Post hoc fiction — schopenhauer1

You are the only on referring to them as a fiction. Post hoc, yes. Fiction, no so much.

And you continue to ignore the point that reasons are attributed to animals, plants and rocks as much as to humans. Your OP has no standing.

You are the only on referring to them as a fiction. Post hoc, yes. Fiction, no so much. — Banno

I think this makes sense only in a neuroscience kind of way.. The neurons fired before the decision was made.. or maybe a "free will" versus "determined" kind of way.. But that's a slightly different point. Rather, I am simply claiming that we have "reasons" not whether neurons fire prior to linguistic formation of the reason, or whether the reasons were determined.

The fact is, you would still say, "I went to the park because..." if someone asked and you weren't trying to evade it. Of course, yes, you could have been sleepwalking there, in a trance, drugged and unconsciously taken to the park.. But if you decided to go consciously and without some mitigating factors, you had reasons..

And you continue to ignore the point that reasons are attributed to animals, plants and rocks as much as to humans. Your OP has no standing. — Banno

They are attributed, but doesn't mean they have reasons. Rocks obviously don't have a reason for why they might roll. Rather they were effected to roll from a cause. That difference was stated in the OP.

I regret giving any attention at all to the nonsense of this thread.

I regret giving any attention at all to the nonsense of this thread. — Banno

According to yourself, you have no reason for this.

Ooof.. is that a slight against any tribal society that doesn't have "civilization"? You save it by adding "socialized" though. — schopenhauer1

Or instead, cultural anthropology shows us that tribal order doesn’t expect the giving of individual reasons, just knowledge of collective custom.

Civilisation shifts the social conversation to a different space where you are suppose to construct your own systems of constraint. You get to have your personal freedoms if you swear allegiance to the abstractions of Enlightenment values.

So same thing in some lights. Very different in others. I wouldn’t want to mindlessly lump them together … as you are at risk of doing. :razz:

That seems like a false dichotomy of "social formulas" and "acting on reason". Both seem off to me. — schopenhauer1

Or instead, just how cultural anthropology would frame the shift in semiotic scale from hunter-gatherer to cities and social democracy as a way of life.

Rather, reasons are formed by way of a being that can self-identify as an individual that can produce outcomes in the world and knows there are choices that lead to those outcomes. — schopenhauer1

How does one come to self-identify as an individual except via social construction?

A failure to understand this fact is at the base of much modern angst. So no surprise you must fail to understand it and thus preserve your right to complain about “imposed burdens” rather than accepting that your persona is a co-creation of the company you choose to keep.

Reading gloomy old philosophy texts could have been where it all went wrong.

According to yourself, you have no reason for this. — schopenhauer1

You seem to think that I've claimed we do not have reasons. I haven't, but it's this sort of irrational jump that renders your posts unworthy of response.

Cheers.

You seem to think that I've claimed we do not have reasons. I haven't, but it's this sort of irrational jump that renders your posts unworthy of response. — Banno

I'm sorry, get over yourself. I don't even want to fathom the reasons causes for your smugness be they personality disorder, inflated sense of self-importance... I don't give a hoot.

If I misinterpreted you then go on and tell me how. All I've gotten is "Things and animals are attributed with reasons" and "Humans make post hoc reasons". Those things do not contradict my claim that we are an animal that has reasons.

You think you are too good to respond.. That is the reason you are positing. I can say, really you are an over confident excessively self-satisfied personality type.. Smug.. Or the cause is presenting oneself as that on this forum. That might be more of a cause than a reason though. Your reason presented to yourself looks different from a psychological vantage of the causes behind your reasons.

:wink:

I like having the ability to predict possible consequences and the power to generate reasons to explain my actions. I like choosing certain courses of action. There is no better combination for a good and ethical life. They’re all boon and no burden. Why are they a burden for you? I ask because there has to be a reason for it but it’s not made explicit.

brains and bodies which isn't all that different than a controller built into an electronics system. We like to believe we have free will but it is a given that we are still chained to the system that evolution choose to give to us.

Whether it is possible to be able to use high capacity thinking without the problems that come with sentient is something I don't think anyone knows. — dclements

The difference being the difference between syntax and semantics.

Or instead, cultural anthropology shows us that tribal order doesn’t expect the giving of individual reasons, just knowledge of collective custom.

