Logic to not want to not want?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Wizzy
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 12:37 pm
@Refus,
Refus, a fellow sweed I see Wink
Tja! Razz

Anyways gonna take this in english for everybody to understand:

not want to not want = You don't want to not want anything = You want everything
And that my fellow country-man, is the most logical thing for any person. Our desire knows no bounds, if we have ten thousand dollars, we want a houndredthousand, and when we have a hundredthousand, we want a million.

But to not want to want = You don't want to want anything = You want nothing
That's just crazy, and that's when you're inhuman.

Note that I could take up Want to want here to but that would be pretty much the same thing as not want to not want..
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 02:50 pm
@Wizzy,
Quote:
And that my fellow country-man, is the most logical thing for any person. Our desire knows no bounds, if we have ten thousand dollars, we want a houndredthousand, and when we have a hundredthousand, we want a million.


How is this a logical thing for any person to do? If we use logic to find the end result, that result is that whoever wants everything, and who is never satisfied with what he has, is always dissatisfied. Being a hungry ghost of a man does not seem like a good way to live, much less a happy one.

Quote:
But to not want to want = You don't want to want anything = You want nothing
That's just crazy, and that's when you're inhuman.


To be satisfied is inhuman?

Quote:
Certainly. But it is a different thing that you want. If I want not to smoke when I want to smoke, then what I want when I want not to smoke is not what I want when I want to smoke. We have only to disentangle the wants.


I agree. It's the difference between first order desires, I am hungry, so I want to eat, and second order desires, I am on a diet, so I want to eat a salad.
The smoker has a first order desire, the craving for nicotine, but a second order desire, to not have that craving.
We can also imagine fourth, fifth, ect. order desires, desires about the previous order of desire.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:07 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
How is this a logical thing for any person to do? If we use logic to find the end result, that result is that whoever wants everything, and who is never satisfied with what he has, is always dissatisfied. Being a hungry ghost of a man does not seem like a good way to live, much less a happy one.

It's not really that it's not a logical conlusion to be satisfied, but it's logical that a human who acctually knows that there's more out there then he has want that too, so he can have it all.
On the other hand, if humans ever where satisfied, what would we do? would we just lay at home on the couch and don't do anything? I belive that's why we never can be satisfied with what we have, cause if we are, then there's not reason for us be do anything els then to just do, nothing.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

To be satisfied is inhuman?

I think so atleast

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I agree. It's the difference between first order desires, I am hungry, so I want to eat, and second order desires, I am on a diet, so I want to eat a salad.
The smoker has a first order desire, the craving for nicotine, but a second order desire, to not have that craving.
We can also imagine fourth, fifth, ect. order desires, desires about the previous order of desire.

Not that I had anything with this to do but, I agree to Wink
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:16 pm
@Wizzy,
Quote:
It's not really that it's not a logical conlusion to be satisfied, but it's logical that a human who acctually knows that there's more out there then he has want that too, so he can have it all.
On the other hand, if humans ever where satisfied, what would we do? would we just lay at home on the couch and don't do anything? I belive that's why we never can be satisfied with what we have, cause if we are, then there's not reason for us be do anything els then to just do, nothing.


I think you have hit the root of the problem, though. You are equating satisfaction with having things. It's the pusuit of happiness through possession that I am criticizing.
If you always want what you do not have, you cannot be satisfied. When you do not want what you do not have, you have removed another obstacle in the way of happiness.

We might expect a human, who is unaware of his misconception, to always want what he does not have.
 
BRbeliever
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:24 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Certainly. But it is a different thing that you want. If I want not to smoke when I want to smoke, then what I want when I want not to smoke is not what I want when I want to smoke. We have only to disentangle the wants.


I understand you want to etangle our thoughts as much as possible, but i have to dissappoint you: it's impossible(illogical) to not want a wanting.

I.e. you say not want to want to smoke is different than wanting to smoke. What you actually say is not wanting the desire to smoke is different from wanting to smoke.

Not wanting to want to smoke is like saying i'm not living life. You are alive, thus living it.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I think you have hit the root of the problem, though. You are equating satisfaction with having things. It's the pusuit of happiness through possession that I am criticizing.
If you always want what you do not have, you cannot be satisfied. When you do not want what you do not have, you have removed another obstacle in the way of happiness.

