Re: Desire vs. Instinct, Determinism vs. Will -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:00:26 01/26/08 Sat
Author: Jfish
Subject: Re: Desire vs. Instinct, Determinism vs. Will
In reply to: HWAET! 's message, "Desire vs. Instinct, Determinism vs. Will" on 14:42:43 01/21/08 Mon

I think you are defining the strongest desire by whatever wins. So of course, this creates a tautology: the strongest desire always wins because it is strongest. It seems like an attempt to link the idea of choice to the strongest desire, but it doesn't seem to fit the theory. I'm not sure where the action is in the scene, but it doesn't matter. Do we continually act to help our neighbor until we desire it too? Or do we deliberate in our mind until the desire becomes great enough to act (implying that there's no such thing as instantaneous decision)? Either way, you've elevated choice to supersede desires, meaning we can't explain all human action through needs and desires.

I'm not sure Girard would allow that. I need to learn more of course, but it seems that he would suggest some greater desire is directing the deliberation about these lesser desires. So all such choice would be a mirage. This is why I did not think Girard allows for a difference between mechanistic and mechanism. There has to be something outside of these desires (and your proposal was one possibility) for them to be different. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it changes the decision making process.

But there is one way to have our cake and eat it too: if we allow for inherent randomness. We could think of it in terms of probabilities, where stronger desires are more likely to win, but not guaranteed. This would get us closer to the idea of a choice without dividing between choices and desire. Of course, I'm not sure anyone would prefer this model to solve the problem.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Desire vs. Instinct, Determinism vs. Will -- JD, 20:10:08 01/27/08 Sun