What we seek is good for us...
Well, what we mean is that whatever it is we pursue or seek appears good to us. But it is always based on some want.
Perhaps what we want is approval. We do whatever we can to seek that approval, whether it is making fun of others so as to be accepted in the in-crowd or being overly ambitious so as to please an absent parent.
Maybe what we want is food, and that chocolate cake looks mighty tasty.
The cake looks good to us. But there is a difference between the way something appears and the way it actually is. This fact explains why philosophy is so important in human life. Philosophy provides the tools for understanding the good and the not-so-good. It provides the means for prioritizing our wants and desires so that we do not let them get out of balance.
Even our morality can become out of balance. Those who emphasize rules at all costs do this. Kant, for instance, would insist on sacrificing a life so as not to tell a lie. Utility runs the other direction -- it sacrifices the individual so as to please the masses. Only a morality grounded in human nature -- in all of its aspects -- can truly guide us in determining and prioritzing our wants and desires.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
To have a system in place where one can develop and compare our different wants seems to be the first step in being able to make a choice. Midgley says as much when she speaks of trying to decide between two individual wants. She then states that the real conflict begins when we have to actually make a choice.
Seems that most decisions we make are made by an impulsive act versus a human really trying to think and reason out in our mind what our options are. One makes a free choice to eat either grapes or oatmeal cookies. Both offer certain healthy benefits, but what process do we use to make the final determination?
This is the fun of Philosophy. Looking at some of the thousands of different decisions that are made every day, and determining why a particular choice was chosen. Fun stuff.
This, I think is interesting. The conflicts that arise between what we want and what is actually good for us. I partially understand Midgley who says that whatever we want must be good for us because we are attracted to it, but I think there is a limit to that. I think that we all have to learn to subdue our desires for things such as chocolate cake, unless of course if it is a Sunday when we should be rejoicing. In that case we can give in. However, just because we have a want for chocolate, mean that we should eat it everyday because then it would not be good for us for we would get type 2 diabetes.
If there is one thing I have learned over the last two weeks it is that we need to feast just as well as we fast. But we have to fast more.
This was a good blog Dr. Nick. It made me want chocolate cake.
How do you use this???
This is Joseph Jang.
I did not notice, but it seems that you are in very much of agreement with Midgley, Doctor^^ I also think that she has some good points. However, on the basis that I personally think that philosophy has a limit, the ways that many philosophers like Midgley use to approach philosophical issues have flaws. I think it can lead people to treat complex philosophical issues as a generic one. For Christian, this could be much more true. For example, favoritism is part of human nature; people prefer kin or closer people than those who we are not familiar with. However, this idea is not compatible with that of Christians; although we will have favoritism, we should love everyone. What Jesus teaches us to do is beyond our nature. Probably, Midgley’s best suggestion is that we become like animals; one difference between human beings and animals is that we have understandings of our nature and the animals do not. I do not have full understanding of her position, but it seems that she thinks that reasoning ability of human has led people to abuse the ability itself, and this led people to become more unnatural (which in other words distorted). I think happiness for human and animals have totally different notion. I presume that there must be happiness for animals too, but I think they do not have the opposite, the bad. However for human beings, we have good (happiness) and bad. This is probably because we have reasoning and plus, something beyond reasoning. Also, I think that ‘how chocolate cake appears’ and ‘how they actually are’ is not so much related with philosophy. How smart one is, or how hard one studies the philosophy, it will not help one to correctly presume the taste of the chocolate cake. One way to know how particular cake tastes like is to taste it, no other way. Deciding to eat must be philosophical, but it seems that no philosophy lie in the result of the taste. Rather, I guess it has to do more with the desire and satisfaction regardless of the taste. What is really good for us? Is it good for me to eat? Or is it good not to eat? Why do I want to eat? Do I have choice whether to eat or not? My thought is that, the limit should not stop us from pursuing the truth, but we should not think that there is some kind of answer for everything. And using such a generic basis to solve all philosophical problems (and be quite confident about it) seems to be dangerous. I think that human nature is not the key (or any other thing), but rather it is a piece of a jigsaw puzzle.
Note. This is just a personal opinion which probably has flaws. Also, apologize for a bad composition (unorganized), because it might lead to misunderstanding of my opinion.
"Rather, I guess it has to do more with the desire and satisfaction regardless of the taste. What is really good for us? Is it good for me to eat? Or is it good not to eat? Why do I want to eat? Do I have choice whether to eat or not?"
Joseph -- that is exactly what philosophy is. I'm not sure how asking these questions are overly simplistic.
This is Joseph again!
Still don't have an ID...
Thank you, though, Bert^^
Well, what I mean is... I think that how the cake taste has almost no relation to the philosophy. The questions, which I wrote and you quoted, are philosophical. What I am saying is that... how it appears and how it actually taste is more of a... actuality or truth. It could taste as one expected, or it might not. However, come to think of it that there must be some kind of relation to philosophy, for everything can be philosophical. (epistemological, ontological, etc.)
And the simplicity that I talked about was the simlicity of the approaches that many philosophers seem to take. For example, F=ma is one of physical equation. It is used on many applications. However, this equation alone cannot solve any of the real applications that we encounter in everyday life. And my opinion is... human behavior is much more complex than the physics of the world.
Thank you for taking your time to read my commnet!^^
Joseph, a note about the term "appear." In one sense, "appear" refers to the actual sensations individuals have to particular objects. Thus, chocolate taste appears to me to be delicious, or the sky appears cloudy today.
On another level, though, the term "appear" refers to perception -- how we "understand" things. I understand that the cake will satisfy my hunger and so will an apple. The cake "appears" good to me, not simply because of the sensations it will provide, but because of the desire it satisfies.
As another example, the pain the dentist causes when she pulls a tooth "appears" painful, but it also "appears" good because I don't won't my gums to rot.
You explain that philosophy is so important in human life and how it provides the tools for understanding the good and the not-so-good. However, then you explain that philosophy can become out of balance if not grounded on nature. Christ, the greatest philosopher, agreed with emphisis on nature: "Notice the ravens. They do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them...Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin..."
I think that when our wants take over our lives, when it gets to the point that we worry if we can't have something, then it becomes unnatural. In this sense, I think we can learn a lot by observing animals and nature.
Midgley explains that some animals also have cares and concerns. An elephant, for example, has been known to save her baby from drowning in a river. Thus, animals have some sense of knowledge. On the other hand, animals have been known to have a sixth sense. After the Tsunami in India, biologists were stunned that no animal carcass was found in the large Sri Lanka's Yala wildlife national park that was flooded by the tsunami. All were saved by their "sixth sense" and fled to higher grounds, well in advance of the raging Tsunami waves (http://www.dwamusa.com/no_ark_needed_for_animals_this_t.htm.). Thus, I believe humans could also have known that the tsunami was coming beforehand. We have intuitive gifts also. However, we have lost these gifts through pride, selfishness, and by "worrying."
JP
You explain that philosophy is so important in human life and how it provides the tools for understanding the good and the not-so-good. However, then you explain that philosophy can become out of balance if not grounded on nature. Christ, the greatest philosopher, agreed with emphisis on nature: "Notice the ravens. They do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them...Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin..."
I think that when our wants take over our lives, when it gets to the point that we worry if we can't have something, then it becomes unnatural. In this sense, I think we can learn a lot by observing animals and nature.
Midgley explains that some animals also have cares and concerns. An elephant, for example, has been known to save her baby from drowning in a river. Thus, animals have some sense of knowledge. On the other hand, animals have been known to have a sixth sense. After the Tsunami in India, biologists were stunned that no animal carcass was found in the large Sri Lanka's Yala wildlife national park that was flooded by the tsunami. All were saved by their "sixth sense" and fled to higher grounds, well in advance of the raging Tsunami waves (http://www.dwamusa.com/no_ark_needed_for_animals_this_t.htm.). Thus, I believe humans could also have known that the tsunami was coming beforehand. We have intuitive gifts also. However, we have lost these gifts through pride, selfishness, and by "worrying."
JP
You explain that philosophy is so important in human life and how it provides the tools for understanding the good and the not-so-good. However, then you explain that philosophy can become out of balance if not grounded on nature. Christ, the greatest philosopher, agreed with emphisis on nature: "Notice the ravens. They do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them...Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin..."
I think that when our wants take over our lives, when it gets to the point that we worry if we can't have something, then it becomes unnatural. In this sense, I think we can learn a lot by observing animals and nature.
Midgley explains that some animals also have cares and concerns. An elephant, for example, has been known to save her baby from drowning in a river. Thus, animals have some sense of knowledge. On the other hand, animals have been known to have a sixth sense. After the Tsunami in India, biologists were stunned that no animal carcass was found in the large Sri Lanka's Yala wildlife national park that was flooded by the tsunami. All were saved by their "sixth sense" and fled to higher grounds, well in advance of the raging Tsunami waves (http://www.dwamusa.com/no_ark_needed_for_animals
_this_t.htm.). Thus, I believe humans could also have known that the tsunami was coming beforehand. We have intuitive gifts also. However, we have lost these gifts through pride, selfishness, and by "worrying."
JP
Good words.
Post a Comment