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, 1999
    • 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 2 of 11 , Jul 27, 1999
      • 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 3 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
        • 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 4 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
          • 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 5 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
            • 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 6 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
              • 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 7 of 11 , Jul 29, 1999
                • 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 8 of 11 , Jul 29, 1999
                  • 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 9 of 11 , Jul 29, 1999
                    • 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 10 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.