In the Ontology thread (and probably in some other threads); viewtopic.php?f=1&t=167184
Faust talked about this “Metaphysical Lust”.
The metaphysical lust arises out of our desire for certainty, and especially for the absolute certainty, if I understood some of his responses.
Personally, I think most of us (if not all) have the desire for certainty and the absolute certainty to be exact, and I don’t think it’s a very good idea to repress any desire/lust including this one because repression often pushes and hides the desire/lust into the sub/unconscious region of our mind.
When desires (or fear, anything repressed) go into subconscious region, it can make the situation more complicated because of reduced visibility and sensibility, contributing to create narrowed view.
However, I think it’s true that many people are thinking out of the desire for the absolute certainty (and probably anything absolute), and doing so WITHOUT being aware of it.
And this might be one of the principal cause that Absolute and relative perspectives are all mixed up in many people’s thought with the consequence of faulty logic, contradiction, tons of illogical beliefs, and so on.
In other words, many of us don’t even have the possibility of repressing it because we aren’t very aware.
[size=150]Do you recognize “Metaphysical Lust” or the desire for certainty, absolute, infinite, unlimited ?
other than that if i am in doubt of certainty i drop a t.v on my foot and then undersand what i want, and what needs to be done.
what do you desire to be certain about?
existence?
the afterlife?
god?
if you’re trying to make logical arguments then you should remove lust from your bag of motives. If you want something to be true you are more likely to trick yourself.
I think we do everything because of desire/lust, and this include logical thinking.
The very intention/motivation of trying to think logically is out of the desire to be correct/exact, and it’s another manifestation of the desire for the certitude, I’d say.
Isn’t logical argument trying to convey logically “true” evaluation?
I’ll split and reorganize our posts, if you don’t mind.
Do you recognize the desire for certainty, in the form of logically “true” evaluation?
The very desire to avoid fooling yourself by adopting the attitude seems to be coming from the desire to be correct/exact and to be certain of it.
I do think you are thinking from the desire for the certainty.
Do you see?
I don’t think you can easily avoid it probably because it’s deeply rooted.
certainty implies a scale of possibility. there are always possibilities.
you cannot emperically eliminate an infinite emount of possibilities.
you can only approach certainty.
currently our imagaination outstrips our ability to predict, so in a sense we will never be certain of anything.
Am i certian the sun will rise tomorrow? no.
Am i certain that i don’t live in the matrix? no.
Am i certain that if i drop a t.v on my foot it will hurt? no. (use your imagination)
do i desire to know these things? do i desire to know the future?
Do i desire to understand life, the universe, and everything?
i don’t know, would it make me happy?
Side note:
the word cetainty gets used a lot in every day life.
like i say “i just saw a duck”…
you might ask, “are you certain?”.
I can easily reply yes.
stateents made about the state of things which are broad and universally agreed as being true, like the function of sight and the existence of ducks, then certainty can be a pragmatic word instead of a strict scientific one.
I do think the lust for certainty drives a lot of our thought processes. It’s like hanging a carrot from a stick in front of a horse. Even if the horse knew it was a hopeless persuit to go after that carrot, he’d still be driven. If horses could talk, and we asked it “Why do you even try?” he’d probably say “Because not trying wouldn’t get me any closer either”.
I think to not go with your metaphysical lust would be philosophic prejudice. For me, if an idea works I use it. If it does not, then I don’t. It is as simple as that. Trying to segregate your ideas too much puts unnecessary strain on them. If you see an idea that looks good, what reason is there not to use it? Perhaps the idea is good from afar, but far from good. But what does it hurt to explore that idea. If you say “I like that idea, but I don’t like the category that idea fits in”, you are prejudiced against that idea. Prejudice can always be overcome by acknowledging that thing in question fits into more then one category. For example, with racial prejudice, you realize that the people whom are of a different race are also people just like yourself. With ideas, you realize that ideas from this branch of philosophy or that branch of philosophy are all still just ideas. The only thing that makes one better then the other is whether one appeals to you more or less. If something has appeal, take it. It’s not a lifelong decision. You are allowed to change your mind.
It seems like people are afraid to change their mind for fear of having to admit they are wrong. Like the Catholic church when they outlawed new scientific discoveries that made them look bad. There is no shame in being wrong. The shame comes only when you refuse to admit it and instead stick with false ideas to feed the ego. In the instance of Catholicism they had a problem since they claimed to get all their ideas from an infallible God, so to admit they were wrong would be a major contradiction. However, there are contradictions all throughout the bible, so some people would certainly suspend belief after finding these holes, others will chalk it up to faith. Point is though, the church probably lost more followers through rebellion by supressing the ideas then they would have from the faithful leaving due to the exposure of logical contradictions. The church could’ve just changed their stance. It would’ve been controversial in the short term, but in the long term people would just forget about it and move on.
