigger than that other guy over there and I hate his guts.  I doubt that anything will happen to me if I take his food.  But if I do take his food then he'll be hungry, and I don't really want to make anyone else feel as uncomfortable as I do.  I'll feel better about myself if I leave him alone.

Hunger, fear, experience, and logic all combine to determine our ultimate behavior.  I think that ideology is merely a result of all of those things, and we use it to make shortcuts through the decision making process.

Imagine the process you would go through if you lost a significant portion of both your long-term and short-term memory.  You'd have to continually draw on what experiences you can recall and experiment to find out which ones work to solve the problem.

The simple finding (at least it is to me, anyway) is that we are both emotional and logical beings.

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 06:48:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
I was more being snarky than anything else. I absolutely agree that we are both emotional and logical. It is the most obvious thing in the world that we are not successfully logical by nature. Nature leans toward parsimony....I'm not sure humans do (it doesn't appear so at first glance, anyway).
I think it's interesting to ponder the ontology/epistemology of ideology (as a concept, not a system), and it's not something I have spent much time thinking about.
This is what you said that struck me:
"Hunger, fear, experience, and logic all combine to determine our ultimate behavior.  I think that ideology is merely a result of all of those things, and we use it to make shortcuts through the decision making process."
That makes sense. I'm pretty sure I agree. So, that means that ideology is irrelevant to our choices? Perhaps that might be true. I'm certainly not always consistent. I'm having a hard time seeing it as that cut and dry. It feels like a reciprocal relationship, but that might just be me not hitting the correct logical root (hehe). Once one "commits" to an ideology, that seems to affect their choices moving forward, no? Couldn't it be both a cause and effect? Ideologies are certainly not static, but it does seem to me that they, in so far as they are ideologies, do have some causal influence. Perhaps you are just moving back a step, but I'm not sure I'm there.

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 07:39:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know. You're a horrible snark. (none / 0)
But we'll put that aside for now. :)

I think we're getting close to the actual role that ideology plays.

We learn things that help us avoid going through what might be a painful decision-making process.  (What's that orange light over there?  Ow!  It's hot!  I think I'd better be careful about orange lights from now on.)  Ideology is just a set of ideas, hopefully with some coherence and basis in reality, that allows us to avoid the tedious trials and errors of decision-making.  If I can take a situation and apply it to my ideology then I can make decisions much more quickly than I otherwise might.  Rather than recall that an orange light caused me pain because it's hot and damaged my skin, I can note that an orange light belongs to a class of things that I've previously decided to avoid.

It should be noted that, if I'm smart, I will note the results of the decisions that I make based upon my ideology and adjust my ideology as necessary so as to make it more likely that my future decisions will have a favorable outcome.

What I'm not sure about is where the fundamental assumptions underlying my ideology come from.  Do I have experiences and then go shopping for an ideology to which I can apply them, only discovering the underlying principles of that ideology later?  Or do I form those assumptions for myself?

For instance, when did I decide that it was correct that I will be happier and more secure if my neighbors are happy and secure, too?  Was that merely a logical decision on my part?  Or did I learn that idea from somewhere else and start to build an ideology around it?  Or did I merely stumble upon that idea and discover that it fit well into the ideology that I had already begun forming?

Regardless, I'm pretty certain that ideology is merely a tool we use to facilitate making decisions.  We aren't born with an ideology as we are with the capacity for both logic and emotion.

Of course, we might have a disposition toward or away from a certain attitude, such as generosity or self-centeredness, but I don't think we can equate such a disposition with ideology.

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 08:08:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Conflating motivation with method (none / 0)

I want to eat.  My motivation to eat comes from a desire not to be hungry.  There is a basic logical step there (that eating reduces hunger).

 

Premise:

- hunger motivates one to not be hungry

-- we then reason that if we eat we will no longer be hungry

 

Hunger is the motivation, not logic.  Logic is simply the guideline on what action to pursue based upon the premise of the initial motivation.  Logic helps guide action, yes, but logic itself is not a motivation.  Logic is simply a tool for assessing how to fulfill out motivations.

