B.Spinoza "We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it."
I found this quote by Spinoza to be particularly truthful. Humans and society have become good at ignoring things that they do not want to know simply because these things make them feel uncomfortable or uneasy, or that perturb the smooth flow of society. For example how many political scandals have been hidden from the people because that course of action was desirable and therefore was made justifiable and good. Humans desire an unlimited number of things, and having us desire things because they are good would mean that everything is good. But that is not the case. Everything on this planet is neutral, a certain rock, a certain element, a certain house is not naturally good, but becomes so once a human starts desiring it. How did our moral codes- what we view as good- come into conduct? Well, one day, a man decided that staying alive pleased him, and therefor leaving someone there life must be good. Spinoza was entirely right in stating that the goodness of an object only comes after society has classified it as desirable, and not the other way around.
We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it. -B. Spinoza
I think this quote says a lot about humankind. The technology and things we produce do not come about due to them being good, but to us desiring them. It is the human demand for things which causes these ‘good’ things to come about. However sometimes something can be good while also being desired by humans; maybe it is not preferred, but needed for humankind themselves, which is still selfish in its own way.
B Spinoza: We do not desire things because it is good; its is good because we desire it.
My reaction to this quote is that it is very true. Everything humans have created has always been because the desire it, the phone was invented because humankind wanted an easier way to communicate over long distances, the light bulb was created because humans desired to control the light in rooms. Humans have continued to improve on the things we desire in order to satisfy our own desires, and it is theses desires that have convinced us that these things are good and essential. So in my opinion the quote speaks the truth. The things we desire are good because we desire them, it is not that we desire them because it is good.
B. Spinoza: We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it.
The quote by the 17th century Dutch philosopher has particularly become true today. He raises an interesting point by saying that we first desire something, meaning we will then find it good. Additionally, that means we will not find something good but then not desire it. In my opinion, that reflects well upon the human nature.
Many examples of this statement can be found in today's society. We are being convinced daily that we should have a certain product. If we then desire it, we will thus be convinced it is good. However, we won't find first a product good, before we even want to have it. Also, humans in general always try to create something new, which they desire, and that will then be perceived as good.
G.B.Shaw: "Don't do onto others as you would have them do onto you - their tastes might be different."
In my opinion, G.B.Shaw is only partially right. On one hand, humans are all different and they differentiate in their tastes and preferences. The determination between different cultures makes it difficult to meet every single aspect and preference of one culture and not to be rude or condemn to others. On the other hand, the humankind has to work with each other and not against each other in order to survive. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you will force both sides to cooperate with each other. The expression of each other’s preferences will teach everybody, how to adjust to the society. These aspects make G.B.Shaws’ statement unreasonable in my eyes.
Your views, namely that one should not do unto others as one would expect in return lest the recipient’s tastes are different, while bold and intellectually stimulating, severely undermine a basic level of decency to be suspected of everyone. I should very much like to believe that in everyone, no matter how minuscule, there exists some mechanism where one is obligated to return good deeds. If my interpretation of your assertion is correct, your statement boils down to the futility of kind actions, how noble acts do not necessarily warrant noble responses. Because if we do not treat others as we should like to be treated, how would we? With regard for only ones self-interest? With altruistic reverence and lack of consideration for oneself? While yes, there are certainly cases where one will deal with scumbags, those who no matter how nice you are to them they will never return the favor, the vast majority of mankind can at least appreciate kind acts and respond accordingly. Your statement is fundamentally pessimistic; why try when others may not appreciate you? You so easily wave away positive aspects of human interaction, and concern yourself not with perceived civility and kindness. We live in a world where that civility and kindness rules our daily lives, and to not abide by them is less a mark of revolutionary boldness, and more the mark of an unsympathetic pariah.
This is Luca S. and I made a mistake with my profile name.
Kant: So act that you could wish the maxim of your action to become a universal law of human conduct This makes perfect sense for if everyone were to act their very best, that is in a fashion that they would have everyone else mimic morality and behavior would be reinforced tenfold. The reason for that is if a murderer committed homicide and everyone were to mimic his actions his world would become the same hell he inflicted upon others. If every single human were put in their own worlds where people simply imitated the way they acted for even a day their actions after this experience would differ for many of us. Human beings as such are mostly proud creatures, who never like to admit that they are at fault, but if they were placed before their own short comings or misdoings they would soon change their ways even if it were only out of selfish reasons. This logic that each one of our conscious actions should reflect how the rest of the world could or should act is a noble one for if everyone acted their very best there would be no need for anyone to mimic or impersonate another person’s actions. There is however only one flaw to this idea and that is the reality that sociopaths exist who do not care if the world around them burns for all they care about is themselves therefore this idea would be alien to them. However for a normal rational moral human being applying this theory and idea to our lives would not only make our own lives more enjoyable but might also have a profound effect on all the people are us.
