Alex is spot on. And I would extend his argument by looking beyond the example of love and posing this question to Sivakami + those who agree with her post-genetic determinism:
Why are we on this website discussing philosophical issues?
What evolutionary purpose could it possibly serve? If we are merely living out pre-programmed objectives, isn’t ignorance and conformity the best formula for fulfilling these objectives successfully? I am not trying to be awkward, but I am genuinely disturbed by the notion that I am some sort of soulless android. Surely natural selection ought to remove our capacity to think outside the scope of the struggle to survive; yet I (and most others, I would venture) feel something beyond it. Everyone on this site is doing something which appeals to different (but not necessarily higher) faculties than those which prompt us to hunt and make babies. How can anybody fail to concede that?
In response to Jawaad,
I think that there is merit to determinism, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that determinism is all there is. I’m not sure what you mean when you say scientific utilitarian view of emotion, as far as I have learned in my studies, utilitarianism (teleological), is the view that what matters is the outcome of a situation, meaning, if someone does action (A) and the majority of people are happy, than it is a good action regardless of intent. Hence, your question on our emotions being predetermined because of utilitarian evolution confuses me. If the point is that throughout evolution our emotions have evolved to make our actions benefit the majority instead of ourselves, than I am opposed. Utilitarianism and determinism are different in almost all aspects, and bringing them together is quite difficult. Determinism itself doesn’t allow for concepts such as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. If someone is doing something that is not to everyone elses best interest than there must be some higher purpose to that persons actions, otherwise why would God determine this person to behave in such a way. Personally, as I said earlier much of determinism is bogus. Self realization, one of the key properties scientists believe separate us from the animal world means determinism doesn’t exist, or atleast not as most ethicists have postulated. One cannot self realize themselves if they are determined for action. One may argue, “well what if the person was determined to self realize themselves?”, they should take that argument and go deeper with it…what is the point of self-realization if the person is determined? Think about the paradox, imagine you are god and you are a driving a car (far fetched i know) and you predetermined that car to behave in a certain way, then all of a sudden that car self realized itself and what it was doing, does this not mean that car now has the ability to change it’s determined path? I think so.
Jawaad, this is my very problem with life, people taking every opportunity to dehumanise people in general. People are so absorbed with ‘fitting in’ and with ‘material possessions’ that they miss what is really important. One day I will devote my life to changing this and help people realize the truth of the world.
You say that some of the things that we feel ‘obviously’ are predetermined.
I beg to differ, but you sound like you thought it through, so could you explain it to me? No emotion to me is predetermined. Any emotion can be destroyed or altered. If you love one person today it’s quite possible you will not the next. I have spoken with people that held very strong views about the world or people and after talking to me they confided that they never believe they could be persuaded otherwise.
Just to clarify: my use of the word “utilitarian” was in the sloppy, inaccurate, populist sense we have with us today thanks to Victorian writers like Charles Dickens who were obviously unable to understand anything that John Stuart Mill ever wrote. So where I wrote ‘utilitarian’ I am actually referring to the pragmatic (it’s just that I had already used ‘pragmatic’ and didn’t want to repeat myself). Sorry!
The entire idea of “Pre-determination” - I have no straight answer, as do none of you.
BUT! I can say that I’m totally against it.
Jawaad, you stated yourself that you would hate to think of yourself as being a “soul
less android.” How then do you also support the idea that even a bit of our feelings
or emotions are predetermined?
I feel we act the way we do since we are highly influenced by our feelings, thoughts,
emotions, impulses etc. I also think that I am in full control of my life, I hold myself
responsible for all that has happened in life thus far. No one or no thing has
pre-determined the pattern of my emotions or my… life.
If there is any level of predetermination, by genetics or any supernatural, (think of me
as being irrational if you want) but i would be the least responsible individual on earth,
one that would blame her parents for every inch of any feeling or act.
In response to Githa,
You said that none of us have a straight answer to pre-determination, I think this is a little too general, it sounds like your trying to equate everyone with yourself. I believe we are all equal, but I don’t attempt to state that no one has a straight answer to anything. Personally, I believe I have a straight answer to determinism. You state you are against it, I am too, but I’m curious to know your reasoning behind being against it, could you elaborate?
Githa, you state that you feel we act the way we do because we are influenced by feelings, thoughts, emotions, impulses, etc - but you are explaining determinism, which most state as a human being acting not of their own free will but because of factors affecting them - like feelings, thoughts, and impulses. I will present to you one of the more difficult to refute statements by determinists, they claim that one cannot act without the influence of exterior and interior phenomenon. Exterior being that which is outside of us and interior being our thoughts, feelings,and so forth. My question to you is can you think of a moment in your life where you acted apart from any influence? Describe.