Only reason that I'm equating satisfaction with having things is because this whole thread is about "want" or "desire" and that's easily portrayed (don't know if I spelled that right..) by using possessions as an example, ofcourse, you can't really compare "not want to not want" with an addiction cause that's in most cases "not want to want" or "want to not want" (pretty much the same thing)... But ofcourse non of this matter as it's not really the stuff you're after, it's what comes with the stuff that won't show up on the recite (probably miss-spelled that too) that you're after. It could be the comfort of that new bed, the respect you get for that new outfit or the pus*y you get with that new car it doesn't matter, if a human can improve anything about himself he's going to try and try again. Although I agree with you on the point that material posessions are overrated, I also belive that they are underrated cause of the motivation and inspiration they give to us, wheter or not we understand it...

Didymos Thomas wrote:

We might expect a human, who is unaware of his misconception, to always want what he does not have.

We might, we should, and we should be happy that people have that drive for any reason.
 
BRbeliever
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 03:40 pm
@Wizzy,
Adding to that, when you say i do not want the wanting, you're actually saying i do not want the negative effects the wanting has, and not that you do not want the wanting. The effects of the first wanting is what you not want, not the wanting itself. Im convinced not wanting a wanting is impossible. One can either want to or not.

Initial wanting W1 something S can or has an effect. If one is aware A of this effect E it will trigger another wanting/not wanting W2 and so on.
:p

Conclusion: you can delete this post, because the question 'logic to not want to not want?' is fallacious. Peace.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 06:37 pm
@BRbeliever,
BRbeliever - A question cannot be a fallacy.

You most certainly can not want to want - it's a second order desire. Having a nicotine craving, and thus wanting to smoke, is a first order desire. Not wanting to have that craving, not wanting what you want, is a second order desire, a desire about a first order desire.

Wizzy - Then explain to me why desire, which can never be satisfied, promotes happiness. I've explained why having desire which cannot be satisifed pushes us away from happiness (someone who is unsatisfied cannot be happy), so explain to me why the opposite is true and where I've made my mistake.
 
Wizzy
 
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 01:15 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:

Wizzy - Then explain to me why desire, which can never be satisfied, promotes happiness. I've explained why having desire which cannot be satisifed pushes us away from happiness (someone who is unsatisfied cannot be happy), so explain to me why the opposite is true and where I've made my mistake.
 
BRbeliever
 
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 05:27 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
BRbeliever - A question cannot be a fallacy.

You most certainly can not want to want - it's a second order desire. Having a nicotine craving, and thus wanting to smoke, is a first order desire. Not wanting to have that craving, not wanting what you want, is a second order desire, a desire about a first order desire.
quote]

Questions can be fallacious, though you're right that this one isn't. The thought that you can not want to not want the wanting itself IS fallacious.

Furthermore, you're actually confirming what i am saying: to not to want to want to smoke actually means not wanting to smoke, but want to get nicotine. The effect E of nicotine, in this case, is that you have to smoke a cigarette to get it, which you do not want.
 
BRbeliever
 
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 05:46 am
@BRbeliever,
http://www.retrophreak.com/hku2/upload/upload_files/notwant.jpg
just a thought: When i not want to smoke, because if i do my dad will kill me. Then, is it actually not wanting to smoke, wanting to smoke or maybe not a wanting at al: cant smoke?
 
ogden
 
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2008 11:49 am
@BRbeliever,
If the verb is want, then you are either doing it or not doing it.

It becomes confusing (paradoxical?) because in wanting to not want you are doing exactly what you said you did'nt want to do; wanting.

The same is not true for not wanting to want, because by saying you do not want to want, is just another way of saying you want not to. so not wanting to not want is a null occurance, it never happened. Not wanting to not want is exactly what you are doing because the statement implies you want not to want, and you are still only wanting.:eek:

I want to be less hedonistic, and more satisfied with what I have; so I want to want less is logical, but still adding to my desires.
 
NeitherExtreme
 
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2008 12:34 pm
@Refus,
Why can't we just say that a person can have competing desires, and therefore competing and coexistant wants?
 
ogden
 
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 05:11 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
Why can't we just say that a person can have competing desires, and therefore competing and coexistant wants?


We can, and you just did.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2008 08:36 am
@Refus,
Refus wrote:
If for instance we don't want something, then it is something we do not want, not even to not want it, presumeably. Since it will allways scare us and we will allways know what we do not want, and to not want something we must know what it is to not want, and if we don't, we don't want to not know what we don't want, cause then we can't avoid it. So the best thing we can do really, is to want that which we do not want, but that can be very hasardous and hence we must want some things
and that which we do not want, we must not want. To not want what we do not want means that you're unhappy, but to want what you want means that you are happy, but since everything has its opposit, you will be equally happy as unhappy all in all. Atleast when you are safe. The less unhappy you are, the more unhappy you may become. So being happy is being unsafe.


So it is logic to not want to not want, but you will die possibly. Basically, it means that no one can really be happy.


So Logic is to not want somthing in one way, just to not want the same somthing in another way?

So in a way, Give the thing's that you desire and want in life to all, and take the thing's that you need in life to live your life the way you want.

People's want's and desire's change, depending on there point of view within a single frame of perceptable time to one's self.

Try to tell in which way's they would not want something, and then tell in which way they would not want to no want something. Same word's but each displaying a difrent action, and thought... Hence one must show in which way's they are difrent, but also in which way's they are the same.

(example-> If you say you dont care, then that mean's you care that you dont care. Hence in one way you dont care, and therefore making you care in another way.)

But you may be happy if you say you are happy, therefore you make your self happy by saying that your happy, and if you say that your not happy or you say that you just think that your happy but your really not, you would just make your self not happy because you say your not, or another person say's your not, and in doing so make's you not happy.

(Thing's are only what you make ,or say they are, Therefore they are what they are, and that's what you say or make)
 
Doobah47
 
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2008 05:38 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
The best known of those profound statements was, "You can never step into the same river twice". Now I think that statement may be profound, but it is false. Heraclitus was the apostle of change. His view was that change is the only reality. And he gave as an example of this, that you can never step into the same river twice.

But Heraclitus seems to be confusing the river with the water flowing though the river. It is true, I suppose, that because the water is constantly flowing, you cannot step into the same "slice" of water twice. But the river is different from the water flowing through the river. The river is a geographical entity. And, for instance, I could step into the Mississippi River many times, although not, of course into the same water.


Kenneth you're going to have to get over the idea that 'Quito' is not a place in reality but a name.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 11:39 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;3039 wrote:
The best known of those profound statements was, "You can never step into the same river twice". Now I think that statement may be profound, but it is false. Heraclitus was the apostle of change. His view was that change is the only reality. And he gave as an example of this, that you can never step into the same river twice.

But Heraclitus seems to be confusing the river with the water flowing though the river. It is true, I suppose, that because the water is constantly flowing, you cannot step into the same "slice" of water twice. But the river is different from the water flowing through the river. The river is a geographical entity. And, for instance, I could step into the Mississippi River many times, although not, of course into the same water.


"You can never step into the same river once!:bigsmile:"
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 11:43 pm
@Doobah47,
Doobah47;11256 wrote:
Kenneth you're going to have to get over the idea that 'Quito' is not a place in reality but a name.


I agree completely. "Quito" is a name. But, Quito is a city in Ecuador.
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 06:15 am
@Refus,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Portal_Quito.jpg

Looks like a place to me...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2009 11:11 am
@Emil,
Emil;95022 wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Portal_Quito.jpg

Looks like a place to me...


Yes, indeed. And quite an interesting one, I hear. (I have never been there).

Doobah47 is going to have to get over confusing names with the things they are the names of. "Quito" is the name of the capital city of Ecuador. And Quito is the capital city of Ecuador.

---------- Post added 10-04-2009 at 01:28 PM ----------

ogden;8192 wrote:
If the verb is want, then you are either doing it or not doing it.

It becomes confusing (paradoxical?) because in wanting to not want you are doing exactly what you said you did'nt want to do; wanting.

The same is not true for not wanting to want, because by saying you do not want to want, is just another way of saying you want not to. so not wanting to not want is a null occurance, it never happened. Not wanting to not want is exactly what you are doing because the statement implies you want not to want, and you are still only wanting.:eek:

I want to be less hedonistic, and more satisfied with what I have; so I want to want less is logical, but still adding to my desires.


It seems to me that there is a difference between: wanting not to smoke, and not wanting to smoke. I may want not to smoke when I am already smoking, and trying to give it up. I do not want to smoke when I am not a smoker, and someone is trying to persuade me to take up smoking. (Linguists have a name for both constructions which I now forget). Consider the difference (for another example) between, I want not to go to Paris, and I don't want to go to Paris. The first when someone is trying to persuade me to go; the second when I am pointing to an infant, and saying, that infant does not want to go to Paris.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 09:28:41