Civilisation shifts the social conversation to a different space where you are suppose to construct your own systems of constraint. You get to have your personal freedoms if you swear allegiance to the abstractions of Enlightenment values. — apokrisis

Can you elaborate more on your theory here? Are you thinking of a specific study? Does anyone in a tribal society act simply because they wanted to, or is it always tribal custom? It can't be that caricatured. X wants to see the buffalo because he likes seeing them run in large groups. Y doesn't care, but he does want to go to the watering hole because he likes swimming and catching fish. Both however follow customs of the elders and ride horses to battle the neighboring tribe. If you asked X why he is near the buffalo, he might say that he likes to watch the buffalo and so he ga e his reason for watching the buffalo.

How does one come to self-identify as an individual except via social construction?

A failure to understand this fact is at the base of much modern angst. So no surprise you must fail to understand it and thus preserve your right to complain about “imposed burdens” rather than accepting that your persona is a co-creation of the company you choose to keep.

Reading gloomy old philosophy texts could have been where it all went wrong. — apokrisis

The company I choose to keep has been dictated by the "revelations" of that allegiance sworn to Enlightenment values..that is to say the modern day socioeconomic behemoth.

You can be a tribal society or you can be a part of civilization, but none of that is something you can choose. Neo-tribal doesn't count as it’s an awareness of civilization and moving away from it, not an organic order arisen purely from interaction between natural world, tribal customs, and members of tribe and neighbors.

So individuals with reasons is a human event that is magnified by cultural practices of Enlightenment values. We call this modernity. It has been diagnosed by the Existentialists and existentialists.

@schopenhauer1

(I think) plants reason (without a brain): I saw this cactus plant outside my sister's house. I noticed that its body is flat & almost vertical. My hypothesis: The catcus has this shape because it wants to present the least surface area to the sun at high noon when it's hottest to reduce water loss via evaporation. However, it needs light for photosynthesis and its flat body ensures that it harvests light maximally during the cooler mornings & evenings.

:cool: :flower: Awesome!

Do you see a distinction between a cause and a reason?

Do you see a distinction between a cause and a reason? — schopenhauer1

A superb question "because" ...

?

:smile: I don't wanna repeat myself.

Don’t get what you’re asking.

Don’t get what you’re asking. — schopenhauer1

P:smile: In the long run ... it doesn't even matter.

Are you thinking of a specific study? Does anyone in a tribal society act simply because they wanted to, or is it always tribal custom? — schopenhauer1

Yep. I am thinking particularly of Catherine Lutz studies of self-regulation in Ifaluk islanders and how they frame right and wrong not as personal but public values. There are good collections of such anthropology in Harre and Parrott's The Emotions, and Harre's The Social Construction of Emotions.

So the argument is not that tribal custom always prevails over personal impulse. It is that the tribal view sees the reasons for their behaviour being constrained as concretely external – the customary way. And civilisation was all about teaching folk to internalise things.

The constraints on the self became abstractions to be contemplated internally. We had to "see" right and wrong as impersonal truths that we might know directly through reason, and so see through what were merely the contingent truths of some ragtag band of unphilosophical, not even rational, savages.

You can be a tribal society or you can be a part of civilization, but none of that is something you can choose. — schopenhauer1

But the difference with civilisation is that it promises you a material world which can be organised with abstract freedom. The possibility of constructing a heaven on earth. :razz:

Not my fault that the Enlightenment led to the Industrial Revolution before the tribal mindset could complete its evolution towards an angelic state of accord.

So choices become possible with reason. But fossil fuel wanted to be burnt. We became its vehicle. That wasn't how the Enlightenment was meant to play out.

This is the world that has actually been given us. You can either accept its challenge or ... spend your short life pointlessly complaining.

So individuals with reasons is a human event that is magnified by cultural practices of Enlightenment values. We call this modernity. It has been diagnosed by the Existentialists and existentialists. — schopenhauer1

Don't forget the Romantic reaction which is a deeper source of the problems now. Existentialism sits on that side of the divide.

Enlightenment civilisation can turn us into good and pragmatic citizens. But romanticism makes us dream of becoming our own gods. Or at least supermen. Or failing all else, at least social media influencers. :up:

Don't forget the Romantic reaction which is a deeper source of the problems now. Existentialism sits on that side of the divide.