You also state that you think you are in full control of your life. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘full’, but think of all the things you do not because you want to necessarily but because you have to. For instance, you eat because you are hungry and have a natural instinct to feed yourself in order to survive. Sure you can choose not to eat until you die, but you can’t choose to not eat at all and live. There are barriers at all times, and what may seem as a clear choice for you to make between myriad choices, you really are limited in your choosing. To give a better example, you went to school, did you go to school because you wanted to? Did you consciously choose to go to school every single day that you went to school? You probably go to work or have some other occupation, is this because you chose it to be so? Or is it because the societal system happens to be that you have to work in order to make this thing called money and this thing called money gets you the things you need in order to survive? Extend these ideas to everything else, you clothes, your language, your habits, your family, etc. Now you know why the determinist view has held for over two thousand years.
You say that no one or no thing has predetermined the pattern of your emotions, has anyone tried to make you happy and succeded? Have you ever felt down and someone said a joke and you burst out laughing? Well this is someone pre-determining your emotions, since they are the cause of it. You may say you chose to laugh, but do you really think about every action and reaction you make? Not possible, there is just too much happening for you to be thinking and choosing EVERYTHING. To give you an example, take the idea of walking, are you consciously choosing to take every step you take? Do you mathematical calculate at what angle and trajectory to move each leg, as a set rhythm? No. Do you truly think Psycho-paths chose to be so? External factors made them the way they are, either through genes, early childhood trauma, or a catastrophic event.
You say no one pre-determined your life. Don’t you think your parents pre-determined your life by mating? You think your upbringing has nothing to do with you thinking pattern, who you are, and how you act?
I’m sorry if I extended my limitations onto you Magius, or anyone else for that matter. I have no answer to “pre-determination” no answer that is unconditionally right. What I do have are opinions: with life the possibilities are immeasurable, people can only think and make their own conclusions on whatever issues they are faced with.
[quote=“Magius”]
Githa, you state that you feel we act the way we do because we are influenced by feelings, thoughts, emotions, impulses, etc - but you are explaining determinism, which most state as a human being acting not of their own free will but because of factors affecting them - like feelings, thoughts, and impulses. quote]
As regards this issue, I think one of us is confused.
My first question is what do you get from the words ‘free will’?
Next, when do you think one exercises his/her ‘free will’?
In my view, free will is comprised of the ability to act voluntarily (at your own discretion). My actions are influenced by my thoughts etc. but I don’t see where you see pre-determination within this. What makes me who I am is what I belive, think, feel etc. I don’t view these elements as being separated from myself.
You ask whether I can think of a moment where I acted apart from any influence. I decide on doing things at times, hell, there are even times when do stuff with no thought given, but there are always operating influences. Take this scenario for instance: my best friend presses on me to kill my boy friend. I don’t. I am fighting the strong influence she has on me. Why? Because I’m being influenced by something else. My love for this ‘boy friend’ perhaps. In effect, there are always causes / influences; but this does not necessarily suggest predetermination, because who knew that I’d allow the bastard to live, especially after seeing him have a threesome with my worst enemy (a girl) and another guy maybe. Conflicting influences.
I have a fairly large amount of control over my life. Don’t take the word ‘full’ too literally. Yes, I get hungry so I eat (after all, as messed up as life may be, i want to survive). I understand the theory of scarcity, but I also see alternatives, though limited. All I can do in the given circumstances is to make the best choice, I’m still given the chance to pre-determine the trend of life. I was forced to go to school, but even this was done to attain some level of positive liberty, as I grew older more alternatives presented themselves.
Society probably implies that you work, make money and thereby survive, but when I actually do this, am I merely doing it to satisfy societal norms and rules? Other factors probably play a role, such as my likes and expectations. Though it is far-fetched I could have otherwise chosen to become primitive, live in caves and bushes and feed on animals and shrubs, or I could become a couch potato, eating chips all day and gazing at the TV screen, I’d sleep when I’d want to. (inviting scenario huh?)
Yes I have laughed at people’s jokes, but I think the joke was not an avenue for that someone to pre-determine my laughter but a mere attempt: whether or not to laugh was wholly up to me. I could have not laughed you know, depending on the severity of the issue that made me feel low to begin with. I admit whole-heartedly that life is filled with too much for me to think and choose on minute issues. And about the walking: the purpose is to reach a particular destination, that’s what is of essence, who cares about mathematical calculations and rhythms of any sort?
I don’t think my parents pre-determined my life by mating, for all I care, I could have been the result of some negligence, a mistake if you will. Humans and dolphins (if I remember correctly from the discovery channel) are the only two creatures that actually mate for the pleasure they gain from it. My parents probably pre-determined enjoying the sex, not reproducing the devil child they claim I am.
Why does everything have to be so or scientific and complicated?. Why can’t the answer be for once SIMPLE .Precedent is a killer, that’s what it is. I’m not being mean, or trying to be, but I haven’t seen anything posted from her not from someone else’s research
anywho.