"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love, but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be permissible, even cannibalism." - F. Dostoyevski
The beliefs of mankind are the things that keep us grounded and give us our morality. Religion was only created by leaders to control the people in their kingdom or empire. Without this strong belief in right and wrong, people would be free to do what they want. Moreover, if everyone believed that they were mortal beings, and no matter what kind of wrongs they committed, they would still live and receive no punishments, there would be chaos. The power we have in ourselves to second guess an action and think of the consequences of what we do, is what keeps us from destroying ourselves. But these days, that power seems to be less present in the everyday lives of a lot of people. Is this what will eventually lead to our death? Were the creators of religion actually on the right track to controlling humanity? Is our curiosity and need for proof leading to our moral decay? Should we try to evolve backwards in order to maintain our humanity and save ourselves from destruction? Would this even be possible? Will all the technology and unnecessary things we find that we need to survive, end up killing us instead of saving us? Is humankind doomed?
B. Spinoza:”We do not desire a thing because it is good; it’s good because we desire it.” It is true what Spinoza is saying that it not we want something because it looks, smells or sounds good it is because we grow accustom to liking these thing and when we see this, smell this or hear this we grow a desire for this and fid it ‘good.’ When we see a cake we eat enjoy and then when we will see it another time we will think of the taste and then we desire it. This desire makes a connection with our brain that this thing in front of us is good. We learn what is good and what is bad and our brain remembers this.
Sorry about the lateness, I originally wrote the response in my notebook but forgot to hand it in.
Kant: "So act that you could wish the maximum of your action to become a universal law of human conduct."
To anyone with a pacifist ideology, this statement serves a good purpose. He or she would wish that it was also a law of human conduct not to hit people in the face, hurt them, torture them or kill them. And to any person with this belief, the world would become a better place if people adhered to this statement. On the other hand, Hitler, for example, thought that the better world (ruled by Germans)could only be achieved by military actions. So to him, when he fought wars with people, he wouldn't have had a problem with militarism as a code of human conduct. Therefore, if Kant's statement serves the purpose of achieving a better world by making people do only what they would wish mankind to do, then the success depends entirely on the people. Even with the implication of this statement the world will not change, because every person who uses it will use it towards their own imagination of a better world and law of conduct.
B.Spinoza "We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it."
ReplyDeleteI found this quote by Spinoza to be particularly truthful. Humans and society have become good at ignoring things that they do not want to know simply because these things make them feel uncomfortable or uneasy, or that perturb the smooth flow of society. For example how many political scandals have been hidden from the people because that course of action was desirable and therefore was made justifiable and good. Humans desire an unlimited number of things, and having us desire things because they are good would mean that everything is good. But that is not the case. Everything on this planet is neutral, a certain rock, a certain element, a certain house is not naturally good, but becomes so once a human starts desiring it. How did our moral codes- what we view as good- come into conduct? Well, one day, a man decided that staying alive pleased him, and therefor leaving someone there life must be good. Spinoza was entirely right in stating that the goodness of an object only comes after society has classified it as desirable, and not the other way around.
We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it.
ReplyDelete-B. Spinoza
I think this quote says a lot about humankind. The technology and things we produce do not come about due to them being good, but to us desiring them. It is the human demand for things which causes these ‘good’ things to come about. However sometimes something can be good while also being desired by humans; maybe it is not preferred, but needed for humankind themselves, which is still selfish in its own way.
B Spinoza: We do not desire things because it is good; its is good because we desire it.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to this quote is that it is very true. Everything humans have created has always been because the desire it, the phone was invented because humankind wanted an easier way to communicate over long distances, the light bulb was created because humans desired to control the light in rooms. Humans have continued to improve on the things we desire in order to satisfy our own desires, and it is theses desires that have convinced us that these things are good and essential. So in my opinion the quote speaks the truth. The things we desire are good because we desire them, it is not that we desire them because it is good.
B. Spinoza: We do not desire a thing because it is good; it is good because we desire it.
ReplyDeleteThe quote by the 17th century Dutch philosopher has particularly become true today. He raises an interesting point by saying that we first desire something, meaning we will then find it good. Additionally, that means we will not find something good but then not desire it. In my opinion, that reflects well upon the human nature.
Many examples of this statement can be found in today's society. We are being convinced daily that we should have a certain product. If we then desire it, we will thus be convinced it is good. However, we won't find first a product good, before we even want to have it. Also, humans in general always try to create something new, which they desire, and that will then be perceived as good.
G.B.Shaw: "Don't do onto others as you would have them do onto you - their tastes might be different."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, G.B.Shaw is only partially right. On one hand, humans are all different and they differentiate in their tastes and preferences. The determination between different cultures makes it difficult to meet every single aspect and preference of one culture and not to be rude or condemn to others. On the other hand, the humankind has to work with each other and not against each other in order to survive. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you will force both sides to cooperate with each other. The expression of each other’s preferences will teach everybody, how to adjust to the society.
