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

18Re: Drive

Expand Messages
  • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Jul 29, 1999
      >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
      >his intellect cannot deter fundamental human drives/ambitions. For
      >all must eat to survive.
      True ,but you can still choose not to eat and die and thus deter such
      This would be the freedom of choice taken to the extreme and
      existentially they would be choosing to have no meaning. But it is a
      simple case of intellect overcoming fundamental human drives(i.e. to

      >However, because human beings are human beings, they
      >do not only wish to eat, they wish to eat well.
      Eating well is a rather ambigious term, do you mean to say that we as
      human wish to eat healthy or to eat gourmet, if the latter such eating
      habits are due more to convention than instinct. If you meant the
      former, there are many people who eat unhealthy (i.e. mac donalds
      > 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 pos
      Yes, the intellect can and is deterred by instnict but doesn't have to
      be and to the existentialist often isn't. The genetic will to live is
      a powerful source of ambition but it is the initial driving force only.
      Once a mind has broken free of convention a different type of fuel is
      needed to keep the fire of life alive. What that fuel is, i don't
      know, but our posts here are evidence of it.

      ><< Is that greastest pleasure for the greatest number a worthy goal? >>

      >This requires very lengthy discussion, maybe half of a school semester,
      >I'll say this: Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral theory,
      >holds that
      >it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine whether
      >particular means to them are justified. This leads to conclusions that
      >contrary to "commonsense morality." For example: Wouldn't it justify
      >punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent a
      >great evil
      >or promote a great good?
      Punshing an innocent IS a great evil, and wouldn't jusify preventing
      another great evil.
      > Also...on further criticism, the application of the
      >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a
      >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 if
      >anyone on this list would like to go into a little further discussion
      >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
      >analysis, let me know!
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic