Self-control does not exist:

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Self-control is a sophist term, and under it, the more accurate meanings are:

Mind-conditioning, habit and addiction.

If someone hits their pet dog every time it does something that they do not want it to do, that dog will soon develop “self-control”, not in the sense that the dog has learned anything, or is putting fourth a reasoned effort to stop itself. Instead, its mind has become conditioned via fear-trauma/abuse, so that it cannot fully want to act in a certain way anymore.

Essentially, one neurological pattern over-ranks another, and a mannerism is formed. This is not to say they are “controlling themself”. More accurate it would be, if a thumb was pressed against a lump of clay, and afterwards the imprint remained. This is not the clay controlling its own shape, but instead, this is the end result of imprinting and conditioning.

2

Self-control relies on experience and imprinting in it’s application, for the most part. But say one is a drug addict and enjoys the feelings of cocaine and ecstasy, but never ventures into heroin because one knows that said drug would give him the best high but also the greatest chance of never bringing them away from addiction. In that case, it is outside knowledge that challenges and self-control could keep them from indulgence.

Self-control can have many factors, including the afore mentioned imprinting, experience and knowledge, but also can be born of a unwillingness to fall into what one considers a trap, or a slippery slope. One never tries smoking, because one is addicted to something else and does not like the smell of cigarettes on others. One refuses to study religion because they do not see the benefits and does not want to have blind faith. Logical thought and the senses can also gives us an inkling as to what path we should fear to tread.

We make many choices each day that are based on factors that aren’t necessarily imprinting or experience. We do these things to exhibit a bit of self-control in our own world that otherwise could become chaotic if we had decided to throw caution to the wind and imbibe on our every instinct and want.

3

Geeze, if self-control did not exist, why didn’t I rape that delicious female simply because she was ripe and there!!!

4

We have the ability to direct our own mental programming. We can consciously choose to condition ourselves, to condition our unconscious. “We learn to forget.” -Jiddu Krishnamurti

5

T.U.G.,
Agreed with the exception that memory replays shock experience whether we want it to or not. IMHO, Krishnamurti, groomed by theosophist Anne Besant, is an arrogant asshole. Your opinions may be as valid as his.

6

Rest-assured, you are under control, but it’s not a first-hand-choice, so much as it’s a habit, it’s a tendancy, it’s a mannerism, an instinct, a gene, a personality, a end result of much conditioning.

7

Habit? I was conscientious before I had habits. Would you reduce moral choices to potty training?

8

I think that this arguement as stated cannot be proven for certain.

I realize that this doesn’t disprove your point, but I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard of training a dog being referred to as “self-control”. I wouldn’t consider the training of a dog and the behavior of humans to be in the same category.

The way you present your argument doesn’t leave much room for discussion since you define “self-control” as not existing in the way one would generally think of it. In fact, the way you define it is nearly precisely the way I think of the idea of “having been trained”. Going from there, one could say that “self-control” is doing things that you have been “trained” not to do and haven’t been encouraged by anything to do. Going from that, it seems that you may have been right.

And so I think more and come to the conclusion that the idea you had was right. In a way. Self control, I think, is the ability to choose the “one neurological pattern over-ranking the other”. In short, it is the ability to choose one course of action even though you also support another to some extent.

9

lets have fun with this, shall we.

eg. A) a person is punished whenever s/he does a certin action, concept known as negative reincorcement, so that person will subconciously associate that action with pain. this is concidered programming not choice.

eg. B) a person is rewarded when they do an action the way you want it yo be done, known as posative reinforcement, where the person associates the action with the plesant sensations of the reward, also a form of programing.

eg. C) a person looks back on the things he has learned throughout his life and decides he will change something, he finds the cause of a behavion, posative or negative, and analizes the root of that cause, once he can understand that root he then determines wether he still wants that basic behavior or not. thus removing the programing and making a choice, concept known as psychoanalasis and psycohtherapy.

eg.D) a person encounters a new instance and rather than being told what to do watches the situation and uses logic to derrive a suitable course of action, if succesful the person will reinact that course of action so long as it remains effective. concept known as reasoning.

If you can think of any other types of examples I would love to see them, but meanwhile I’ll just toy with the pros and cons of each setup.

negative reinforcement: Pro: it effectivly deturs from said behavior, assuming there are no other sets of dispositions before it is used.
Cons: because the persons associates the action with pain subconciously when the person forgets the reason they will have a deepseeted fear of that course of action and have no understanding as to why, Phobias. because it is rooted in the subconciousness you will need to determine the instance it was formed in order to reverse its effects, aka. remember when you learned it.

