| | Ed, in a previous thread on free will, you wrote, Thoughts are the key to decision-making, not feelings -- feelings are dependent on prior and current thoughts. I replied: "Then what is the motive for the initial choice to think or to focus one's mind? According to Rand, 'an infant or young child learns to focus his mind in the form of wanting to know something -- to understand clearly.' (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 154) In other words, the infant's desire to know is the motive for his choice."
You've said that you agree with Rand's statement. If you do, then you're admitting that the desire to know is the motive for the child's choice to focus his mind, in which case, I don't understand why you disagree with me that there must be a motive for the choice to think. In other words, I don't understand why you say that the choice to think or to focus one's mind must precede all motives or desires.
You characterize my position as follows:
(1) non-thinking "evaluation"
(2) thinking
(3) value-forming
(4) desiring (a "feeling")
You left out the choice to focus -- the choice to raise one's awareness from a lower level to a higher one. As for "(1) non-thinking 'evaluation'," the term "evaluation" suggests a process of higher-level thinking. However, it must be remembered that the desire to focus one's mind is the motive for initially raising one's level of awareness. Obviously, even at a lower level, one can value the acquisition of knowledge and therefore the choice to increase one's awareness and to engage in a process of higher level thinking, which eventuates in the formation of conceptual values. You say that we think when we most-feel like it, and that we'll think about what we most-feel like thinking about, in the manner that we most-feel like thinking about it, and to the extent that we most-feel like continuing to think about it. This is a caricature of my position. It's not that we choose to focus or to think whenever we most "feel like it." We choose to think, because we have a goal that we want to achieve -- namely, a heightened or expanded level of awareness. Bill, do you see a common theme here of feelings preceding thoughts, or not? Is it really some kind of thoughtless feelings that control our thinking in the manner in which you've characterized our thinking to be under control (i.e., determined)? Look, we choose to think because we value a higher, more focused level of knowledge or understanding, but that doesn't mean that the choice is entirely "thoughtless" in the sense of having no basis in our awareness of its value. Obviously, we have to be aware of the choice in order to make it; you can't make a conscious choice with no awareness of the alternatives; nor can you make it with no appreciation of its value. The term "thinking," as Objectivism defines it in this context, refers to a process of abstract cognition; it does not refer to conscious awareness as such. Is it really feelings that give rise to thoughts, or is it thoughts and thinking (e.g. evaluating) which gives rise to feelings? You asked this question before, and I answered it. Again, the desire to expand one's awareness is the motive for choosing to engage in an abstract process of thought, and it is that process that leads to the formation of conceptual values, which in turn give rise to emotional responses on behalf of those values. And, if feelings stem from thoughts, do thoughts stem from something, too? Yes, once again, focused thought comes from the desire to expand one's knowledge and awareness. The point at hand is whether folks always "choose" (freely or NOT) their conclusions. You say it's a passive process, and that you can't evade the facts when they're in front of you (i.e., that you're "convinced" of conclusions -- you don't have any choice in the matter). I'm saying that a conclusion is the unchosen culmination of an active process of thought -- unchosen, because once you see the implication of the premises, you must draw the conclusion. You cannot choose to "evade" it in the sense of denying its validity. You can certainly choose not to think about it after you've drawn the conclusion, but that's not the same as willfully and consciously repudiating it. I'm saying that there are times -- perhaps the majority of times where the majority of folks are making their decisions -- that there's a personally-chosen level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion. I agree. What I'm saying is that once someone draws a conclusion, however much effort he puts into it, he cannot then simply choose to believe otherwise. He can certainly convince himself that the conclusion is invalid, if he identifies evidence that he thinks refutes it, but he cannot simply choose to disbelieve it. You're saying that the level of mental effort spent on validating a conclusion is always the precise level of mental effort that was most-wanted. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Do you see the difference? Between that and a "personally chosen level of mental effort"? Not really. The personally chosen level of mental effort is itself one which the person values most; otherwise he wouldn't have chosen it.
I wrote, "People have different levels of intelligence and knowledge, different experiences and different interests, so they will not necessarily draw the same conclusions from the same amount of supporting evidence. But that doesn't mean that they're actions are not determined by antecedent causes; it just means that the antecedent causes are different for different people." And what about when these antecedent causes were chosen thoughts? You speak as if the only kind of antecedent causes allowed are feelings (desires). Is that an accurate characterization of your position on the psychological factors leading up to human decision-making? No, the thinking that a person engages in is itself an antecedent cause leading to human decision-making.
- Bill
|
|
