|
livingthemean
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Country: Canada
State: British Columbia
Metro: Victoria
Birthday: 10/12/1979
Gender: Male
Interests: Sophia. I crave thoughtful dialogue, enjoy learning, and love to read. I also enjoy spending time in natural environments, particularly provincial and national parks such as Pacific Rim and Banff/Jasper. I'm also hard to keep off the dance floor when the music is good.
Expertise: I'm still trying to figure that out. Some argue that I'm expertly indecicive, but I'm not sure I agree.
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
7/24/2005
|
|
| What is love?
I just read an interesting book called "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz in which Lorenz argues that love and friendship originated as a mechanism to inhibit our aggresiveness. In order for us not to harm those "close" to us, such as mate and offspring, we needed to have a mechanism to inhibit aggression in these particular cases. This is why dogs can be nasty to outsiders but perfectly loyal and loving to their master. Aggressiveness and love are inextricably linked. There is no love without aggression, Lorenz posits. That is, in order for a species to "love," they must be aggressive. Those species which are not aggressive are not capable of "love" or friendship. The reason is that those species which are not aggressive towards others never needed to "evolve" a mechanism to inhibit aggressiveness towards those "close" to them; they were always peaceful to those close to them. Lorenz argues that, in evolution, things are never lost, they are just "patched" over with inhibiting mechanisms. Thus, we retain our aggressiveness even though we wish to be peaceful and feel we would be better off being peaceful.
Lorenz also suggests (though I think Freud did first) that our great works of art, literature, etc, might be products of sublimated aggression. That is, our interest and drive to create sublime "works" comes from the sublimation of our desire to destroy. Are our great artists those who have successfully sublimated the greatest aggression? Although, I think artistic creation etc. can also come from sexual sublimation, especially according to Freud. I believe it was the prolific author Henry James who once remarked after having an orgasm, "There goes another novel!" This implies that had his sexual satisfaction been thwarted, he would have spent that pent up sexual energy in writing another novel. This puts a new twist on Mick Jagger's lyrics, "I can't get no satisfaction." Perhaps we have "Forty Licks" becuase of the unsatisfactory sex of Mick's. | | |
| First, I wish to clarify a few things about myself and my motives. Beware of taking me too seriously. My holey writ is just that -- full of holes. Let it be known (Keren) that, despite my compelling arguments in favour of treating goldfish poorly, I do not endorse their torture and advise Andrew to avoid such behaviour at all times, but especially in the presence of impressionable young children. And, by the way (Miss Behave), I do not wish Andrew any harm when I call his posts rubbish, or make fun of him. Andrew has a great sense of humour and I love to take full advantage of it. My tongue is planted firmly in cheek when I chastise him about Archie comics or kinky behaviour with the hose in waterfights (though I felt compelled and had to report this to your superviser Andrew;). On another note, thank you Miss Behave for sharing your reading recommendation (of Blake's). I have since read "Ishmael," but will not likely get to "The Story of B" for some time. I'd be happy to hear your review when you are finished. If you enjoy the "concepts" or ideas in Quinn's books, then you may wish to check out Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." It also changes one's focus from human beings as the center and most important things in the universe to human beings as one of many equally deserving or undeserving creatures in the universe. It is becoming one of those life altering books for me, which is, coincidentally, the subject of this new post. So without further ado, allow me to pose a few questions that I feel are relavent to the posts that I have encountered on some of your sites:
Can God have a "plan" for us? Should He? If He does have "plans" for us, what does this say about our capacity for free will?
Though not a Christian, I have recently been seriously considering the arguments in favour of determinism. I had always believed in free will and never took the idea of determinism seriously. However, upon reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," I haven't been able to look at my life and the so-called choices in it the same way since. I am almost convinced that free will is an illusion that we have constructed, either consciously or not, in order to feel that we have control over our lives -- over ourselves. It is this, perhaps, that separates us from "animals". Animals are not under the illusion that they are in control of their lives because they do not have self-awareness. We, on the other hand, who have become self-aware, then go on to believe that we are also in control. Of course, the idea of self-control is a valuable and probably necessary idea in order for us to live together peacefully. If we didn't have the myth of self-control, we couldn't have the idea of personal responsibility. That is, we could not hold people "personally" responsible for their crimes. Nor could we praise those as virtuous who practice what we consider to be moral or righteous behaviour.
I wonder what Christians mean when they say that "God has a plan" for them or that something is "meant to be". If God is doing the planning, then what control do you have? What happens if you will to do something that is contrary to God's plan? Does God's will succeed, or does yours? If God's will succeeds, then you are not free and your life is determined. If your will succeeds, then God is reduced to a voyeur, looking in or down on the world, but not participating actively in it.
I have had some very interesting conversations recently with Christian and non-Christian friends and family, all of whom vehemently deny my supposition that the world is deterministic. Interestingly, those who rarely speak or converse intelligibly on any other subject become noticeably agitated with the suggestion that they may not be free, and speak passionately in defence of free will. Is this an indication of a deeply rooted "free will" prejudice that we will not easily give up? What are the implications of a deterministic world should we ever get over our prejudice?
I hope to work out some of the implications of a deterministic world in futrue posts, and am also interested in others' thoughts on this subject. In order to provide a more sound argument for determinism, I have pasted an excerpt from "Good Sense," or "Common Sense," by D'Holbach below. It is section 80 for those interested in reading it in full. I think it captures the essence of my thoughts on our deterministic fate better than I can express at this time.
Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice. He is not asked
whether he is willing, or not, to come into the world. Nature does
not consult him upon the country and parents she gives him.
His acquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true or false, are
necessary fruits of the education which he has received, and of
which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are
necessary consequences of the temperament given him by nature.
During his whole life, his volitions and actions are determined by
his connections, habits, occupations, pleasures, and conversations;
by the thoughts, that are involuntarily presented to his mind; in
a word, by a multitude of events and accidents, which it is out of
his power to foresee or prevent. Incapable of looking into futurity,
he knows not what he will do. From the instant of his birth to that
of his death, he is never free. You will say, that he wills,
deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude,
that his actions are free. It is true, that man wills, but he
is not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will
only what he judges advantageous to himself; he can neither love
pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes
prefers pain to pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary pain
with a view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure.
In this case, the prospect of a greater good necessarily determines
him to forego a less considerable good.
The lover does not give his mistress the features which captivate him;
he is not then master of loving, or not loving the object of his
tenderness; he is not master of his imagination or temperament.
Whence it evidently follows, that man is not master of his volitions
and desires. "But man," you will say, "can resist his desires;
therefore he is free." Man resists his desires, when the motives,
which divert him from an object, are stronger than those, which
incline him towards it; but then his resistance is necessary. A man,
whose fear of dishonour or punishment is greater than his love of money,
necessarily resists the desire of stealing.
"Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, are we masters of knowing
or not knowing, of being in doubt or certainty? Deliberation is
a necessary effect of our uncertainty respecting the consequences
of our actions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, of these
consequences, we necessarily decide, and we then act necessarily
according to our true or false judgment. Our judgments, true or false,
are not free; they are necessarily determined by the ideas, we have
received, or which our minds have formed.
Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose
what he judges most useful and agreeable. Neither is he free, when
he suspends his choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows,
or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him,
or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions. "Man,"
you will say, "often decides in favour of actions, which he knows
must be detrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself; therefore
he is free." I deny it. Is man master of reasoning well or ill?
Do not his reason and wisdom depend upon the opinions he has formed,
or upon the conformation of his machine? As neither one nor the other
depends upon his will, they are no proof of liberty. "If I lay a wager,
that I shall do, or not do a thing, am I not free? Does it not depend
upon me to do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire of winning the
wager will necessarily determine you to do, or not to do the thing
in question. "But, supposing I consent to lose the wager?" Then
the desire of proving to me, that you are free, will have become
a stronger motive than the desire of winning the wager; and this
motive will have necessarily determined you to do, or not to do,
the thing in question.
"But," you will say, "I feel free." This is an illusion, that may
be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, lighting upon the
pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course.
Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly, who imagines he has power to
move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it.
The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or not to do a thing,
is but a mere illusion. If we trace the true principle of our actions,
we shall find, that they are always necessary consequences of our
volitions and desires, which are never in our power. You think yourself
free, because you do what you will; but are you free to will, or
not to will; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions
and desires necessarily excited by objects or qualities totally
independent of you? | | |
| Hello out there. I'm a virgin blogger and feeling rather naked right now, so please forgive my shyness. I've been browsing this weblog community and have had difficulty finding discussions that interest me. Perhaps I am missing the point. Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the willingness of people to maintain an online diary for all the world to see. It provides a unique opportunity for the study of human psychology. I feel a bit like I imagine Freud felt when people would freely spill their life stories to him in order to get help. Is that what a blog is really about -- getting help? Or is it an exercise of our egos, wanting to feel that we're important enough, or our life or thoughts are brilliant enough, that other people can benefit from us sharing them? Perhaps it's a mix of the two. I noticed in many cases that people didn't have a lot of self-esteem. They felt they weren't good enough in some respect, be it physical appearance or personality, etc. I was particularly shocked by the Christian bloggers, who demonstrated how dependent they are on God for a sense of belonging. I never realized how powerful the idea of a "loving" God is until I read numerous blog sites that included statements thanking God and fellow Christians for their support. Prayer was an important part of these people's lives. This "need to belong" is a common thread I have discovered among many bloggers. Will blogs one day replace God? Will the friend in a heavenly realm with whom one has no physical contact be replaced by friends in the cyber realm with whom one has no physical contact (I'm speaking in generalities here, of course)? On that note, I wonder if anyone has done a study tracking those who have imaginary friends when they are children to see if they are more likely to be bloggers or have a belief in God when they are older? Anyway, that's probably about enough for now. My egotistical impulse is sated and eagerly awaits a feeling of belonging that will hopefully come with some comments from you. | | |
|