With my philosophy on the existence of everything, I am still unsure about it. But I have decided to accept it until someone proves me wrong or something better comes along. That is the most metaphysical part of my philosophy. Metaphysics are hard to substantiate, but they are certainly useful mental exercises. Although I dabble quite a bit in metaphysics, I am just as much a materialist as I am a metaphysician. I look at the universe as divided into three categories. Matter, energy, and form. Form is the only part of that which is metaphysical. The rest are material. Form is what gives properties and meaning to matter and energy. But form is just as real as the rest. Only form depends on consciousness. I actually like the idea of metaphysics better since they fit with my subjective outlook on reality, but I still end up dabbling just as much in materialism. Hey, it works. If it works, don’t knock it.
As far as certainty goes, I like to look at it from a probability standpoint. We all want each idea we have to be as certain as possible. But nothing will ever be entirely certain. That is because objectivity is mostly a myth. But without objectivity nothing can be entirely certain. But some things will be more certain then others. For instance, I am more certain that I exist then I am that everything exists. But I am still more certain that everything exists then not. So I choose to believe everything exists. And that choice is logical. But it is also intuitional. We naturally pick choices which we are more certain about without even thinking about it. When logic and intuition are in harmony, to me that is when you really know that you are onto something.
But at the same time, uncertainty actually has a sort of appeal to me as well. I know that the nature of the universe is uncertainty, so those things which reflect uncertainty are more in harmony with the universe. For instance, I really like quantum physics because of the heisenburg uncertainty principle. To me, this accurately depicts the true nature of the universe. I guess what it comes down to is that the only thing I am totally certain about is uncertainty itself. But then does that make my uncertainty certain? Logically, can uncertainty be certain? There I go working myself into a contradiction again! Oh well, more to think about, and more uncertainty to come…
Ha, I do recognize the desire for metaphisical lust… just now for example, as I was in the proces of deciding what my answer would be to your questions, I was reviewing my experiences and trying to boil them down to a string of words and sentences. As I was typing, I realised the text wasn’t all that representative of my experciences, as I sometimes do this, a lot of the time do that, occasionaly do something else alltogether…
What do i do with it? Now, I ended up not giving in to it and saying nothing at all.
Some people are against the desire. They think it can adversely affect our thought, and try to stay away from it (as if it’s possible).
I don’t think it’s possible to simply eliminate it.
I guess it’s coming from our biologically need to determine things.
Even a very simple creature would evaluate things (in terms of heat, light, salt, food concentration, etc) and go for it or run away form it.
And I think our inclination for the certainty, absolute, infinite, etc. is coming from the habit/nature of our emotional reactive process (or emotional thinking to be short).
I think our emotion determine things in positive/negative certainty at the base (before to sense the shade, degree of them).
But in our logical thinking, as long as we define and identify what we are talking about and establish valid evaluation method and conditions that go with it, we can be “logically” 100% certain WITHIN the conditions.
It’s a relative certainty, but it seems to please and satisfy our desire, too.
As for the desire for the absolute, I think it can be satisfied in the negative form. At least, it seems to work for me.
there is a difference between being right and being certain.
certainty is about sureness, not correctness.
I got rid of my childhood desire to be immortal, so i imagine i can get rid of a desire to be 100% certain.
What does certiainty change? how can i benifit from certainty?
I am out for practicality, use, and enjoyment. certainty provides none of those.
nobody is a perfect thinker. The desire for “certainty” is really not that much of a lust for me.
First you have to talk about what you want to be certain about.
do i want to be certain that apples and oranges exist? no. I want to be certain that i counted them right.
do i want to know if god exists or not? no. when i die if god exists and decides he wants to meet me then that will be honky dory, there is no reason for me to alter my actions now in hopes of that. there is no reason to even look for the answers if you do not want to.
pragmatists don;t desire to be true/right/certain. they desire to get things done and to be happy.
i don’t have to lust after certainty just as i don’t lust after god just as i don’t lust after existential metaphysics just as i don’t lust after the perfect atomic weight of a Barium neutron.
desires are different, and perfection is not one of mine; it’s a waste of time.
I don’t get it, what exactly is wrong with metaphysics? To me, materialism seems like the greater of the two evils. If all we are is “stuff” then morals and everything else becomes irrelevant. We’re just lucky pieces of matter that just happened to randomly become conscious. The truth is some things are physical and other things are not. Meta means beyond. To go beyond is to transcend. To deny metaphysics is to deny transcendence. Why is it when you look at a two dimensional picture (like a painting) your brain produces a 3D image from it? That is transcendence. What makes one form different from another form? The reality is that a circle isn’t really any different then a square unless we define it as such. Form is also beyond physical. Form exists regardless of whether or not some clump of matter or energy is currently in that form. It exists as potential. Potential is non-physical, yet it effects the physical. It is tangible, but not physical. This shows just how the material and the metaphysical interact and are inseparable.