Enlightenment civilisation can turn us into good and pragmatic citizens. But romanticism makes us dream of becoming our own gods. Or at least supermen. Or failing all else, at least social media influencers. :up: — apokrisis

False dichotomy and contradicts yourself.

If the burden of reasons falls on the individual as an "allegiance to Enlightenment" then it cannot be external customs any more that provides reasons, but our own. That is in the existentialist wheelhouse. That is to say, meaning, motivation, authenticity of one's own goals and roles, and the like.

Surely making widgets may be the height of humanity's work. But widget making in itself isn't inherently meaningful.

If what is meaningful is survival, then we have many avenues of protest.. Camus' Sisyphus is laughing absurdist, Schopenhauer's is the life-denying ascetic who starves himself into Enlightenment.

But if your only answer is more varieties of widgets, because life begets life begets life, then that is as banal and nihilistic as all the Romantics.

Let's see, you have communist/socialist ideas of "working together" like a propaganda poster from the Soviet-era. You have Ayn Randian ideas of the "Mighty Entrepreneur".

Only truly ivory tower academics elucidating their tripe in their ivory towers truly thinks there is meaning in a field of academia (usually a science or social science)..

Usually it is blowhard arsehole who touts on about working for technological innovation.

Usually it is political propaganda to get more people to keep the game going.

If the burden of reasons falls on the individual as an "allegiance to Enlightenment" then it cannot be external customs any more that provides reasons, but our own. — schopenhauer1

No, it is about the interaction between a self and its society that is meant to be the rational relation. It is the rationality of this two-way street – the relation that strives for a win-win solution.

Both sides are saying "let's be reasonable about this". Life is about striking the pragmatic balance.

That is in the existentialist wheelhouse. That is to say, meaning, motivation, authenticity of one's own goals and roles, and the like. — schopenhauer1

Now you have gone off into one-sided Romanticism. The self as the sole arbiter.

This monism is at the root of all your problems. Your model of mind is solipsistic. All that exists is your experience – the "inevitable" pain, boredom and suffering of having been born. You frame your world as one where all burdens have been imposed on your passive experiencing and you seem to lack any authentic agency. But in reality, your mind if formed by social construction as well as inherited genetics and neurobiological habit. Then on top of that, there is this new level of semiosis that has opened up with the Enlightenment's theory of the civilised human condition.

Some of us seem to find it a positive step forward. Living in a civilisation is rather comfortable and entertaining. We get to have a lot of personal freedom to the degree that makes collective sense.

The problem is that the utopian promises haven't truly planned out because the Enlightenment didn't dig deep enough to understand "rationality" at the level of nature itself. Nature is a thermodynamic enterprise. Those are the rules that all organisms must play by. Civilisation requires a more sophisticated theory of itself for its progress not to turn into a self-delusion.

So sure. There is much to criticise. Rationally.

But that starts with accepting that the human condition is semiotic and thus a hierarchical structure of relations, not an atomised collection of solipsistically isolated and passive consciousnesses, weighed down by un-asked for burdens, and being self-deluding to the degree they deny the existential horror of it all.

Life is about striking the pragmatic balance. — apokrisis

But humans are a form of life and are not Life (whatever abstraction you are using here). That is to say, there is no necessity in what we value.. There are strong tendencies perhaps, but not necessities. Even the idea of a "maladopted life" makes no sense in the human realm... If what you mean is that it leads to extinction, then that is STILL a value statement.. One that we are ascenting to, not one we are necessarily bound to. So at the end of the day you are making a hypothetical statement into a categorical one. You are turning contingent social customs and personal decisions of life and lives into LIFE (apokrisis' notion of right/wrong). Nature might balance itself out or what not, but we have no reason to be bound to balancing forces or not bound to balancing forces as individuals or societies.

Now, this doesn't mean I am recommending immediate destruction or anything else. I am only pointing out the holes of your manufactuered naturalistic fallacy (LIFE and its necessary BALANCE as applied to humans who have reasons.. even if those reasons arise from interactions of society and individual due to how linguistic brains process information in a social framework.. so you need not go on about how our minds are shaped by social interactions.. I'm well aware of that thank you.. the difference is that the the origins of the linguistically capable mind is not the same as the CONTENT for which the individual mind thinks.. You can bring on a more basic idea of determinism at some deeper level, but that is not what you seem to be saying as you are implying we are bound by necessity rather than choose through contingency about our reasons, aims, goals, etc.).