What’s love?..
Love is happiness. Emotional fulfillment. It can also be an emotional imbalance. Love is almalgamated in all emotions that we feel- Hate is a lack of love.
Think of this, when u ask the ordinary person, “What is love?”, the usual answer is :" Love is…I dunno, I can’t describe it. It’s not hate, it’s not annoyance…, it’s more than a mere liking, more like an overwhelming appreciation for someone or something".
Therefore, concluding on a philosophical note, Love is that mushy wushy feeling that cannot be termed by any other emotion so we made up this word.
It makes people mad and yet it also drives them to acts of kindness. Some will argue it is no more special than a large dose of chocolate. However I beg to differ even though I do love chocolate myself.
Good question. There are actually 2 ways of looking at it.
Our brains, evolved for the very purpose of helping our genetic instincts, have now grown big enough to be able to subvert them, to a limited extent.
Programming is a word that is often misunderstood. In programming us for optimising survival and reproduction, NS has given us various instincts. These instincts are what we continue to use, but we are able to use them for ends that do not coincide with maximising inclusive fitness. For eg. the drive to reach a goal, the perseverence towards achieving that goal … is present whether that goal is to finish reading an interesting book or to attract a mate.
Because the instinct for (apparently) altruistic behaviour is what is programmed in us. Now we are able to use that behaviour for ends that dont necessarily result in gene propogation.
Because we are social animals. It helped us survive and reproduce better living in a group. We therefore love discussing things in order to try and figure them out. Because we are inherently curious.
There are many ways of making a living. Intelligence is just one of them.
Our inherent curiosity (which did help us in our evolution) is now being used for other things as well.
Thats exactly the point. Should we ignore facts just because they are unpleasant to us or are humbling ??
There’s a lot of good material posted by everyone here, and I don’t have the time to discuss all of it, but I do wish to say a few things.
I don’t see how love is inexplicable. Anything tangible can be described quantitatively and qualitatively, and love is not exempt from this. You may argue that love is intangible - and given our present inability to quantify it, you may have a point - but, so long as we can be aware of a concept of love, so long as we can say definitively that it does exist, and so long as we can say that there is some common, defining factor that determines what love “is” (i.e. we may all feel different types of love, but there is obviously some common link between these types) then I don’t see how it can be innexplicable. We certainly haven’t explained it yet, but that doesn’t mean that it can never be defined properly, and thus understood in quantitiative and qualitative - rather than poetic - terms.
And I think that this is the major hurdle in answering the question “what is love?”: there can be no answer given so long as we have ambiguous, muddied definitions of the term “love”. This ambiguity has given authors and poets carte blanche to write lavish novels and essays expounding their theories and senses on the feeling of love, but it really doesn’t get us any closer to defining it. So long as the concept of love eschews definition it will never be understood, which is why I oppose the notion that love should abide in the domain of the poets, the artists and the authors, who serve - despite their best intents - to drive us further away from understanding. They may bring us closer to understanding the “meaning” of love on a subjective level, but never to a more definitive idea of what it is on an objective level.
And here I suppose I should clear a few things up: I think that art is invaluable to the human experience, and I do not intend to deny it this position. I do not see science - or at least the scientific mode of thought - as inherently more valuable than philosophical/artistic mode of thought. In fact, I see the latter mode of thought as the primary mode of thought - that is, the mode of thought that allowed for scientific thought in the first place. Without philosophy, science - as we know it - could not possibly exist. Yet, having said that, the scientific mode of thought gives us something that speculative philosophy, art or literature cannot readily give us: knowledge. My contention is that knowledge, once attained, is not an end in itself. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is useless, unless it can be properly utilised and employed in a “higher” mode of thought: that is, philosophy, art, literature and so on. These concepts are only meaningful if based on some level of knowledge, even if we speak of them in their most “abstract” forms.
So what’s my point?
Simply, I think, that the scientific (or “dehumanising” as some of you put it) mode of thought allows for what I consider to be the higher planes of thought. Let me refer back to the car driving example:
The point is, a car can give you no satisfaction unless you have knowledge of its mode of being - its facticity if you like. If you give a car to a caveman, he will have no idea how it is meant to fulfill a certain need that, according to Henry Ford and his ilk, is omnipresent within human kind: that is, the need to limit travel time and exertion to a minimum. The cave man may be able to utilise the car to satisfy some of his needs (for instance, finding out how to use the cig lighter to start fires to keep his family warm) but the primary utility of the car will be wasted, simply because he has no knowledge about how to operate it, nor does he have any knowledge of what benefit he will be provided should he understand, properly, what its purpose is. He is entirely ignorant of what the car’s facticity is.
