Free Will
This post is coming a couple hours later than I intended it. I've been pretty caught up in playing FF VII lately. Also before I get into this I would like to say I don't really like to proof read the things I write, my grammar probably isn't the best, and I may at times arrange my thoughts in odd ways... so deal with it. I would also like to say
( Read more... )
I do have a question about what your definition of personality was. In the beginning you stated that it was entirely determined by genetics and environment but later on I interpreted what you wrote as equating driving forces (best for others and best for self) with personality. Is our personality really just the sum of what drives us (whether it be these examples or more)? Are these driving forces determined genetically and socially? Just curious on your opinion.
On a separate issue:
I would like to peacefully disagree with the idea that "best for others" is truly a driving force in human nature. It is my opinion that we only think about what is best for others because we are socially conditioned to do so...so rather than "best for others" vs. "best for self" it seems far more likely that the conflict would be between personal desires and social responsibilities.
lol...sorry to present so many ideas in one post, you just happened to inspire a lot of questions and ideas.
Reply
I am perfectly satisfied with thinking of personality as laid out by Aaron: Those behaviors which a person naturally comes to adopt either as inherent genetics predisposition or through on-going social learning. I didn't intend to say that motivations were equated with personality. I intended merely to say that these two separate things are each part of the process of coming to one action over another. Perhaps this visual will help, though since it is only in text is it slightly less elaborate than I should like (it lacks arrows):
Initial stimulus > motivations > personality > decision/action
For my previous argument, free will is the negotiation not between personality traits, but between motivations (by this I mean our ability to rationaly interpret and choose between our motivations). Since a personal assessment of motivations is temporally prior to personality and can, if the need arises, override or make compromises between conflicted personality traits (this is written with regard to your first paragraph).
Where motivations originate is a pretty tricky subject which will probably require more thought than I have put into it already. For now I will place my thoughts as they are, and refine them as is needed:
--For those who have read and agree with Tony's idea of objective good, and the inherent desire in a person toward compassion, "Best for others" (which roughly equates) is an internal and likewise inherent part of human nature.
--For those who would argue that "best for others" is not inherent in a person but merely a social contrivance and a learned behavior that results only from our environment, "best for others" would then be an outside influence, that although foreign to human nature, has become inherent in human society, in which case "personal desire vs. social responsibility" would a better way to phrase things.
It is important, in light of these different views, for me to say then that a motivation is not limited to something that originates within the self. The driving forces can be both genetically determined (such as self-preservation being inborn with "best for self") or socially. In short, "yes", driving forces are determined genetically and socially. Again I need to state that these driving forces have an effect of your personality, but you personality is something separate.
The separate issue:
Although I touched on it earlier, and I hope you were satisfied, at least in part by my response, I took special care in the wording of my initial post not to claim that the motivations were part of human nature. So I would agree that without the constant social conditioning it is entirely possible that "the best for others" would never form on its own (of course people who follow Tony's opinion would disagree). So if we remember that Motivations are from within and from without, it would seem that the difference between "best for others" vs. "best for self" and "personal desires vs. social responsibilities" is merely an argument of semantics.
P.S. I don't mind ideas, and I appreciate your input. I hope I managed to satisfy the questions raised, and if I didn't keep posting until I get it right. :-)
Reply
Thanks, you made a lot of your opinions clearer. I'm glad that you made it clear that they affect free will in separate ways and are not the same...makes quite a bit more sense.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment