‘We want the only thing that we want’ is absolutely fine, but the idea of more than one option being a constraint is ludicrous. What if the only option we have is utterly repulsive to us?
Go to the bathroom. But when you do, make a conscious choice where you place each foot, make a conscious choice about how far you breath out, and when you breath; make a choice about which route to the bathroom you will take - you might want to consider the choices of climbing out of the window and going over the roof to the bathroom, or flying a jet around the world and coming in through the back door, or simply walking close to the skirting board - an inch? 2 inches? They’re all choices. Do all that, think of that, and more, each time you do anything.
Gotcha. Well, these are all arbitrary choices. So much so, that many of them aren’t even choices (if spoken in terms of conscious choice). Other choices would be considered as much more important to us in a wider context. You can’t undermine these choices so.
You might want to consider the choice of going to someone’s else’s bathroom, or going in a cup. Consider all the choices and cups there are before you choose what to do. You might want to consider the choice of calling your mother before going to the bathroom; you might want to consider phoning someone else. You might want to leave going to the bathroom for i minute, 2 minutes or 3 minutes. All choices.
Again, these choices only come about when you actively thinK of them. Let’s go back to your original post:
So all choice, right?
A man with the press of a button is about to drop you 500 feet onto concrete road; you have no choice in the matter. Suddenly, a woman convinces the man to give you a choice between two things. Either press the button or give you a delicious cheese sandwich.
If you are only ever given one option, ie no option, it probably won’t be the desired option.
I can’t see how having one thing that you want amounts to a choice. but you aren’t giving choice a good deal. In order to consider which choices are useful, youmust consider them all, and there is an endless number of them to consider. That is hell on earth. in fact, considering all the choices is worse than pitchforks up your arse to flaming eternity.
You seem to be making the case that choice in general is a bad thing. Is that right?
I get what you are tryign to establish here; that being that if we were to consider all potential things we can do we wouldn’t get anything done because we would be busy examining those choices for our entire lives. I even get that if you take away any undesirable options there are still almost infinite considerations.
But the ability to choose in general - being merely capable of that liberty is not an inhibition, or to use your hyperbole ‘hell on earth’. Far from it.
As I said, I get your point but you’re coming across wrong.