So what is it exactly that these metaphysics haters are complaining about? Someone please explain so I can refute it.
Although I agree that it’s better to be open for any kind of thought, I’m thinking it might be rather difficult (if not impossible) to think free of metaphysical lust.
Some people seem to be against metaphysical lust because it can cause faulty logic and/or it might be impossible to attain the objective of the thought driven by “metaphysical lust” thus making it meaningless, among other possible reasons.
I guess you are opting for “take a position, and change if it’s wrong” sort of approach.
Possibly, the very reluctance or the attitude against “metaphysical lust” can be driven by “metaphysical lust” in the negative form to avoid any error.
It sounds reasonable.
I’m not sure about this.
If we talk about logical certainty, WITHIN well defined perspective/theory, the result can be 100% certain, for example.
And other than logical certainty, there might be “emotional certainty” in the sense our emotion determines and classifies things into positively and negatively perceived category.
I think this one works with implied “absoluteness”, pretty often.
Logically correct or not, we may feel absolutely certain about something.
And this is the risk of following metaphysical lust without careful logical examination.
More or less illogical person would naturally use (abuse) on this type of certainty. We see it so often in ILP, too.
I’m not so sure about this, either.
I think you are confused about relative/absolute issue (and maybe negative/positive evaluation).
First, “the metaphysical lust” is about absolute certainty. It’s about unlimited and unconditional certainty.
And also, because it’s a desire and emotional thing, I think it’s judged emotionally rather than logically.
Now, positive logical evaluations require at least a few elements like precise identification, appropriate evaluation method (or sub focuses), and conditions and limitations that go with the perspective.
It means any affirmative/positive logical evaluation is relative to some conditions/limitations.
Thus we cannot obtain unconditional/unlimited positive certainty with logical thinking.
So, it’s a logical (and thus relative) certainty about impossibility of the emotional (absolute flavored) certainty through logical venue.
Also the more we think, we become aware of more conditions/limitations, and thus we get the impression/feeling of uncertainty because it goes against the desire for unlimited and unconditional certainty.
Thank you for the vivid representation of “metaphysical lust” in progress.
But I’m not sure if you avoided to give in.
I think you didn’t boil down because you wanted to be correct, you wanted to be certain about writing something representative of your experiences.
Don’t you think the care for the correctness to be coming from the desire to be sure?
I guess it might be possible.
But I seriously doubt if you could manage to get rid of it 100%.
And why you’ve decided to get rid of it?
How did you get rid of it?
The desire, when it’s satisfied, can produce pleasant sensation.
So, emotionally, we may benefit from certainty.
Also, the sense of certainty (logically valid or not) may speed up decision making process.
For example, when I do something that require rapid decision making over potentially complicated matter, I often use my emotional brain rather than series of logical evaluations (which can be way too slow).
But the data used in this emotional calculation is conditioned by practices, training and logical screening. So, the end result is the same when analyzed, later.
And in this type of decision making, there is the definite feeling of absolute certainty about the situation.
It can be difficult to imagine unless you have some experiences in this type of thing. I think people who have to perform tasks too fast for real time logical thinking often use it without being aware.
I do think the lust is motivation you to be 99.99% certain.
It’s the desire, and emotional thing. It’s not really about “something” specific.
The desire is there to push you to be certain about anything.
And I guess we try to think logically/rationally because of this desire to be sure.
So, by thinking, I think you are manifesting it, aware or not.
I’d agree that different people would have different set/degree of desire.
However, do you see the tone of what you wrote?
You’ve written it without much reserve nor conditions.
You’ve written it in definitive tone, almost as if absolutely certain, as if it’s a fact and no room for any doubt/limitation.
Again, I’d say you are declaring things with “perfection implied” tone.
I seek to bridge the gap between the imagined and the real - what I imagine to be real, and what is measurably real. To clear the fog of war, so to speak. To this end I do not engage in any sort of self delusion. I avoid making excuses. If I suck at something, then I will tell myself that I suck at something. I will not console myself with petty justifications. I encourage the little whispering voice in my head to be as cruel and as frank as possible. If I make a mistake, I admit it freely and sometimes inappropriately proudly.
Is this healthy? Probably not. It’s like being sober in a Cinco de Mayo party.
why would i need to be absolutely sure in the first place?
these are all questions that come first…
i thought about it…
If we lived for an infinitely long time, or even just a really really long time, i wager we would get very bored. I wager we would get so bored that we would eventually commit suicide.
One you’'ve experienced everything of intereest what reason would their be too continue living?
If i was a bored god, i would erase my memory and start a blissfully ignorant life, and if it was myy fate to continue doing that over and over, i would still commit suicide.
death would be the only thing left.
