Advertisement
Hi everyone! This is the topic of our monthly gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (10-25-09; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there!
Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.
This month's topic won the email vote by a narrow margin:
“THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFICATION,” DESIRE AND PERSONAL FREEDOM: Which of your desires do you identify with, that is, consider to be part of your "genuine" or "true" self? The deeper, underlying question is this: what does it mean, in the first place, to identify with certain desires and not with others? One reason this is important is that it's often held that you are autonomous, and your will is free, when you act out of your genuine desires, but not as free when you act out of your so-called non-genuine desires. To make the issue clearer, consider the example of the unwilling addict. Let's say this man despises his addiction and wishes he didn’t want the drug, tries to resist, but he nonetheless acts on his desire for the drug. He's moved by a desire that is surely his desire, in one sense, but in another sense, the desire for the drug is alien or external to him, and he does not identify with it. In acting on this desire, he's not doing what he genuinely or truly wants to do. He is not free (or is less free), in at least one sense of that term.
A philosopher who discusses the example puts it this way, "Most contemporary theorists agree that the unwilling addict is unfree, that he winds up acting on desires that aren’t his, in the sense needed for freedom, despite their being present in his psychology. The Problem of Identification, then, is about how to make sense of this phenomenon: what is it that makes some motivationally efficacious desires mine, and what renders others external to my true self? In other words, I identify with some psychological elements (they are mine), whereas I do not identify with others. What is the nature of this sort of identification, then?"
Most of us can relate to the addict's predicament, though usually a less severe form of it. The Problem of Identification isn't limited to drug-related desires or other pathological states, and it's not only an abstract puzzle about free will and autonomy. It's also a personal philosophical question about how to conceive of the various types of desire you have, which kinds you identify with and act out of, and what this says about how free you are. Do you, for instance, act out of your spontaneous impulses, do you identify with them, and does this make you less free? What about your strongest and/or most frequent desires? Your favorite desires? The desires approved of by your "considered judgment?" The desires with the "right" origins in your life? The desires you deem rational or irrational, healthful or harmful, valuable or unworthy, a source of pride or of embarrassment? These are among the ways of looking at desire discussed in the literature. Maybe you have a different way of thinking about the desires internal and external to your genuine self (or whether there is such a thing as a genuine self).
--------------------------
See you Sunday!
Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.
This month's topic won the email vote by a narrow margin:
“THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFICATION,” DESIRE AND PERSONAL FREEDOM: Which of your desires do you identify with, that is, consider to be part of your "genuine" or "true" self? The deeper, underlying question is this: what does it mean, in the first place, to identify with certain desires and not with others? One reason this is important is that it's often held that you are autonomous, and your will is free, when you act out of your genuine desires, but not as free when you act out of your so-called non-genuine desires. To make the issue clearer, consider the example of the unwilling addict. Let's say this man despises his addiction and wishes he didn’t want the drug, tries to resist, but he nonetheless acts on his desire for the drug. He's moved by a desire that is surely his desire, in one sense, but in another sense, the desire for the drug is alien or external to him, and he does not identify with it. In acting on this desire, he's not doing what he genuinely or truly wants to do. He is not free (or is less free), in at least one sense of that term.
A philosopher who discusses the example puts it this way, "Most contemporary theorists agree that the unwilling addict is unfree, that he winds up acting on desires that aren’t his, in the sense needed for freedom, despite their being present in his psychology. The Problem of Identification, then, is about how to make sense of this phenomenon: what is it that makes some motivationally efficacious desires mine, and what renders others external to my true self? In other words, I identify with some psychological elements (they are mine), whereas I do not identify with others. What is the nature of this sort of identification, then?"
