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.

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.

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.

To be satisfied is inhuman?

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.

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.

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 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.

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 - 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.

Why can't we just say that a person can have competing desires, and therefore competing and coexistant wants?

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.

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.

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.

Looks like a place to me...

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.