Even to live for 1000 years might sound cool at first but it’s really not ocne you think about it…
1000 years worth of chores, 1000 years worth of trips to the bathroom.
how long would it take before you get bored with life?
i’m going to try and become bored… I will try to satisfy as much of my desires as possible, in hopes of becoming tired before i die.
Life is much sweeter when it’s short; it’s like getting drunk with no hangover.
basically what i’m saying is it’s my rationale which can basically lead to changes in my desires…
If i have a fantasy about being god or knowing everything, and in the back of my mind the critical part of me is laughing hysterically, it kinds of ruins the feeling
So i should desire to be certain so that when i achieve certainty i am happy?
That’s sort of a round about way to find happiness… That’s like telling me to learn to enjoy crossword puzzles in order to make myself happy.
one of my professors said if my desires are unattainable then i shouild change them.
obsessing over absolute certainty about every proposition or premise will take more time than just going with the goold old 99.9999% assumptions… trust me
pragmatically we are all uncertain if the sun will rise tomorrow, yet we are all certain; we act as if it is so.
context is important regarding certainty as in the end it all comes down to lust.
i’m free to make absolutist statements about myself, that does not mean i “desire to be certain”.
Nah, i challenge you to give me one example where i desire to be “certain”
Sure about the way you think, sure about your conclusion.
Yup.
Within the conditions and limitations of logical thought, we can be sure of the conclusion. That’s logical sureness.
And emotional decisions often come with the “impression of sureness”, although the conclusion of emotional evaluation are often wrong, logically speaking.
And I think we have the desire for the both types of sureness/certainty.
I think most (if not all) humans come with the desire, although some of us may have these desires stronger or more aware than others.
Maybe you don’t have strong desire of these kind, or maybe you aren’t aware.
But you can be denying because you don’t like these desire, somehow.
In your case, maybe it’s a mixture of all three.
I’m not so sure. Maybe it’s just you who want these questions to come, first.
Just as you suggested, it can be attitude thing.
Hmmm…
To get rid of something, if it was done intentionally and with some degree of awareness, you need to recognize it, first, and then decide to get rid of for certain reason, and then you have to have effective method(s) to actually get rid of.
Can you give me details of these: When and how you became aware of the desires, when did you decide with what kind of reason (other than anti-boredom you’ve mentioned), and the method you employed ?
You are twisting the story, here. Bad argument.
You had the desire at least in the past, since you said you got rid of it.
So, we aren’t talking about obtaining desire to satisfy it.
And are you following it blindly ?
Unattainable or not, I think it’s better to try as much as we want.
Then, we know by experiences that it’s not possible or it’s pretty difficult.
And the fact that we tried as much as possible gives at least the satisfaction of having been honest to the desire and the desire seem to fade cleanly compared to the case we tried to change them by superficial mind.
Oh, you didn’t understand what I was talking about, at all.
Do you have experiences in job/hobby/activity that require rapid and sometime complex decision making?
For example, when I flew in the bad weather in the busy terminal area, I needed to make series of decisions without delay. Otherwise, it could cause all sorts of problems, including potentially serious one. And we have to make it quick because within a few seconds, we can be passing by the point we need to make turn, descent, whatever, and also we have to perform many other tasks waiting to be done in the priority queue.
Although I would fall back to slower logical calculation for certain things, the major part of decision making was done by well conditioned emotional evaluation, which is much faster.
The thinking part is done on the ground or before things get busy.
It’s similar to sports which require rapid decision making. But in case of sports, often it’s done more by physical reaction level.
Or in music, singing, correct tone for the certain passage can be felt emotionally and as long as we are in tune with it, it sounds perfectly.
If we were to calculate the pitch of each tone logically, it would be far too slow (for human. Computers can do it.).
I don’t know you experiences in life, so I can’t think of other possible example/analogy, but you can forget it if you don’t see what I mean since it’s not the main point.
To some degree, I’d say yes.
Who thinks to become uncertain?
Usually, we think to obtain answer, and it means clearing out uncertainty.
I think they are originating from same damn lust.
But emotional part of our brain is more geared for the absolute certainty, and rational part is for rational soundness, I think.
They are the desire in the different part of brain, most probably.
However, the root cause seems to be the same.
I think they are both seeking certainty (or trying to reduce uncertainty).
I’m not building argument to apply on everyone based on you.
In this thread, you are the exception.
Your brain, aware or not.
If someone makes lots of absolutist statements, I tend to see that the person may be thinking in absolutist way.
I do evaluate people by what they do a little more than by what they say.
I’d say, the very need to make sch challenge can be an indication that you are certain and you want to show that it’s certain.
And you said you don;t want to be wrong and you can be satisfied with 99.99% certainty.
Pragmatically (since you seem to adhere to pragmatism), I think we can consider desiring 99.99% correctness to be equal to desiring to be “certain”.