Posative reinforcement: Pros effectivly encourages a form of behavior, assuming there are also no pre dispositions.
Cons: the persons plesant associations would often remain regardless of circumstances, this itself being a form of bias, and in order to correct or change this form of behavior one needs to determine the source, since it is also rooted in the subconciousness.

psychoanalasis and psychotherapy: pro: one can effectivly alter theirown forms of behavior to what suits the current circumstances, nuff said.
Cons: there is a great deal of time required to use these and some subconscience keys are battached to long forgotten memories so chancing them requires use of hypnosis to uncover them, which in itself acts as a deterint.

Reasoning: Pro: by using logic to determine the Ideal course of action one can act in their best intrests with a situation.
Cons: generally only works when the person activly uses reasoning, and it generally dosent effect past dispositions.

conclusion: none really, but it gives you something to think about.

10

So your point is that controlling your impulses is not controlling your impulses?

I beg to differ as that’s an obvious, dare I say sophist, point to make.

11

Can a computer reprogram it’s own software?

12

yes

-Imp

13

Self-contol is a term of degrees, how much self-control do you have in any given situation? Depnds on the persons resolve is suppose. Previous events do have an influence on the persons choice but do not rule it in the entirety. A phobic has very strong feelings in a certain situation that will drive thm to take a certain course of action but it is tham who ultimately has the final say wether to go with it or not, this is reasoning. Ultimately imo it is up to the individual if this is not the case then the world would be a very in a very sad state of affairs as we would all be the result of anothers actions wether we thought they were right or wrong.

14

It’s action->reaction on a massive and hugely detailed scale.

Thats the way it is, everything that was is and is going to be is a result of the first action in this realm after the rule was put into place.

It’s a truth that none of us has a choice in anything, we’re just experiencing what we were meant to, every ‘choice’ that is made by the living and move that is made wether it be by something living or not is just a result of a complex equation.

Thus ones free will is measured by ones amount of ability or power, which can be said to be made up of mainly intilect, physical ability and money.

It may not sound nice to believe but remember, in a way reality does’nt change only your view of it does, regardless if you belive the truth or not it will always will be the truth, i find it kind of grim myself but thats the way it is. It makes being an ignorent fool or an all enlightened person equal, it means all life is equal and and equally trivial.

This also means the meaning of life is to experience life…
Which you will as you were meant to so… no worries on that note.

Theres more but i wont go on.

15

Do you not feel that the choice you are able to make is the way in which you view the reality that you are presented with, this is my point. The reality is indeed the same ie a dog is a dog most definatly but wether it is something to be feared is up to me that is my choice, ic hose to view a dog as something to be feared or not?Is that not correct. This choice will then set me on another path so it is correct that action= reaction.

16

And yet some people like the bird that keeps flying into the window trying to get through, keep making the same mistake over and over without learning or being conditioned by the effect. What does this tell you, well it tells me that since its not always true that we get conditioned by effects of our actions that there is a possibility of controlling yourself, if one end of the spectrum is true then it is possible that the other end is also true. Also I see some evidence of self-control in my life, I have on occasion stopped myself from reacting ina particular way even though I knew the effect would not be as severe as my desire to do so, instead I thought about simply being above it and not letting it bother me in hoped that is would yield a better attitude in the future even though I had not experienced this before. Hope for things not experienced can add a completely new variable to the mix and human choice cannot be so easily boxed and presented, IMO.

17

Dan’s definition seems reasonable unfortunately. But what then would we call this moment … I’m an addicted gambler( I cannot afford to lose any money as well) I am in a position to gamble, I reason with the situation, I should not gamble, yet through my ‘addiction’ I want too… I then formulate that I ought not to gamble.

Now, my action, lets say I gamble anyway, this appears to be some sort of ‘self-control’ or termed lack of it at least and. It would then be percieved by others as negative responce. Or now I dont gamble, this appears to be self-control at least in a positive sense. I have moved away from my ‘addiction’, and do otherwise. Generally called self control (implied: done what is reasonable?!)

If there is no free will, then it doesnt really matter what we term anything dealing with it. So on the assumption we have the ability to do otherwise, what then, would we call the above?

18

self-control is not desire elimination

19

perhaps true self-control is about the ability for one to empathize,and/or the realization of consequences of not being in control of one’s wants/desires.

of course though the less one thinks of themselves the less empathy and/or consideration of the consequences comes in.

20

There is no choice involved, choice is an illusion.

Wether or not you fear the dogg and what you think on the matter is a result of your past experiences and past happenings as far as it can affect those particular things, it is not up you definatively because you nor any other thing is beyond the rules were under because we did’nt make the rules of the universe or controll them, the rules of the universe made us and controll us.

The script has already been written and we are playing our part just as intended.

Maybe if i say you will always do what you see as best within your ability it sounds easier to swallow, it’s same laws that apply and theres still no choices. It’s still incorrect in the grand scale of things and ultimate truth.