I used to follow true crime stories long ago, but these days I'm bogged down by personal issues that I won't bore you all with. Anyway, was random surfing Wikipedia, one link led to another (should've laid down some bread crumbs, but no, being the genius I am, I didn't) and soon I was reading the entry on Zinloos Geweld (senseless crime). The idea was Belgian-Dutch - crimes that lacked motives i.e. were sans reason. Quite a lot to unpack there; thought I might put something on the table.

Don’t know if it is possible unless sleepwalking or in a trance.

Don’t know if it is possible unless sleepwalking or in a trance. — schopenhauer1

C₂H₅OH was the common factor in zinloos geweld! Under the Dionysian spell, si, si! Have you heard of naked fanatics? :snicker:

Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. — schopenhauer1

My dog's behavior appears intentional. I've never found the attempt to categorize humans in an entirely special class persuasive. It appears just to be one of degree.

And this is where all the problems lie. It makes us wholly existential and not just causal. It is our fall into time. Exile from Eden. We make the cultural standards and personal reasons to meet those standards. We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. We know we could do otherwise but we also know doing so might lead to future negative consequences.

Being caused to do something is instinct, or conditioning. Having reasons is based on self-aware goals. “I need to get to X”. “I want to get Y accomplished”. Sometimes we are not aware of why we want X. Schopenhauer’s theory of a general Will fits. Survival, comfort-seeking, boredom, embedded in cultural and symbolic thought. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Your statement reminds me of the kind of stuff Immanuel Kant wrote about in his life. If you haven't read any books about him I suggest that you should because I believe it is likely you share some of the same thoughts as he did and his work might help you with some of your questions.

Also I suggest that you may want to read up on "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " as it talks about possible issues with how early humans became "sentient" and how being sentient may be a byproduct of evolution (ie something that is counter-productive) and not something that is as useful as we often think it to be.

Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1

You are correct in many ways, being sentient can often be more of a problem than it is helpful.

Man isn't really driven as much as obtaining a reward and satisfying our desires as much as we are driven to try to avoid as many negative consequences as possible, and in that way we are really not that different than animals when you think about it. Even our efforts to obtain "positive consequences" are really nothing more than an effort to avoid the negative ones (ie by going after thing that give "positive results" one doesn't have to make as many decisions that might involve negative consequences). As far as I know neither animals or human's with our "sentience" can easily bypass the biofeedback loop that revolves around the pleasure/pain principles that evolution has hardwired into our 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.

Having reasons is a burden. — schopenhauer1

:groan: They used to draw lots you know ... shipwreck survivors ... to decide who was gonna die so that the others could feed. Have you heard of Richard Parker (watch Life of Pi starring the late great Irrfan Khan :death: :flower: (that's 2 r's mind you)!

They used to draw lots you know ... shipwreck survivors ... to decide who was gonna die so that the others could feed — Agent Smith

Is this just something they did when the survivors where willing to be civil about the situation and accept their fate? For some reason I imagine sometimes the stronger/more vicious survivors would decide to kill some of the other survivors so they wouldn't have to bother having to test their luck with drawing straws or whatever.

In one of Stalin's gulags created during his collectivization plans prisoners where placed on a barren island without food/other supplies. They didn't bother drawing lots since there was no food and so they had to come up with ..alternative plans on how to survive on a island with no found coming to the island and no way to grow or scavenge food on the island to feed themselves. Needless to say, it wasn't a great plan since their opinions were very, very limited

My dog's behavior appears intentional. I've never found the attempt to categorize humans in an entirely special class persuasive. It appears just to be one of degree — Hanover

:up:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

The survivors probably lied about drawing lots - any detective worth his salt can figure that out.

Danke for bringing that to my attention. This reversion to basic instincts is well-documented. A reminder of our animal ancestry/heritage - we're all just one bad day away from becoming the guy you don't wanna meet in a dark alley. I hope some of us can keep their sanity & humanity despite.

Most interesting.[/i]

The survivors probably lied about drawing lots - any detective worth his salt can figure that out.

Danke for bringing that to my attention. This reversion to basic instincts is well-documented. A reminder of our animal ancestry/heritage - we're all just one bad day away from becoming the guy you don't wanna meet in a dark alley. I hope some of us can keep their sanity & humanity despite.
— Ms. Marple — Agent Smith

It reminds me of a quote from the Joker said while being interrogated in prison.

Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you. When the chips are down these, uh, civilized people? They'll eat each other. See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve.
- Joker

The Joker speaks the truth. Rather depressing, but facts are facts. :sad:



Me either Peter my Parker.

