Indeed. Yet if the motivation is seeing another happy, the arguament that the action is selfish becomes decidedly dodgy. How do you define selfish? Someone might state "I like seeing the people around me happy". You could state that they are a bad person because their motivation was purely to please themselves, yet if you were to ask for the definition of someoe who wasn't selfish you'd get exactly that, or an obscure reference to someone who didn't like people to be happy but did so anyway and had no idea why... Of course with any being that demonstrates a logical or reasoning ability this becomes rather unlikely...

How ever you get there, motivation proceeds action,

Not according to the results of Benjamin Libet's famous experimental results. Our 'actions' were shown to have been initiated by the brain prior to 'conscious intent/will', invariably, by a couple of jiffys (1/100sec!) at least!

Oops, sorry, I just noticed that you said 'motivation', and if your intended meaning for 'motivation' is other than 'will/intent', then.... never mind. *__-
('Motivation' can be centuries percolating before fruit is found.)
But if you actually meant 'will/intent', then...

Besides, nothing actually preceeds anything, all moments are, despite being counterintuitional, simultaneous, sybchronous.
I think that our language from the middle ages needs a serious update to catch up to modern understandings. Ducking stools are obsolete for a good reason!

^^^ I think that 'will' is just another egoic (lie/fantasy) Pinoccio wanting to be (fantasizing that it is) a real boy.

boagie,
Is is not a reasonable hypothesis that as 'free-will' and 'choice' are no more than egoic fantasies, that 'will' is of the same 'ilk'? 'Will'? To 'do' what? There is no 'doing' but in appearances. The ego imagines 'authorship' of 'doing/universe'. We, as Perspectives, 'author' nothing, nor do or can we 'change what is. If we display the vanity of assuming 'authorship/creatorship', the vanity of 'will' must also be assumed.

(I'll trade you my 'wise apple' (take a bite and it makes you wise!) for your 'magic beans'?)

I think, my friend, that if you consider existence as a bunch of simultaneously 'existing' (Planck) moments, each quantumly discrete, like any still frame from a movie, you might better understand this perspective.
Who is 'responding'? Me! This Perspective.
Ahhh, the 'process'. 'Process' is an illusion of 'Perspective'. You look at the film frames from a certain perspective, linear and consecutively, and there appears motion. From that apparent motion, we posit 'processes'. That is an illusion. There are just static frames' of moments. The Magic of Perspective is what appears to give 'life' to the 'experience that is existence'. Wonderful magic! But all in mind as Perspective.

Nameless,

:)Yes, I have heard of this, the firing of neurons nano-seconds before the stimulus is introduced---which would indicate still, reaction. There however has been nothing stated that I have heard, to further our knowledge in this area, neurology is today at the epi-centre of future philosophical considerations, we shall have to wait upon her, to light the way for further speculations.

This busness of there being only one moment, that of eternity, the idea of a simultaneous arising are fine speculations, but, in philosophy one needs to stay somewhat grounded.

It is fine to let ones imagination have free range, but, particulary in communication with others, if one does not touch the earth at regular intervals, one does a disservice to oneself as well as others. Obscurity is often taken as profound, until some idiot comes along and states, "The King Has No Clothes."

Certainly will, as it is applied here, must exist.

What do you propose causes action?

Will does not belong in that class.

The class you refer to belong to the fantasies that are tied to our identification with an "I" or a "me".

Will, on the other hand, need not be tied to freedom or our indentification with ourselves.

It only requires volition,

and while it reworks the idea of will, certainly there needs to be some will or collection of wills to stimulate action.

Will and perspective are different animals and certainly not mutually exclusive.

In fact, you defeat this position yourself: If you say that you respond from your perspective you imply that one perspective can have the will to respond,

or that there is a will holding entity that can respond.

Furthermore, you defeat your own argument as certainly the chain of perception that creates an illusion presupposes a real continuing perceiver and process of perception!