Apply this same logic to the love. Obviously it has little or no facticity or predetermined utility (unless you believe in God - but we’ll leave him out of it) but if we assume that it can be definitively understood (which, as per what I said earlier, is the position I advocate) I believe, entirely, that it can only enhance our experience of it and make it more meaningful. The problem I believe, is that some of you believe that the understanding of the acuality of any given entity serves as an end in itself, which is not true. As I said before, understanding or knowledge of a given entity allows for this higher artistic or philosophical mode of thought.
My main point can by summed up thusly:
The artistic or philosophical mode of thought arises from thinking beyond any given actuality, not ignoring it completely.
We do not ignore the fact that love has some given actuality that can be described by the scientific mode of thought, we take this actuality and give it meaning. We all know that our physical human selves are comprised entirely of innert atoms, but that doesn’t make our being any less beautiful or special - and we can apply the same logic to love. Just because the feeling of love may be an unavoidable consequentiality of our humanity, it does not make the feeling any less intense or enjoyable. Rather, the proper understanding of love allows for its enhancement through the expression of poetry, literature or philosophy in higher modes of thought.
We have nothing to fear from scientism: it can only seek to advance our plane of thought.
So what do I think love is then? Well, to be honest, I’m not too sure. I suppose I’ll tell you all when I find it.
You know… I was thinking. Maybe ssivakami is right concerning her definition of love (definately, I don’t agree with the pre-determinism thing). Maybe that is what happens inside of us when we feel love; a mere chemical imbalance. Some hormone in our bodies that is shouting :REPRODUCE!!
But!. I think there are two ways of answering the question. I haven’t mastered defining the strategy as yet, but try and get it from this example.
Why is my pen green?
ssivakami could answer and give me a scientific answer about the colour green, or someone else could answer "Your pen is green because you like green pens because is your favourite colour…Green represents your attitude towards life…etc ets.
“we are intelligent social animals”…
In that light, shouldn’t the answer be along the lines of emotions and socialization and all that lovely stuff?.
First of all, noone said anything about a chemical [b]imbalance[/b]. Emotions are electrochemical impulses in the brain, generated in response to stimuli (current sensory input or stored sensory input and images). Its not a malfunctioning … its the intended function. Or, as they say in the software industry “Its not a bug, its a feature”
Secondly, whats the “mere” in it ? Electrochemical impulses that can drive us to such lengths are hardly trivial. Emotions are the driving force for most things in life. I wouldn’t call them “mere” electrochemical impulses. Far from it.
Understanding the physiology of something does not in anyway trivialise it. Quite the contrary. Thats a old, stale and completely wrong stereotype about science.
ok, i’m not a scientist, so i wouldn’t know about the hormones and delicate chemical changes in our brains, but surely you can find out more about love through art. people like shakespeare may not have understood the science behind the feelings, but in my opinion he knew a lot more about love then insert name of famous biologist could find out in a laboratory.
Not from the stars do I my judgment pluck;
And yet methinks I have astronomy,
But not to tell of good or evil luck,
Of plagues, of dearths, or seasons’ quality;
Nor can I fortune to brief minutes tell,
Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,
Or say with princes if it shall go well,
By oft predict that I in heaven find:
But from thine eyes my knowledge I derive,
And, constant stars, in them I read such art
As truth and beauty shall together thrive,
If from thyself to store thou wouldst convert;
Or else of thee this I prognosticate:
Thy end is truth’s and beauty’s doom and date.
Thank you for that post Louise; it came at the right time.
Sivakami, you go on endlessly about the sovereignty of the scientific, factual basis for love. And what can I say, beyond: wax lyrical as long as you want…you are missing the point.
The question I wanted to discuss when I started this topic was centred on the compatibility/incompatibility of scientific and artistic descriptions of love.
What I am interested in is; what is more valuable to a human being? Knowing that love is a chemical reaction, or musing on, say, a Shakespeare sonnet on love?
So far, posts on this thread have tended to characterise people as either heartless scientific fascists, or luvvy-duvvy pig-ignorant artists. Some posters have conformed to these caricatures. The truth is, love is both a scientific phenomenon and something which we can try to understand in terms of our personal experiences and feelings. This is not an either/or situation. So why must we see it as one?
Yes, very good point, and I think I was trying to say something along the same lines - in a round about sort of way - in my previous post.
As with all other tangible things, love has both an objective and subjective side to it: the objective being the impression of love formed in science labs, the subjective being the impression of love as felt by the individual. Neither is more “real” they just describe different parts of the same phenomenon.
Both the artistic and scientific approaches are necessary in quantifying the experience of love, for different reasons, and my main point was simply to say that the artistic approach should be born of the knowledge provided by the scientific method, and not the other way around.
As such I believe that art/philosophy is the higher plane of thought, but only if it corresponds with what is known of actuality - that is, what can be made known by the scientific/pragmatic method.