My dog's behavior appears intentional. I've never found the attempt to categorize humans in an entirely special class persuasive. It appears just to be one of degree. — Hanover

Is intentionality the same as "reasons" though? That's tricky, but I think they are two different things. A dog certainly has intentions (to get food, go for walks, play fetch, etc.). I don't think it would be the same to say dogs have reasons, however. A reason would be a self-recognized understanding of why you are doing something.

This isn't being pedantic or mincing words either. Intentions can come about through various instincts of play and food. Reasons are based on semantic abilities of symbolic reasoning. "I am doing this because I want X" is a self-aware statement. It is not simply that "I want X".

IS the argument here that some people are capable of atrocities, therefore all people are atrocious?

Thing is, we get to choose our reasons. "They're only as good as the world allows them to be".

So don't put people on an island without food. Build a world that allows people to work for each other.

But instead we do ethics through pop culture.

Shouldn't this whole thread be relegated to the "life sucks" garbage bin?

How do you know that "we are the only animals with reasons"? (Clearly, you don't know "what it's like to be a bat".) How do you know that our so-called "reasons" are not just ex post facto rationalizations (i.e confabulations à la Libet's delay / Kahneman's biases)?

How do you know that "we are the only animals with reasons"? — 180 Proof

So this is the hill you stand on... Ok, so maybe all animals have reasons since we don't "really" know.

Either way, it's more the implications, not this point I am trying to get across. You knew that though. Or perhaps you didn't..

How do you know that our so-called "reasons" are not just ex post facto rationalizations — 180 Proof

Yes, I understand that. Have you ever at least felt you had a reason you did something? We must also make a distinction between the "rationalized" reason (what you believed you believed) versus, hidden motivations. Psychologists used to invoke the subconscious. Not sure if that's still a thing.

IS the argument here that some people are capable of atrocities, therefore all people are atrocious? — Banno

No.

Thing is, we get to choose our reasons. "They're only as good as the world allows them to be".

So don't put people on an island without food. Build a world that allows people to work for each other. — Banno

So imagine a world where you didn't have reasons, but everything was purely done from instinctual drives. You didn't "have a reason".. you didn't even have what @180 Proof referenced as post-facto rationalizations. I mentioned fall into time and Exit from Eden, etc. The implications of an animal that survives and gets along through reasons. Then I mentioned cultural standards. We judge what we want and need on the foreground of the cultural standards. It is fully an existential way of being. It isn't that we just do things "for the fun of it" (even octopuses do that). It is that, at least consciously, must give ourselves reasons for why we did things. We got up because we were hungry.. We were not impelled by the food uncontrollably. Conditioning may be involved that unconsciously skews our preferences for reasons. However, we still find reasons nonetheless. I haven't made any deeper claims about where our reasons come from (habitual learning, conditioning, cultural conditioning, psychological makeup, basic drives to survive and be comfortable and to seek entertainment or equilibrium).

Okay. So you don't know that "we are the only animals with reasons" (and don"t know that our "reasons" are not ex post facro rationalizations). :sweat:

For your edification (after a jokey intro and build up, it gets really fascinating) :

https://waaa.wnyc.org/radiolab_podcast/radiolab_podcast072922_whales.mp3/radiolab_podcast072922_whales.mp3_ywr3ahjkcgo_717274d1b0e3146c987a0aa1743ab9c7_36521884.mp3?awCollectionId=15957&awEpisodeId=1233831&sc=siteplayer&aw_0_1st.playerid=siteplayer&hash_redirect=1&x-total-bytes=36521884&x-ais-classified=streaming&listeningSessionID=0CD_382_250__15df7bbb0187782f2ae19ef2577f07944f2a64bf

Way to not get the point :meh:.

The idea of reasons is connected to the development of language. It is the basis for logic and concepts. Rationality and reasoning are done on that basis but that doesn't mean that other aspects, such emotions don't come in as well, and irrationality. It is one thing to be able to find reasons and that is a starting point for philosophy and another to follow them always. It may be easier to come up with the a posteri or a priori aspects of reason than to live according to Kant's moral system. So, human beings are rational but even then human reason is limited and it probably requires a lot of discipline to develop reason to its furthest possibilities.

It's an interesting dualism (over here are humans who have reasons, over there is the rest of the universe that does not have reasons) that seems to boil down to "over here is language, over there is no language".

How else do we decide as to who has reasons? I mean this seriously : What should we assume if we meet a space-faring race that we can't communicate with? That they are simply sophisticated tool-using lizards (or mermen, or whatever)? Only humans have a claim on this ill-defined thing?

A number of species seem to recognize themselves in mirrors - bonobos, elephants, magpies. If they're self-aware, do they not have reasons for acting?

