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

Re: Drive

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Jul 27, 1999
      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 2 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
        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 3 of 11 , Jul 28, 1999
          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 4 of 11 , 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!

            -
            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 5 of 11 , 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!

              -
              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 6 of 11 , 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
                >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 7 of 11 , 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
                  >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 8 of 11 , Jul 29, 1999
                    ><< 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 9 of 11 , Dec 4, 2006
                      ..."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.