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

Drive

Expand Messages
  • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to discover it where the drive
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 27 12:40 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have
      known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to discover
      it where the drive comes for myself or anyone else under this
      realization. Is the pursuit of pleasure (like Mill's) a ethical source
      of such drive?
    • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
      Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to discover it where the drive
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 27 12:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have
        known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to discover
        it where the drive comes for myself or anyone else under this
        realization. Is the pursuit of pleasure (like Mill's) a ethical source
        of such drive?
      • C Borel
        ... Drive, motivation, and terms of the like, I think, are those things that compel us to give our lives meaning. We are born with (or in some cases,
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 27 8:03 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Jarod Rollins wrote:
          >
          > From: Jarod_Rollins@... (Jarod Rollins)
          >
          > Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have
          > known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to discover
          > it where the drive comes for myself or anyone else under this
          > realization. Is the pursuit of pleasure (like Mill's) a ethical source
          > of such drive?
          "Drive," motivation, and terms of the like, I think, are those things
          that compel us to give our lives meaning. We are born with (or in some
          cases, without) some sense of motivation--a need for action.

          --Christina
        • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          Such a type of motivation is true for most everyone weither they believe that their life is with purpose or without. This blind animal ambition is indeed the
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 28 7:09 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Such a type of motivation is true for most everyone weither they
            believe that their life is with purpose or without. This blind animal
            ambition is indeed the driving force for children and the less gnostic.
            I belive that having motivation in the face of knowing that life is
            without purpose in and of itself is a different drive alltogether.
            This such drive ,the subborn act of acting with out reason, is still a
            mystery to me. Its doubtless that this motavation exists but to what
            ends? Is simply being distracted enoungh? Is that greastest pleasure
            for the greatest number a worthy goal? Or are there even any grounds
            with which to judge the pointless point of action?

            Allright, my life has no meaing except what I give it. This I have
            > known/felt/accepted for years now. What I have been trying to
            discover
            > it where the drive comes for myself or anyone else under this
            > realization. Is the pursuit of pleasure (like Mill's) a ethical
            source
            > of such drive?
            "Drive," motivation, and terms of the like, I think, are those things
            that compel us to give our lives meaning. We are born with (or in some
            cases, without) some sense of motivation--a need for action.

            --Christina
          • Frodo742@xxx.xxx
            In a message dated 7/28/99 10:13:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jarod_Rollins@umit.maine.edu writes:
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 28 8:24 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              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 instance,
              all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human beings, they
              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 leads
              one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
              herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual drives,
              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 that
              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 evil
              or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the application of the
              classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a personal,
              and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or whatever
              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 on
              modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
              analysis, let me know!
              -Steve
            • Yana Youhana
              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
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 28 10:12 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                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!

                -
                yana


                >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
                >instance,
                >all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human beings,
                >they
                >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
                >leads
                >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
                >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual
                >drives,
                >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
                >that
                >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
                >evil
                >or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the application of
                >the
                >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a personal,
                >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or
                >whatever
                >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 on
                >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
                >analysis, let me know!
                >-Steve
                >
                >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                >
                >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
                >For details on ONElist�s NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
                >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
                >
                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >From The Exist List...
                >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
              • Yana Youhana
                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
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 28 10:13 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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!

                  -
                  yana


                  >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
                  >instance,
                  >all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human beings,
                  >they
                  >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
                  >leads
                  >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
                  >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual
                  >drives,
                  >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
                  >that
                  >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
                  >evil
                  >or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the application of
                  >the
                  >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a personal,
                  >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or
                  >whatever
                  >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 on
                  >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
                  >analysis, let me know!
                  >-Steve
                  >
                  >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                  >
                  >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
                  >For details on ONElist�s NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
                  >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
                  >
                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >From The Exist List...
                  >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
                • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                  ... True ,but you can still choose not to eat and die and thus deter such ambitions. This would be the freedom of choice taken to the extreme and existentially
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 29 6:28 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >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
                    >instance,
                    >all must eat to survive.
                    True ,but you can still choose not to eat and die and thus deter such
                    ambitions.
                    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
                    survive).