Now you have gone off into one-sided Romanticism. The self as the sole arbiter. — apokrisis

No it's just that on a philosophy forum, I am not going to elucidate the whole development of DNA molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, neural networks, child development, social customs in one breath. I simply state how we have our individual reasons, whatever the factors are that allows that (and recognizing it is indeed an iteration of individual with society).

Then on top of that, there is this new level of semiosis that has opened up with the Enlightenment's theory of the civilised human condition. — apokrisis

The problem is this is in the realm of (theoretical) description and not the normative. That is a category error. It's also not saying anything other than life life's.. Well yeah. Okay. But this human life doesn't "just" life.. It can choose any number of things and give reasons for it. So no, I can't let you get away with turning a human life into LIFE as if it is that determined. It's all hypothetical imperative regarding culture and individual decisions. That is a matter of value, and choosing one. Mind you, there is no "right" one. Balance here might be used as a weasily word to imply both descriptive and normative, but it cannot be both. You are either giving your opinion or describing some cycle. One does not become the other though.

Civilisation requires a more sophisticated theory of itself for its progress not to turn into a self-delusion. — apokrisis

Again, here is a normative claim written as if descriptive. Still based on one's opinions on a hypothetical imperative. We can no longer just say (like academics in the 19th century).. THIS is what we should be aiming for. IFF we want this, then PERHAPS we should do that to get this. But WHY we should want this.. WHAT we are trying to aim for are totally out of the realm of the descriptive. You can invoke balance and thermodynamics until you are blue in the face, but that will get you no more closer to a reason for doing any thing. And hence here we are with reasons.

That is to say, there is no necessity in what we value.. There are strong tendencies perhaps, but not necessities. — schopenhauer1

My metaphysics is constraints-based. And a constraint is inherently permissive. What is not prevented is free to happen. Or indeed, must happen eventually, in the long run, at some point. :grin:

So you are arguing against a different worldview here.

I am only pointing out the holes of your manufactuered naturalistic fallacy (LIFE and its necessary BALANCE as applied to humans who have reasons.. — schopenhauer1

You are showing you don’t understand my position - which is that of natural philosophy or systems science.

Reality is a system of relations. Reality becomes stabilised at the point where it’s contraries - as in its global constraints and local freedoms - come into a steady dynamical balance,

This is a value free view of reality. It just is what it is. That is the only way that anything can be in terms of persisting existence.

I simply state how we have our individual reasons, whatever the factors are that allows that (and recognizing it is indeed an iteration of individual with society). — schopenhauer1

Existence is irreducibly complex in its hierarchical organisation. You can’t just wish the fact away if you want to make metaphysical level claims about the human condition in the real world.

. Balance here might be used as a weasily word to imply both descriptive and normative, but it cannot be both. You are either giving your opinion or describing some cycle. One does not become the other though. — schopenhauer1

A dynamical balance is only normative in the sense that it underlines the fact that a system must dissipate to persist. That is step 1. Then step 2, it has to be evovable to survive perturbation to that dissipative structure.

So adaptablity, creativity, spontaneity and even foresight are part to the same picture as the normative habits that are the history which has so far shaped a system with the power to persist.

My metaphysics doesn’t shackle the natural world in the mechanical way you want to presume.

But WHY we should want this.. WHAT we are trying to aim for are totally out of the realm of the descriptive. — schopenhauer1

Then we become the only animals with unreasons. And not particularly equipped to persist as part of reality.

I simply state how we have our individual reasons, whatever the factors are that allows that (and recognizing it is indeed an iteration of individual with society).
— schopenhauer1

Existence is irreducibly complex in its hierarchical organisation. You can’t just wish the fact away if you want to make metaphysical level claims about the human condition in the real world. — apokrisis

Not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what I said. In that quote I just said how there is an iteration of individual and society which implies "hierarchical organization" and multitudes of interactions of biological, social, individual, and the like.

Then we become the only animals with unreasons. And not particularly equipped to persist as part of reality. — apokrisis

Ok, another way of formulating the existentialists' point. We have "gone off the existential deep end" so to say in that we need reasons. You can't put the genie back in by saying simply, "But we are part of a system". Yeah, I am not disputing that. Whilst that is true, anything else you impute as "maladapted" or otherwise (too much Romanticism) is mere opinion/normative values of thou apokrisis, and not of any descriptive value. Basically, it's just YOUR idea of solving various hypothetical imperatives.. IFF then.. Basically saying, "IFF (you have apokrisis' vision/values) then PERHAPS the best way to get there is this...

I couldn’t find an argument to reply to here. Sorry.

All I can think is that other animals have reasons for their behaviors and thoughts, its just that they not be aware of them. I often put my self on auto-pilot not really considering the reasons I act for or because. But I think I am always acting on reasons. What are reasons? How are they different than causes (because) and effects (for)?

I’ve said some things you might disagree with. Basically that because we have reasons, and because perhaps of ours Enlightenment customs, there is nothing of necessity we can impute. It would only be apokrisis’ solution s to his preferred hypothetical imperatives. Read previous post for more details.

Your “argument” offers no evidence. Just makes rash and unreasonable claims.

For example, are you as free to be an airatarian as a vegetarian or carnivore? You can have all the “reasons” you like. The question is do you have actual choices?

And then, civilisation as the ultimately rational social structure is meant to maximise your personal choice. You can head to the supermarket gluten-free or Asian aisle.

Life in general is like that. A mix of general constraints and particularised choices. We can turn food into a moral dilemma. But we still must eat food. Go figure. And I didn’t invent this world. I just comment on how it is.

My metaphysics is constraints-based. And a constraint is inherently permissive. What is not prevented is free to happen. 

Reality is a system of relations. Reality becomes stabilised at the point where it’s contraries - as in its global constraints and local freedoms - come into a steady dynamical balance ...

Existence is irreducibly complex in its hierarchical organisation. 

A dynamical balance is only normative in the sense that it underlines the fact that a system must dissipate to persist. — apokrisis

:100: :fire:

You can invoke balance and thermodynamics until you are blue in the face, but that will get you no more closer to a reason for doing any thing. And hence here we are with reasons. — schopenhauer1

:sweat: Poor schop1, "blue in the face" in denial ...

It seems "balance and thermodynamics", however, is the reason for "a reason for doing any thing" insofar as anything can be done at all. Besides, our "reasons" seem to be (mostly) ex post facto rationalizations.

For example, are you as free to be an airatarian as a vegetarian or carnivore? You can have all the “reasons” you like. The question is do you have actual choices? — apokrisis

Of course, and you are making straw men of what I am saying. And actually, there are people who are extreme ascetics, etc. And I actually agree with you that the choices are limited. So I am not sure what you are getting at. Again, what I was answering was:

Life is about striking the pragmatic balance. — apokrisis

That is not descriptive. Forces may have created us.. Forces may destroy us.. But whatever it is, what we do individually or as a group is based on various reasons.. Post-facto or otherwise. It is not instinct, it is not, any dictate of the universe. It is all hypothetical imperatives- the part of what I said which you chose to ignore. Apokrisis thinks that we should X, so we should X. If you want this, then do that. And what if we don't want this or to do that? Mind you, it doesn't matter if your conclusion is, "Then extinction", as that is a reason along with the rest of them.. not an unbending rule or dictate one must follow.

And then, civilisation as the ultimately rational social structure is meant to maximise your personal choice. You can head to the supermarket gluten-free or Asian aisle. — apokrisis

Tangential to my point. Not really what I am getting at. Rather, why we do anything. Our motivation. Our goals. Our decisions. It isn't simply dictated by instinctual drives. It isn't even that we have some learning mechanisms. We have symbolic brains that make meaning of the world by parsing them out into conceptual frameworks, by iterative interactions of individual and the group. Besides some conditioning, and some instinctual impulses, a lot of it is based on various reasons from X causal links that we probably cannot fully trace.

We aren't doing things because apokrisis thinks there needs to be balance. If balance works in some universalistic way, that is a category error to apply it to our reasons. Rather, humans have a lot of things that look silly to you or me.. Even justifying the continuation of a system to allow choices to be silly is a normative claim. It's just apokrisis' ideas on X, nothing more. Hypothetical imperatives all the way down.