John Dailey wrote:
Jeezuz-F***in'-Buddha! This subject just will not die, will it? May Ishtar's mammaries flow the milk of wisdom forth to all of us on this subject someday. Kee-ripes!
Yes, and how about a few donuts of common sense to dunk in Ishtar’s milk of wisdom. Krime-a-nettly! :-)
John shares his impression of how Rand thought that "'freedom'-FROM (whatever)" was not as important as "'freedom'-TO (or-FOR)," and that she was concerned not so much with "'freedom' from (driving?) forces" as with "'freedom' from (restricting?) constraints, so that one was 'free'-TO-do (whatever)." (I hope I haven't lost his meaning by editing around his rather tricking punctuation.) He says that:
The subject of deterministic motivations to 'explain' a...choice (exercise of/by the 'will')...is definitely self-hemmed in on the forces concern. When the action/process/occurrence of a choice/will manifests, then there just MUST be 'something' that produces it…The 'bottom line' concern is with the...decision/will/choice...to increase-one's-attention-or-not (ie:'focus.') on subject 'X'. Not to start the 'focus', but to change it (increase, or decrease).
Well, I thought that choice between alternatives was a power of conscious living beings. Even animals have to deal with alternatives, like fight or flight; they just can’t deliberate about their choices like we can. They can’t say, “I’d better get the heck out of here…no, wait, I’m mad, I’m going to fight.” (Although they might, as they get ready to flee, notice that the predator has fallen into a hole, and is helpless to harm them, so they stay instead. They just change their actions, when conditions warrant, automatically instead of deliberately.)
So, what produces the choice? I don’t think it’s any kind of “driving force,” as John seems to be searching for. Instead, since choice is the power to act of a person or animal, I’d say the person or animal produces the choice, according to what desire most strongly moves them to act. We have the great advantage of being able to reason about, or reflect over, what is moving us to act in a certain way. We can notice and monitor and decide whether we want to go with our strongest desire, or to think about it and maybe do something else.
But even our uniquely human ability of self-monitoring follows the same principle. If we desire to reflect and consider more strongly than we want to plunge on into action, then that is what we will do! It seems inescapable. But then who would want to escape from that? What else would you want to do, other than what you most wanted to do? Isn't what you most want in a given situation precisely what the choosing-and-valuing you is? Isn't that the biological mechanism by which we make our choices?
A Determinist (of whatever variety, including Compatibilists) would argue that the motivation (even that of picking one's motivation) must, necessarily, be value-based (or, at least desire-based). I am, to repeat, in sympathy with this view. Problem is: no Determinist has explained (for all the...arguing given) just exactly what (surely not 'who')...determines...which (re 'Value' vs 'Desire') produces the 'decision'/'choice'/'will-to-action' in a competing conflict of them! Determinists won’t get any argument from me on this point. It makes perfect sense to me that, after all is said and done, even focusing is chosen (over evasion) because it’s what we more strongly desire to do. Why would I focus, how could I focus, if it wasn’t what I most wanted to do? And if I do indeed act to gain and/or keep a state of (increased) focus, then I am valuing that state.
A Determinist seems to boil 'Value' down to merely another 'Want' (which a decision-maker CAN allow to happen, no argument), ergo, the conflict falls under my example #1, resulting in a conflict of wants, and the winning-want-of-the-moment takes all. Well, if that’s true, then Ayn Rand was the champion Determinist of all time! She said value is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep,” and what possible instance of that could not involve one’s wanting it? Why would you, and how could you, act to gain and/or keep something you didn’t want, in some respect?
Rand also realized that people can and do want – and act to gain and/or keep – things that are not good for them, even things that they know are not good for them, but that, in the moment, at least, they want more than something else. Her concern was to start her inquiry into ethics by first formulating a broad, catch-all concept and definition of “value,” and then to narrow it down to rational, objective values, things we should act to gain and/or keep (by the standard of man’s life).
John’s concern about “boiling value down to want” thus seems to be misplaced. Pursued wants are exactly what values are. To lead a good life, all we really need to avoid is replacing rational value with “mere want.” We need to make sure that we pursue not “mere wants” but rational wants, i.e., things we want that are also good for us. And if that is what we most want to do – rather than pursuing “mere wants” – then that is what we will do! Why would we, and how could we, do anything else?
And now, folks, how about some milk and donuts! By Ishtar, they're good! :-)
Artie
|