The point is, it's one of those poorly defined concepts that we all assume we know. Like saying, "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it." (By the way, it's probably NOT true that elephants can paint - at least not without a lot of cruel training.)

Reasons are attributed post hoc, to cats and horses and hedges as well as to philosophers.

I call bullshit.

Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1

You are missing the obvious. Society requires us to have reasons for our actions. It is the "burden" of being civilised, or even just socialised.

Most folk thus grow up learning to just fabricate excuses for their actions. They become expert sophists. They explain away why they did what they did in some socially-acceptable formula of words.

Actually learning how to act on reason is rarer. Rather than an imposed burden, it becomes an effective skill. It means life can be lived with rational goals in mind. Life can be shaped by measurable purpose.

Of course, you still have to work with the world that is given to you. Self-actualisation can't transcend the given world, only operate to best advantage within it.

So you still get to complain about the "burden of existence" if you have made that your larger goal in life. :up:

The idea of reasons is connected to the development of language. It is the basis for logic and concepts. Rationality and reasoning are done on that basis but that doesn't mean that other aspects, such emotions don't come in as well, and irrationality. It is one thing to be able to find reasons and that is a starting point for philosophy and another to follow them always. It may be easier to come up with the a posteri or a priori aspects of reason than to live according to Kant's moral system. So, human beings are rational but even then human reason is limited and it probably requires a lot of discipline to develop reason to its furthest possibilities. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree with you about language and its centrality in reasons versus cause/effect. There is something that is different between the statements "My reason for..." and "The reason why.." (and it doesn't pertain to a human).

It's an interesting dualism (over here are humans who have reasons, over there is the rest of the universe that does not have reasons) that seems to boil down to "over here is language, over there is no language".

How else do we decide as to who has reasons? I mean this seriously : What should we assume if we meet a space-faring race that we can't communicate with? That they are simply sophisticated tool-using lizards (or mermen, or whatever)? Only humans have a claim on this ill-defined thing?

A number of species seem to recognize themselves in mirrors - bonobos, elephants, magpies. If they're self-aware, do they not have reasons for acting?

The point is, it's one of those poorly defined concepts that we all assume we know. Like saying, "I can't define art, but I know it when I see it." (By the way, it's probably NOT true that elephants can paint - at least not without a lot of cruel training.) — Real Gone Cat

Maybe but that's where we have to do comparisons. What does it mean to have a reason to do something? I would think it requires linguistic use.

Reasons are attributed post hoc, to cats and horses and hedges as well as to philosophers. — Banno

Very Schopenhauerian of you.. But when you go to the fridge to get food, or you decide to pick up a book, or you decide to get this and not that product, are you not coming up with reasons? Perhaps your character make-up makes you "do" something and then you reason it later, you still have reasons for why you did it. Cultural things like learning new information, associations with certain experiences, and testing out new things might be various "reasons" for doing something. Disorders, unconscious habits, conditioned responses, etc. might be something different, and more akin to what other animals are doing though the line is blurry.

Also, very un-Witty of you not to purport that language use goes hand-in-hand with reasons. Language becomes the parsing of objects in the world, having self-identity of what one is doing with those objects, and being satisfied with abstract outcomes of those actions, and purposely manipulating objects to gain outcomes.

You are missing the obvious. Society requires us to have reasons for our actions. It is the "burden" of being civilised, or even just socialised. — apokrisis

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

Most folk thus grow up learning to just fabricate excuses for their actions. They become expert sophists. They explain away why they did what they did in some socially-acceptable formula of words.

Actually learning how to act on reason is rarer. Rather than an imposed burden, it becomes an effective skill. It means life can be lived with rational goals in mind. Life can be shaped by measurable purpose. — apokrisis

That seems like a false dichotomy of "social formulas" and "acting on reason". Both seem off to me.
"Social formulas" idea seems to make reasons a sort of nominalism.. Completely post-hoc fiction.
"Acting on reason" idea seems to imply some sort of "higher reason" like the Stoic idea of Universal Reason that is accessed by the sage.

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.

You missed the pertinent bit: "... to cats and horses and hedges as well as to philosophers".

But then you have to, in order that the titular issue not meet with the facts.

As stated to apokrisis:

"Social formulas" idea seems to make reasons a sort of nominalism.. Completely post-hoc fiction.
"Acting on reason" idea seems to imply some sort of "higher reason" like the Stoic idea of Universal Reason that is accessed by the sage.

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

You seem to be on the "social formulas" idea. Post hoc fiction seems a bit much. I can tell you why I decided to go to the park.