 

"Fear is just the motivator for the use of logic." - No.  Fear is the motivator, period.  Motivator+reasoning = action.

"Logic motivates the resultant behavior." - No.  If I'm hungry then I have a motivation not to be hungry anymore.  I then reason that to fulfill my desire I must eat.  Without logic, I would still be motivated to not be hungry.  Without hunger, I would make no action because I have no premises.

by Tashi Freeman on 12/13/2009 08:06:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think I see what you're saying. (none / 0)
Since we're talking about behavior, the end result of our internal processes, I think you're saying that hunger determines our ultimate behavior.  But I don't think that can be correct, because we have a wide range of behaviors from which to choose in order to attain our goal.  Hunger is the reason to form a goal -- to not feel hungry anymore.  How do we meet that goal?  I think we begin by asking ourselves that question and then use logic to find the best answer.  Logic is inherent in that process.  At most, we can say that hunger motivates us to employ logic to find a solution for our hunger.  Logic, then, determines (motivates) our ultimate behavior.

However, it's also possible that we're saying the exact same thing but in different ways.  I like your formulation:

motivator + reasoning = action

But whichever decision is correct seems to depend on what we mean by and how we use the word "motivation".

We might do better to avoid the word and say:

stimulus + decision-making process = action

After all, we don't always employ reason in our decisions.

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 08:19:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The issue now appears to be semantics (none / 0)

The essence of what you're arguing is that "Logic, then, determines (motivates) our ultimate behavior."  Determination is not the same as motivation.  A legal example may help clarify the philosophical meaning of a motivation:

A man cheats on his wife so she is (emotionally) hurt.  Her impulse, and consequently motivation for action, is to assuage her pain.  Her mind then turns to revenge (regardless of whether or not this is a logical turn, it's often the reasoned one (remember, logic is the science of reasoning, and though the two are similar they are very distinct)).  In order to fulfill her motivation, she seeks to kill her husband when he comes home.

In the example the woman is motivated by her pain yet her actions are, in part, guided ("determined") by her reasoning.

 

 Thoth, I believe you are confusing a few things.  It's most likely my fault for choosing such a limited example.  I did not intend to illustrate the science of action beyond the simple premise of motivation.  An ethical example may be more suitable:

 

Example:  I see a man beaten in the street.  I immediately feel a sense of disgust (don't focus on why I feel disgust as that is irrelevant, the important thing her is that I have a basic motivation: disgust).  This disgust then becomes a premise in my reasoning:

- how can I not feel disgusted?

--by stopping the disgusting action

-how can I stop the action?

--my stopping the attackers

 

Conclusion: My actions were motivated by an impulse/emotion/gut response.  My actions were then decided using reasoning with the ultimate goal of fulfilling my motivation.  Were I not motivated, I would make no action.  Were I simply motivated but unable to reason, I would remain motivated but to no end.

 

Remember that this is not a discussion of the origin of motivations (which is far more scientific/anthropological) but a discussion of what role motivation and reasoning/logic play in human action.

by Tashi Freeman on 12/13/2009 09:21:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Logic can motivate (none / 0)
Hmm.  The earth seems to be warmer than it was yesterday.  And it was warmer yesterday than it was the day before.

I'm also very interested in learning how I can produce more chloroflourocarbon gas.  It seems to have some very interesting properties that I think should be explored and exploited through mass production.  Besides, I think I can get rich with it.

Let's see, on which one should I spend my time?

Curiosity is one motivator for both.  Concern for my well-being is also a motivator for both.  What motivation can push me more toward one than the other?

If I do one then I can give my children a better world.  If I do the other then the world that I give them will be much worse off.

Perhaps I should do one rather than the other.

Now, there might be some emotion connected with that realization, but it was logic that provided the motivation to act.