Most of us can relate to the addict's predicament, though usually a less severe form of it. The Problem of Identification isn't limited to drug-related desires or other pathological states, and it's not only an abstract puzzle about free will and autonomy. It's also a personal philosophical question about how to conceive of the various types of desire you have, which kinds you identify with and act out of, and what this says about how free you are. Do you, for instance, act out of your spontaneous impulses, do you identify with them, and does this make you less free? What about your strongest and/or most frequent desires? Your favorite desires? The desires approved of by your "considered judgment?" The desires with the "right" origins in your life? The desires you deem rational or irrational, healthful or harmful, valuable or unworthy, a source of pride or of embarrassment? These are among the ways of looking at desire discussed in the literature. Maybe you have a different way of thinking about the desires internal and external to your genuine self (or whether there is such a thing as a genuine self).
--------------------------
See you Sunday!
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Identification with desires, Autonomy, Free Will
Wed, October 21, 2009 - 1:01 AMOPTIONAL READINGS for this topic-- I found two readings (one 2-3 pages, the other 15 pages) and one podcast this month for you to enjoy. I highly encourage you to inspire and clarify your thinking on the ideas involved by reading them!
1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ This Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry overviews many of the debates about Free Will. However, the only parts relevant to our issue are the succinct sections 1 and 2, which sum to only 2 or 3 pages in length.
2. plato.stanford.edu/entries/...autonomy/ The entire Personal Autonomy article is relevant to our topic, and it's one of the better entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , I think. It's written in an abstract, academic style, but nearly everything it says involves mental processes that all of us have experienced and can relate to. It's about 15 pages long.
3. www.philosophytalk.org/pastSh...my.html The Philosophy Talk radio show on "Autonomy" is a 50-minute audio program (downloadable), plus half a page of "listening notes." It's a discussion of different aspects of Autonomy between the two hosts, philosophers at Stanford, and the philosopher they interview, a specialist in Autonomy. Though hosted by professors, it isn't loaded with jargon and doesn't require an academic background in philosophy to follow. Listen online or download to your mp3 player.
4. In addition to the above, I will post interesting, relevant passages from other readings I've come across in this thread.
-----------------------------
Most importantly, whether or not you post your ideas online, jot down your thoughts and bring them to our discussion Sunday, if you can make it.
FYI, here are the full vote-by-email results for the month:
1) Altruism: Is There Really Such A Thing? Should There Be? (19.5 Votes)
2) Is The Idea Of "An Individual Organism" An Arbitrary Biological Notion? (6.0 Votes)
3) Is Anything Certain Or Is All Knowledge Fallible And Revisable? (21.75 Votes)
4) The Problem Of Identification, Desire And Personal Freedom (24.5 Votes)
5) The Meaning Of Patriotism (7.25 Votes)
Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on. Recent, regular participants at our gatherings have their vote doubled.
-
Re: Identification with desires, Autonomy, Free Will
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 12:18 AMFirst of all, I do believe that there are some desires that are basic and necessary to one's survival and well-being. Actually, I would say that these are basic NEEDS, in the following categories:
1) Physical: (the desire/ need for food, water and physical sustenance, shelter, for ex.)
2) Emotional: (the desire/ need to love and be loved and accepted, to have companionship and friendship, to feel safe and protected, to connect and communicate meaningfully with others, for ex.)
3) Spiritual: (the desire/ need to feel connected to a Higher Source/ G-d/ Divine Universal Intelligence, or whatever name one chooses to call this entity/ spiritual essence in the Universe that is greater than ourselves, for ex.)
4) Intellectual: (the desire/ need to learn, to explore intellectually -- ideas, concepts, knowledge, to gain new insights on various topics, etc.)
5) Creative: (the desire/ need to express one's creative potential -- in whatever form/s this may take (musical, artistic, literary, scientific, inventive, business, etc.)
I believe that the categories/ areas above are all intrinsic and innate -- and that people from all backgrounds and walks of life share and identify with these basic needs. Also, the extent to which these needs are met/ fulfilled/ recognized, will determine to what extent an individual feels "free" (in the sense that he/ she will be living up to his/ her full potential, for ex). This, in turn, "feeds the soul", if you will -- which can only lead to a sense of freedom (and, in turn, a greater likelihood of happiness and joy).