                    >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
                    patrons)
                    > And so it goes with other
                    >fundamental human drives: that of satisfying one's sexual desires often
                    >leads
                    >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
                    >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual
                    >drives,
                    >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,
                    >but
                    >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
                    >are
                    >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
                    >personal,
                    >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or
                    >whatever
                    >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
                    >on
                    >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
                    >analysis, let me know!
                    >-Steve
                  • Jarod_Rollins@xxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                    ... True ,but you can still choose not to eat and die and thus deter such ambitions. This would be the freedom of choice taken to the extreme and existentially
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 29 6:28 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >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
                      >instance,
                      >all must eat to survive.
                      True ,but you can still choose not to eat and die and thus deter such
                      ambitions.
                      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
                      survive).

                      >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
                      patrons)
                      > And so it goes with other
                      >fundamental human drives: that of satisfying one's sexual desires often
                      >leads
                      >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for his or
                      >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-intellectual
                      >drives,
                      >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,
                      >but
                      >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
                      >are
                      >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
                      >personal,
                      >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus," or
                      >whatever
                      >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
                      >on
                      >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-benefit
                      >analysis, let me know!
                      >-Steve
                    • Tom
                      ... When assessing the greater evil, the following contrived situation comes to mind. A man is walking along a bridge when he sees that a train carrying
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 29 10:12 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ><< 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 that
                        > >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 evil
                        > >or promote a great good?

                        > Punshing an innocent IS a great evil, and wouldn't jusify preventing
                        > another great evil.

                        When assessing the greater evil, the following contrived situation comes to
                        mind.

                        A man is walking along a bridge when he sees that a train carrying hundreds
                        of passengers is almost certainly to go plumetting several hundred feet into
                        a canyon below. Seeing this, he realises that he can alert the driver by
                        rushing towards a nearby emergency button. Unfortunately, the button is
                        only accessible by his young daughter as he is far too big to reach it
                        through the tunnel in which it resides. The button, however, is situated in
                        a location that will go plumetting into the canyon along with the train. He
                        can choose one of two options :-

                        1) Coerce his young daughter into the "game" of pushing the button even
                        though he knows it will result in her certain death. The train passengers
                        will most likley survive.

                        2) Watch the train go plumetting into the canyon, killing hundreds. His
                        daughter survives.

                        If he chose (1) then he would be following the "Wouldn't it justify
                        punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent a great
                        evil or promote a great good?" idea. If he chose (2) then would that be a
                        greater evil?

                        Surely one for the existentialist deciding upon moral decision making? I'm
                        damned if I can take a moral high ground! Utilitarianism would point
                        towards option 1. What would the individual existentialists on this list
                        choose? Maybe the nature of your philosophy dictates that it is too
                        contrived to have meaning to you?

                        Tom
                      • Mario
                        ... The purpose I agree to a certain extent that most people don t even seem to think about their existence in a beginning and end type fashion. They seem
                        Message 11 of 11 , Dec 4, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ..."The purpose" I agree to a certain extent that most people don't
                          even seem to think about their existence in a "beginning and end"
                          type fashion. They seem to "live", period!

                          Mario

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Yana Youhana"
                          <yana_youhana@... wrote:
                          >
                          > 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!
                          >
                          > -
                          > yana
                          >
                          >
                          > >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
                          > >instance,
                          > >all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human
                          beings,
                          > >they
                          > >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
                          > >leads
                          > >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for
                          his or
                          > >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-
                          intellectual
                          > >drives,
                          > >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
                          > >that
                          > >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
                          > >evil
                          > >or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the
                          application of
                          > >the
                          > >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a
                          personal,
                          > >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus,"
                          or
                          > >whatever
                          > >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 on
                          > >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-
                          benefit
                          > >analysis, let me know!
                          > >-Steve
                          > >
                          > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------
                          ------
                          > >
                          > >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
                          > >For details on ONElist's NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
                          > >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
                          > >
                          > >------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ------
                          > >From The Exist List...
                          > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.