Am I wrong?

by EveningStarNM on 12/13/2009 11:13:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I believe you are (none / 0)

We're discussing what motivates one to act, not why one acts one way rather than another.  The initial emotional (/gut/instinctual/ etc.) response is what motivates you.  In your example, you listed a couple motivations.  However, what determined your specific action was your reasoned attempts at fulfilling your initial motivations.  Logic did not provide the motivation to act, merely the method in which to act.  It was your initial emotional cues (curiosity, self-concern, concern for your children) that started the whole process and gave you cause to reason.

 

As the case stands:

- emotional response (motivation)

- reasoning (deciding how to achieve the motivated conclusion)

= action

by Tashi Freeman on 12/13/2009 11:34:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
The essence of what you're arguing is that "Logic, then, determines (motivates) our ultimate behavior."
Actually I said the exact opposite...

Self preservation = motivation
Logic = filter (or tool if you will)/what determines (not motivaties) our action...

I then specifically pointed out in the end logic (and emotion) are not motivation...

Let's look at the official definition of motivation just so there is no more confusion (I believe most of our disagreement is one of semantics so it might help) :-D

Motivation (taken from the Cambridge dictionary): the need or reason for doing something...

So here is how I constucted the process from motivation to action...

The reason (motivation) for eating was selfpreservation (I needed food (was hungry) to stay alive)...

My instinctual respons: find something to eat...

The tools (not motivation) used to reach a conclusion as to what to eat: logic and emotion (I know that a nice juicy steak will sustain me quite nicely from previous experiences but I'll stay away from mashed potatos because even though I used to like it I one day got very sick after eating some so I'm afraid that will happen again)...

The action: I eat a nice juicy steak without mashed potatos...

Result: I stop feeling hungry which proves to me that it was a good solution and perhaps one I'll use again when I feel hungry later...

Then lets take your example...
A man cheats on his wife and her desided action is to kill him when he comes home...

So how did she come to that decision...
Well the man cheating on her threatens her prospering (s he was happy and prospering when everything were fine and now she has to move and live of one salery (if she even works) and she is now older than when they met so maybe she woun't find someone new to be happy and prosper again and... a million other thoughts about her own survival and prospering) or even her family (if they have kids and what negative effects the destruction of their family will have on them)...
So her motivation (the reason... see above definition) for doing anything is selfpreservation and perhaps preservation of her children...

So she filters all these thoughts through her logic and emotions (but in this case if not all then mostly through her emotions since this is largely an emotional issue)...
She feels fear that it will destroy her life... she feels hurt that he would care so little about her that he would destroy her life... she deduces from that that revenge is a good course of action (since he is destroying the family anyway it would be a good idea to stop him from doing it to her anymore... and stop him from doing it to someone else... preservation of other people)... so she decides to kill him when he gets home...
So the filters/tools (not motivation) through which she reaches the desires act are her emotions and perhaps logic (feeling fear and hurt)...

So she kills him when he comes home (her action)...

The result: she goes to jail and is thereby worse of than if she had just divorced him so thereby ended going against her original motivation (selfpreservation) so she still feel hurt and have a hole inside that wasn't filled by killing him... and if she is smart she will reason that killing him was a bad idea and the next time someone cheats on her she will come to a different conslusion... or if she's emotional she woun't make the connection and kill the next guy too...

Either way the decisionmaking process can be summarized like this...
He made her worse of by destroying their family (motivation/reason that started the whole thing: selfpreservation)

She filters it through her logic and mostly her emotions to reach the conclusion to kill him (filters/tools... not motivation)...

She kills him (action)

Result: she is worse of so bad decision logically and she encorporates that into her decisionmaking for the next time...

Thoth, I believe you are confusing a few things.
Perhaps but I don't think so... like I said I think most of our disagreement is over semantics...

