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

Re: Drive

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.