These aspects make G.B.Shaws’ statement unreasonable in my eyes.
Dear G. B. Shaw,
ReplyDeleteYour views, namely that one should not do unto others as one would expect in return lest the recipient’s tastes are different, while bold and intellectually stimulating, severely undermine a basic level of decency to be suspected of everyone. I should very much like to believe that in everyone, no matter how minuscule, there exists some mechanism where one is obligated to return good deeds. If my interpretation of your assertion is correct, your statement boils down to the futility of kind actions, how noble acts do not necessarily warrant noble responses. Because if we do not treat others as we should like to be treated, how would we? With regard for only ones self-interest? With altruistic reverence and lack of consideration for oneself? While yes, there are certainly cases where one will deal with scumbags, those who no matter how nice you are to them they will never return the favor, the vast majority of mankind can at least appreciate kind acts and respond accordingly. Your statement is fundamentally pessimistic; why try when others may not appreciate you? You so easily wave away positive aspects of human interaction, and concern yourself not with perceived civility and kindness. We live in a world where that civility and kindness rules our daily lives, and to not abide by them is less a mark of revolutionary boldness, and more the mark of an unsympathetic pariah.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Milligan
This is Luca S. and I made a mistake with my profile name.
ReplyDeleteKant: So act that you could wish the maxim of your action to become a universal law of human conduct
This makes perfect sense for if everyone were to act their very best, that is in a fashion that they would have everyone else mimic morality and behavior would be reinforced tenfold. The reason for that is if a murderer committed homicide and everyone were to mimic his actions his world would become the same hell he inflicted upon others. If every single human were put in their own worlds where people simply imitated the way they acted for even a day their actions after this experience would differ for many of us. Human beings as such are mostly proud creatures, who never like to admit that they are at fault, but if they were placed before their own short comings or misdoings they would soon change their ways even if it were only out of selfish reasons. This logic that each one of our conscious actions should reflect how the rest of the world could or should act is a noble one for if everyone acted their very best there would be no need for anyone to mimic or impersonate another person’s actions. There is however only one flaw to this idea and that is the reality that sociopaths exist who do not care if the world around them burns for all they care about is themselves therefore this idea would be alien to them. However for a normal rational moral human being applying this theory and idea to our lives would not only make our own lives more enjoyable but might also have a profound effect on all the people are us.
"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love, but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be permissible, even cannibalism." - F. Dostoyevski
ReplyDeleteThe beliefs of mankind are the things that keep us grounded and give us our morality. Religion was only created by leaders to control the people in their kingdom or empire. Without this strong belief in right and wrong, people would be free to do what they want. Moreover, if everyone believed that they were mortal beings, and no matter what kind of wrongs they committed, they would still live and receive no punishments, there would be chaos. The power we have in ourselves to second guess an action and think of the consequences of what we do, is what keeps us from destroying ourselves. But these days, that power seems to be less present in the everyday lives of a lot of people. Is this what will eventually lead to our death? Were the creators of religion actually on the right track to controlling humanity? Is our curiosity and need for proof leading to our moral decay? Should we try to evolve backwards in order to maintain our humanity and save ourselves from destruction? Would this even be possible? Will all the technology and unnecessary things we find that we need to survive, end up killing us instead of saving us? Is humankind doomed?
B. Spinoza:”We do not desire a thing because it is good; it’s good because we desire it.”
ReplyDeleteIt is true what Spinoza is saying that it not we want something because it looks, smells or sounds good it is because we grow accustom to liking these thing and when we see this, smell this or hear this we grow a desire for this and fid it ‘good.’ When we see a cake we eat enjoy and then when we will see it another time we will think of the taste and then we desire it. This desire makes a connection with our brain that this thing in front of us is good. We learn what is good and what is bad and our brain remembers this.
Sorry about the lateness, I originally wrote the response in my notebook but forgot to hand it in.
ReplyDeleteKant: "So act that you could wish the maximum of your action to become a universal law of human conduct."
To anyone with a pacifist ideology, this statement serves a good purpose. He or she would wish that it was also a law of human conduct not to hit people in the face, hurt them, torture them or kill them. And to any person with this belief, the world would become a better place if people adhered to this statement. On the other hand, Hitler, for example, thought that the better world (ruled by Germans)could only be achieved by military actions. So to him, when he fought wars with people, he wouldn't have had a problem with militarism as a code of human conduct. Therefore, if Kant's statement serves the purpose of achieving a better world by making people do only what they would wish mankind to do, then the success depends entirely on the people. Even with the implication of this statement the world will not change, because every person who uses it will use it towards their own imagination of a better world and law of conduct.