It's most likely my fault for choosing such a limited example.  I did not intend to illustrate the science of action beyond the simple premise of motivation
Perhaps but I still think you sematically confuses motivation with the tools to reach a conclusion (i.e motivation = the original reason to do something in the first place)...

Then you give the example of you watching a man being beaten and then what to do about it...

don't focus on why I feel disgust as that is irrelevant, the important thing her is that I have a basic motivation: disgust
Well I'm going to because you are wrong in assuming that your basic motivation is your disgust... I'll explain why...

You summerization goes as follows...
- I feel disgusted
- how can I not feel disgusted?
--by stopping the disgusting action
-how can I stop the action?
--my stopping the attackers

Now if you basic motivation was just not to deel disgusted there are far easier ways the stop that feeling than stopping the fight... just walking away comes to mind...

But the reason you feel disgusted is because your true basic motivation is to help him (the preservation of the species which he threatens by hurting the other man) which motivates you to take action... but in this case you have one more basic motivation which is selfpreservation (if you help him you might get hurt instead) which motivates you to inaction... so here you have one of the conflicts I've talked about earlier do you help him (preserve the species) or not help him (preserve yourself)...

To deside you put it through you filters of logic and emotions (is he bigger than me so it is more likely that I'll get hurt or is he small and I have a gun so I'm not likely to get hurt and the disgust I feel can I live with that if I just walk away and you way your options and decides to stop the fight)...

So you stop the fight (action)

Result: you were fine so you'll be more likely to stop the fight the next time or he beat you up badly too so you'll be less inclined to stop the fight the next time and maybe call the police instead when the guy is bigger than you...
And life goes on...

The reason why it is important to find your true motivation (reason for acting in the first place) is because if you are of the belief that you were just trying to get rid of the disgust and then decides to stop the fight the result would instead be...

You were fine and your disgust went away so you'll be more likely to stop the fight the next time or he beat you up badly too but the disgust still went away so you'll still be more likely to stop the fight the next time since both results were good (both got rid of your disgust)...

So the next time you see a fight you'll jump right in even if he is bigger than you and get hurt again thereby putting yourself in more danger than you should...

This is why the true motivattion is important...
True motivation = good future decisionmaking
False motivation = bad future decisionmaking

Remember that this is not a discussion of the origin of motivations
True since the origin (i.e. reason) is the motivation... so it's kinda redundant to say origin of motivation... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 11:19:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Sorry Tashi :-D

You mentioned my name in the post so I assumed it was all for me... (how selfconseeded of me) :-D

But it looks like it was a post to mr. star so if I made some wrong assumtions as to what was for me then I apologize in advance :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 11:35:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
First an apology (none / 0)
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting> <w:PunctuationKerning> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables> <w:SnapToGridInCell> <w:WrapTextWithPunct> <w:UseAsianBreakRules> <w:DontGrowAutofit> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx> <w:Word11KerningPairs> <w:CachedColBalance> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkBin m:val="before"> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"> <m:dispDef> <m:lMargin m:val="0"> <m:rMargin m:val="0"> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:rom an; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swi ss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611 985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:"&quo t;; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri&q uot;,"sans-serif" ; mso-ascii-font-family:Calib ri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor- latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cal ibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:mino r-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calib ri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor- latin; mso-bidi-font-family:" Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-b idi; mso-ansi-language:EN-CA;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only ; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calib ri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor- latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cal ibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:mino r-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calib ri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor- latin; mso-bidi-font-family:" Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-b idi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only ; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0 pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans -serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calib ri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor- latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Ti mes New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:mino r-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calib ri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor- latin;} </style> <![endif]-->

Thoth, I sorry for the confusion.  I meant the first half of my previous post to be in response to EveningStar's comment and the second half to be addressed to you.

 

 I think you're making this discussion needlessly complex.  My initial comment was an objection to the idea that "Logic is one of the influences on our motivations" as presented by EveningStar.  My argument was, to the effect, that our motivations are entirely separate from our reasoning though both (often) work in tandem when we act.  You're looking into why we have motivations in the first place, which is anthropological rather than philosophical.  I was looking at the philosophical criteria that comprise action.  From a philosophical perspective, why we, for example, may have an emotional response of disgust to certain things (such as crime or pain) is irrelevant to the role of reason in our actions.  According to you, discerning true motivation is important for future decision making.  However, future decisions are irrelevant to the discussion.  The topic of my original comment was not whether or not our actions are good or bad, rather that reason is separate from where our motivations originate.

 

An example:

If I feel disgust at the idea of a human in pain there could be many reasons for this such as, from an evolutionary/anthropologica l perspective, humans being in pain is a sign of humans being damaged and thus is bad for the species or I don't like the sound of people in pain.  What's important, however, is that my sense of disgust motivates me to act.  How I act, as I have tried to explain, is impacted by my reasoning but not my initial motivation to act.

by Tashi Freeman on 12/13/2009 11:54:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Thoth, I sorry for the confusion.
Yes I got that... and I'm sorry for not catching it :-D

But that's no problem... let's continue...

I think you're making this discussion needlessly complex
Perhaps... I actually think I'm simplifying it (how delusional of me) :-D

Our only true disagreement (as I see it) is whether emotions are our motivaton or just a tool as logic is (which we both agree is)...

Well my argumentation is actually the same as yours as to why logic is only a tool and not a motivatior...

Motivation is the original reason to spring into action in the first place...
You believe that the original reason is your emotions and logic is the tool because emotions are the reason you use logic...
I believe that there is 2 common reasons as to why you experince all your emotions (thereby negating the assumption that emotions is the original reason for action) and therefor the actual motivation for you acting on something in the first place (thereby placing emotions as tools just like logic)...

My argument was, to the effect, that our motivations are entirely separate from our reasoning though both (often) work in tandem when we act.
Well we agree they are seperate but are often both working in tandem as tools (where we disagree) to facilitate an action...

From a philosophical perspective, why we, for example, may have an emotional response of disgust to certain things (such as crime or pain) is irrelevant to the role of reason in our actions.
True... just as why we have a logical response of wanting to solve the problem is irrelevant to the role of emotions in our actions...

Both are caused by the need to survive and prosper both for ourself and for others...
And it doesn't matter whether we call it anthropological or philosophical... the whole reason we have this discussion is to find the original reason = motivation for acting (what starts it all) and that is why the reason for our emotions (just as our reason for logic) is very relevant... without it we are discussion two different things...

According to you, discerning true motivation is important for future decision making.  However, future decisions are irrelevant to the discussion.  The topic of my original comment was not whether or not our actions are good or bad, rather that reason is separate from where our motivations originate.
I was actually not making the point (or I was but didn't mean to) that true motivation is important because for future decisionmaking and that any given action is good or bad...

I mentioned it to convince you that emotions are not our motivation...
If you believe that the emotion of disgust is your motivation (your premise) and then logically comes to the wrong conclusion (stopping the fight instead of calling the police is good even if he is bigger than me and might kill me) then there is either something wrong with your premise or your logic (and I believe based on your premise that the logically conclusion would be that stopping is always the best solution (wich is a bad conclusion in my book) so there has to be something wrong with your premise...

So your motivation can't be that you feel disgusted... (it can't be your emotions period)...

And since neither logic and emotions can be the original reason/motivation (since they both have reasons to begin with) and I think both emotions and logic are motivated from the same 2 goals and then they work in tandem or seperate to find a solution they are both tools and what motivates us (per definition) are the original reasons for acting in the first place (selfpreservation/preservat ion of the species)...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/14/2009 12:44:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Some conclusions (none / 0)

I think you took my example in a way I did not intend.  I never intended alternate routes to stopping the fight, it was simply meant as an example of logic being used as a tool to sate motivation.

 

You also assume that I think emotions are the origin of motivations.  That's both partly true and partly false; your assumption is grounded in my lack of clarity and explication.  I simplified the origins of emotions/motivation for the context of the discussion as the complexity of their origins was unnecessary to prove my point.  Why we have emotions is an important issue but irrelevant to my initial aim of proving the insular nature of reason in action.

 

As for what I believe the origin of emotions are I'm not entirely sure, I haven't given it as much though as I have the distinction between reason and emotion in our actions.  Anyway, that's a discussion for another time and place.

by Tashi Freeman on 12/14/2009 01:27:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Anyway, that's a discussion for another time and place.
I think we agree on 99% and what we disagree on we can easily agree to disagree on :-D

But nice debating with you and maybe we'll meet again in another thread...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/14/2009 01:44:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Well I believe you are half right... (ok at least 2/3 right) :-D

- hunger motivates one to not be hungry
-- we then reason that if we eat we will no longer be hungry
You can here go one step deeper... why is it you are hungry in the fist place?

The body needs food or we'll die so to save ourself (selfpreservation) our body have evolved a mechanism to let us know when our body is running low on 'fuel'... it makes us feel discomfort (hunger)... so to relieve that discomfort we eat...

So what is the basic motivation here... it's our desire to stay alive (selfpreservation) this time by eating...

And the solution (i.e. to eat) might look logical in hindsite but it actually is an instict we are born with (even newborn babies that have never 'learned' to eat still know to suck on the tit when hungry and if not an instict we would die pretty quickly after being born... we don't have time to first learn logically that eating is a wise solution to hunger)... but later on what we choose to eat (some things good and some things bad learned through experience) is then filtered through our logic and our emotions... and then we reach a conclusion and eat the food of our choice...

So the decision making looks like this...

Body needs food or it will die (motivation: selfpreservation)
Our instinct tells us to eat something (inctinctual solution)
Our emotions and logic tells us what to eat (filter)
We eat the chosen food (action)

Logic and emotions (and that includes fear to) are the filters we use to choose the action we believe to be the best possible one in any given situation but they are neither our motivation or the reason we choose to eat anything in the first place...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 08:40:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bjork is definitely, definitely, definitely weird. (none / 0)
But that video is actually pretty nifty.

by Lafaye on 12/13/2009 06:55:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Human Nature (none / 0)
I think human nature consits of so many elements that every generalization must be flawed. Some motives and behavioural patterns will alwys exist, but I thing one thing that is great about human nature is how versatile it is.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 12/13/2009 07:30:43 AM EST

hmmm... (none / 0)
You can easily say human nature is EXTREMELY versatile... I would say you could argue that it's human nature to help others and it's human nature to help yourself... it's human nature to kill each other and it's human nature to save each other... it's human nature to hate each other and it's human nature to love each other... it's human nature to... (and on and on and on and on and...) - everything it's possible to believe or do or think or... is human nature... so yes very versatile :-D

But if you listen to peoples true motivations for believing or doing or thinking or... what they do then I have found that it always comes back to the same 2 goals (which makes sense since it conserns our most basic instincts)... the fulfilment of which then becomes true human nature reducing everything else to different paths to those goals...

It is why some people believe the being gay is bad (it infringes on the survival of the country and the human race by destroying the fabric that holds society together (i.e. the family) and it has no chance of producing offspring which is bad for our race's survival)... and it is why some people believe being gay is good (or at least ok) (it furthers the prospering of me (if I'm gay) and society by offering freedom to choose your own life and how you want to live it and the small numbers of actual gays in a society have no actual adverse effect on population growth and the families of straight people)...

It is why... (and again you could keep going)...