The illusion of 'action' arises with certain Perspectives. Like the 'action' on the screen of a movie. 'Appearance' is all. Nothing, beyond our concepts/mind actually 'moves', so hence, no 'action'. Moments don't magically morph into other moments. (Ref; electron 'jump' from energy level to energy level)
Yes, I know, this stuff is terribly counter-intuitional, so is the true basic nature of existence.
(But I am enjoying the hell out of the 'movie', I just don't 'believe' that it is any more 'real' than that. A great and magnificent Dream!)
Peace.

What 'class'?

I'm not talking about any 'class' of 'will' I speak of 'will'. I never heard of any 'classes'...

No 'self' = no (egoic illusions of) 'volition' or 'will'.

Nope. I appear to do as I appear to do in accord with 'who I am', my 'nature' at any specific moment. No 'will' involved. There is no such implication.

The notion of a 'chain' (of 'events') arises with a particular perspective. (See my other posts here, I offer a bit more explanation.) The 'illusion' IS the appearance of the 'chain'.
I am the Perspective of the moment. Every moment. As are you.
This Perspective (I am not 'arguing'. I have nothing to sell or lose. I offer this as food for thought, as I must. Period. Do with it as you must.) is not a 'process'. A 'process' implies 'motion' which is impossible. I am not a 'continuing' anything as all moments are synchronous. 'Time' is also a derived notion with the illusion of 'linearity' and 'motion'.

Ok. I have my money on quantum theory (as the 'epicenter') to inform all other disciplines. 'Time' will tell...

Motivation can mean the very circumstance that is evaluated, and how one feels and understands it connotations, the ideas that arise as such are the material for the formation of intent. So, modivation is this said material, processed into the formation of intent, thus, a will to act is to satisfy said intent.


First, I said nothing of 'eternity'. That is no more than a meaningless sentimental poetic term, and I do not use it in my speech patterns.

The notion of synchronous quantumly discrete moments is science. Every scientific 'finding' informs philosophy. In isolation, philosophy is 'groundless' and floats away on its 'logic'. And without philosophy, well, science is skewed and truncated as has been demonstrated by the findings of quantum theory; empiricism (objectivity) indeed! Good riddance to that lie!


Is this a gentle ad hominem attack? Wow! I've never felt such a gentle attack!
Are you patronizing me? Perhaps I see a wink and tongue in cheek? I think thats how i'll take it, as I have been enjoying the peaceful and 'respectful' nature of our communications.

"Truth undergoes three stages;
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is attacked (as is the messenger).
Third, everyone says that they "knew it all along"!"

^^ Huh??? I don't know what your problem is with anything that I wrote. I didn't state my feelings, but I did ask some questions.. Whatever...
Peace

nameless,
Sorry, I guesss I am just a little testy about getting caught. I thought it was just a subtle way of saying, stay with the topic and do not get to abstract, but, after a little thought, I am afraid you are right, my apologies. Amazing isn't it how we can lie to ourselves at times (almost all the time, and I use 'almost' reservedly! *__- ). Please do accept my apology.

Good morning Vietnam![time warp]

This is a premise a great many people have difficulty accepting.The premise is that no matter what you chose to do or chose not to do it is still selfish.You reach for a glass of water,there is a rational then for doing so,and that rational is selfish.Someone does something kind and supposedly selfless for another,the rational goes back to what this person believes they themselves are.If the idea they have of themselves is one of a kind and compassionate human being,then they must do this action to maintain the idea they have of themselves,thus it is first selfish.The religious might find this difficult to incorporated or embrace but it is necessarily universal. I don't believe you can find an acception to this premise,you are invited to do so of course.Perhaps you can expand on this theme that would be most welcome as well.Are there any particular examples you would like to explore?

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing only the illusion is the grasp of the ring!

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-mind/1175-bits-wisdom-deserve-quotation-3.html#post16297

Related topic, that just might bust open that little nut shell

Noone,

The reason any action is FIRST selfish is that very action is motivated and thus the action fulfills then the motivation of the will. The later moral judgement of the act as selfish [ done in ones self-interest] or altruistic [selfless] is really a judgement of the actions product not what has motivated the action. In order for someone to act in the interest of someone else, this first must become the desire of the will of the individual. This is true of any action, the later judgement of the moral quality of the act is quite another thing from that which has motivated the said action.