On the other hand, some "desires" can lead to a sense of feeling "imprisoned"/ "shackled". The example in this topic's initial post mentioned "addiction" as an example. For example, cigarette addicts may think they want to continue smoking; however, in their case, it is actually a physical CRAVING -- their body/ system has become so accustomed to the nicotine, that it is actually an "automatic" habit: Therefore, in their case, it would appear that they are not at all "free" in their decision to smoke cigarettes. Their action is motivated by a chemically-charged impulse to continue to "light up" and inhale that toxin (nicotine). Therefore, I would NOT say that they necessarily identify with this "desire". (It is not a "genuine" desire/ need: They were NOT BORN with it.) Of course, this (cigarette addiction) is just one of many other possible examples (for ex., "addictions" to sugar, coffee -- as well as non-food-related ones). -
-
Re: Identification with desires, Autonomy, Free Will
Sun, October 25, 2009 - 5:34 AMNEEDS v DESIRES: what's the difference? Since Mirav brought it up, I'll offer the distinction between them from a psychologist or physiologist I read a while ago. It's along the lines of what you said, Mirav. I can't remember her name, but she said something like this:
Needs are those cyclic, physiological strivings of an organism that tend to be stable through time, and when deprived, result in tissue damage or impaired functioning. After being sated, the strength and urgency of a need wanes for a time, then returns to its original level. The strength of a need is not much affected by the psychological make up of a person (as compared to desires).
Desires, by contrast, do not result in tissue damage when deprived, and are not usually as stable, regular or cyclic as needs. After being sated, the strength and urgency of a desire wanes for a time, but it does not necessarily return to its previous level. The frequent satisfying of a desire tends to increase its strength over time. The frequent abstention from satisfying a desire tends to increase its strength in the short term, but weaken it's strength in the long term. Though desires (like needs) have some biological basis, the strength of a desire (unlike that of a need) is strongly influenced by the psychological make up of a person.
----
I wonder if or how this distinction bears on the "problem of identification" or autonomy. At first blush, you'd think that people would always identify with their needs (feel them to be "the real me"), as Mirav suggests. But I don’t see why that would be the case, since people often reject, deny, repress, or simply dislike their own needs. Just because satisfying a need is in your interests, or is good for your health, does not mean that any given person will identify with it or feel it to be part of their 'genuine self.' I imagine that people often identify more strongly with some of their desires than some of their needs. That may not be a bad thing, either. -
-
Re: Identification with desires, Autonomy, Free Will
Wed, October 28, 2009 - 11:18 PMYes, Brian, regarding your reply to my previous post, I certainly do agree that people do not always identify with their needs (and that there are those who deny their basic needs, in one way or another). Also, it is true that many people may identify more strongly with their desires than with their needs (to one extent or another). However, the reason I chose to distinguish between NEEDS and DESIRES is because, in our society, it seems that these two "entities" (if you will) have become loosely interchangeable in the minds of many.
Let's take advertising as an example. In this realm, the message is that you "need" this product (to be more socially acceptable, attractive -- or any number of "desirable" qualities/ traits). Of course, this is ultimately just a marketing "ploy" to get the viewing public to buy the product/s in question (and, thus, to sell that product). As a result, those who "buy into" the message will think they need this product, and will thus "desire" to buy/ have it. As another example, while everyone needs to eat (to survive, etc.), it is not necessary to buy THIS brand (of food item) over THAT one to survive (it is NOT a basic need, in this case). An individual may THINK that he/ she really wants (desires) THIS brand over THAT one (because, due to the images, etc. in the ad/ commercial, it sounds more appealing, appetizing to them, etc.) This is where the PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect "fits" in all of this -- and (as most of us are aware) the most effective ads are those that appeal to our emotions, in one way or another. (On the other hand, it is important to note that people always have a choice -- FREE WILL -- as to whether they will ultimately purchase the product/s in question.)
Of course, the above is just one example of an area (advertising) where "needs" and "desires" may be confused (to some extent) -- and I feel it is a relevant (though perhaps slightly segued) point to make.
-
-