Now I'm certainly not saying that I have looked at EVERY single belief or action or thought ever believed or done or thought by every human being that ever lived... but I have still to find a single exception to the rule and a clear trend has presented itself so far... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 02:19:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Human Nature (none / 0)
I actually agree with your analysis of human nature, but I don't think it's an effective way to analyze choices. Yes....the basic desires are self-preservation and the continuance of the species. Yes, every choice we make is influenced by those 2 desires. I think that in the modern world, however, it must be discussed in terms of ideology. If I believe that social good is more important than individual survival, that is not because I am asking myself about those 2 instincts. It is because I believe that one ideology or another is the most effective way to further that goal. My choice is then based on ideology. I don't think people make any choice as a DIRECT result of those 2 behavioral necessities. It is an indirect causal relationship with many other factors. It seems to me that while you are right about those 2 basic instincts, it is more or less irrelevant to political/social dialogue. Take socialism v. libertarianism (yes...I know that "ism's" are not monolithic, but for simplicity's sake I will direct them as if they are). People generally make decisions based on that ideology, while both camps believe they are more effectively acting in favor of survival and self-preservation. They are likely both incorrect, or at least some aspects are mutually exclusive. I see no reason to address human nature. It is what it is. What we choose to believe is not determined by that nature, as evidenced by the fact that all humans have the same natural inclinations and make different choices. What deserves attention is the validity of individual ideologies, which is an endless and transient discussion.

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 02:59:06 PM EST

hmmm... (none / 0)
Beautifully put... we are actually in total agreement... Human nature can be boiled down to the achievement of those two goals... but before it becomes a coherent thought or belief it gets filtered through logic and a wide range of emotions which then determines what course of beliefsystem or action you decide to follow to reach those goals... but that doesn't take from the fact that the original motivation for it came from those 2 goals...

But the process can be summarized as follows... you have an inclination to fullfil your 2 goals... that inclination then gets filtered through your logic and emotions at that specific moment in time... and you come to a conclusion as to how to proceed... and since everybodys filter is different (your abillity to process the information logically combined with your specific emotions at that time) then different people will always reach different conclusion and even you will reach different conclusions to the same problem at different times...

What deserves attention is the validity of individual ideologies, which is an endless and transient discussion.
I absolutely agree... the discussion about human nature is only interesting as a sidenote as to why people believe what they believe... and the individual beliefsystems are the really important discussion... but if you don't understand peoples true motivation for believing as the do and realize that they are the same for EVERYBODY (making rightwing/leftwing nuts and moderates and everything in between a lot more alike than different) you will never understand the other side and have an honest and open discussion about anything and instead just resort to shourting matches from across the fence screaming to each other how stupid they are and we'll just grow more distant and apart from each other and never really solve anything...

But that's just my opinion :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 03:30:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yup (none / 0)
That is actually a pretty important thing to me. I pride myself on being able to respectfully debate with people. I certainly do not always succeed, but it's something I really try hard at. This is pretty much the core of that ability. People generally want to work for the same things. We just disagree about how. Once you can find a common goal, there is room for respectful disagreement. It can be really hard - especially in a culture as polarized as our (here in America, anyway). We all have a tendency to look at opposition as black and white disagreement. Libs v. cons. Fundies v. atheists. etc. There is a strong tendency for all of us to disagree as though we don't agree on anything. It certainly feels that way sometimes. I find that if you can boil a discussion down to a level where people agree (which, given common human desires, is always possible) there can be room to shift an opinion or two...and maybe even learn.

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 06:03:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Beautifully put... I have nothing left to add... nice agreeing with you :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 06:35:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now... (none / 0)
Now, on to free will!! Anyone? Anyone?

hahha...jk

;)

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 06:08:08 PM EST

hmmm... (none / 0)
Well feel free to make a blog about that with your take on the subject and I'll be there to make a contribution in a heartbeat :-)

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 06:39:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Minds (none / 0)
I just checked ur profile. I am about to get my BA as a psych and phil major. Seems as though great minds think alike  ;)

by LadyFriend on 12/13/2009 07:44:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
That they do (I even used to live in New York and I have read somewhere that you camp upstate... so there hehe) :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/13/2009 07:51:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Human Nature? | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: