Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16Re: Drive

Expand Messages
  • Yana Youhana
    Jul 28, 1999
      The "Drive" exist from birth in all of us just like the
      "cancer", it only needs a switch to turn it on or off.
      In some cases, drugs are strong force to activate or
      deactivate that drive/desire. It is the same as the
      old "chichen or egg" question, which one exist first,
      the drive or the desire to have that drive to go on!
      I look around me in the daily life of mine, people that
      rush to get to work and rush to go home, I look in to
      those faces and most of the time I do NOT see the desire
      but there is a drive and that is the insinct for survival,
      to LIVE because one must! 90% of the people just live because
      of that birth given drive to live BUT ONLY 10% are ALIVE!


      >From: Frodo742@...
      >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
      >To: existlist@onelist.com
      >Subject: Re: [existlist] Drive
      >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:24:56 EDT
      >From: Frodo742@...
      >In a message dated 7/28/99 10:13:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      >Jarod_Rollins@... writes:
      ><< Its doubtless that this motavation exists but to what
      > ends? >>
      >I believe that no matter how much a thinking sentient being analyzes,
      >re-analyzes, and over-analyzes his purpose or lack of purpose in the world,
      >his intellect cannot deter fundamental human drives/ambitions. For
      >all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human beings,
      >do not only wish to eat, they wish to eat well. And so it goes with other
      >fundamental human drives: that of satisfying one's sexual desires often
      >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
      >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual
      >furthers these drives into this Motivation that you speak of in your post.
      ><< Is that greastest pleasure for the greatest number a worthy goal? >>
      >This requires very lengthy discussion, maybe half of a school semester, but
      >I'll say this: Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral theory, holds
      >it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine whether
      >particular means to them are justified. This leads to conclusions that are
      >contrary to "commonsense morality." For example: Wouldn't it justify
      >punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent a great
      >or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the application of
      >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a personal,
      >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or
      >you want to term it, is an altogether way, way too subjective matter, as in
      >determining what deserves how many utiles, etc. It just doesn't work, and
      >anyone on this list would like to go into a little further discussion on
      >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
      >analysis, let me know!
      >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
      >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
      >For details on ONElist�s NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
      >From The Exist List...
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic