It has nothing to do with martydom unless someone gets greater satisfaction from being a martyr. Most people don't. It is not a tendency towards self-satisfaction; it is an immutable law. It's not like sometimes we move towards satisfaction and sometimes we don't. Even when it appears that we are being self-destructive, we are still moving towards satisfaction. There is no deviation although it is sometimes difficult to see what drives people to do certain things.
How can you possibly objectify personal motivation? The basis lies in him saying, "Oh, they did that because they were more sastisfied with that." When you can never truly know what was the motivation or all variables considered within a decision-making process.
You can't. Soooooooo????????
Suicide was only mentioned to show that even when one's decision is to take one's life; it is still in the direction of greater satisfaction.
The structure of the statement presents suicide as an alternative...a separate "choice."
It is always a choice that is present; but self-preservation prevents us from taking that step. We usually find a better alternative than the finality of suicide. Where is the problem here, Solidsquid?
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence
and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit suicide.
So in keeping with your reasoning, we have a choice but we only choose one so therefore the other can never be chosen...for our sastisfaction. Correct?
Yes, we have constant comparisons to make at each moment, but the one we choose had to be because the other possibility would have been in the direction of dissatisfaction, which is impossible. Prove me wrong Solidsquid instead of complaining.
The you have to tread, as I allude to above, in the murky waters of one individual perceiving another's actions as satisfactory to them.
I don't have to perceive the murky waters of perception. All I know for sure is that whatever the choice, it was in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why are you so angry at this?
The alternative at that moment was worse than staying alive. In this case, there is only one direction that we must move towards; we cannot move towards dissatisfaction.
The only proof I've seen so far that is substantial is that of definition distortion to make it fit. If we cannot move to dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction for all intents and purposes cannot exist. By that, it makes satisfaction void since this is the only way. There is then nothing but 'the way'. If this is the crux of the argument then, 2,500 years ago Chinese sages beat you to it.
You know, you are doing the thing that you are accusing me of. You say there has to be an opposite. Yes, tall gives meaning to short. But in this case, you are all washed up. I am not trying to make anything fit. I am stating what exists. If you are angry at that; go beat a punching bag. I'm tired of making everyone happy just to appease them. You are wrong. End of sentence. Nobody beat me to it because no one has the one way. There is no one way except that we are all moving in one direction. Coming from that one bit of fact; we can all go in a million different directions. You are confused like all the rest. Maybe between all of you; you will finally get it. If not, I'll be stuck here on this sticky thread that goes nowhere. Then, you will have me banned because there will be no audience. And isn't that what it is about? How sneaky you all are.
There is a balance in life and this knowledge is snipping off the evil and adding good. So there is still a balanced equation.
The "equation" is based upon Lessans vague logic Janis. And even though, it sounds good to you. Deep within the logic, definitions, reasoning are all nothing new and have been distorted by his own unstructured and unguided learning. His work reaks more of an "I'll show you" to Acadamia then any break through. The man had some insecurity issues with his own accomplishments in life. The motivation behind his work was nothing more than the need to provide a feeling of self worth.
No one in the universe can move against their own will. They may not be making the most rational decisions, but even in their worst mental state, they are still doing what they think is best for themselves even if they are delusional.
Okay, I'll be more specific. Schizophrenics cannot be said to gain satisfaction from the catatonia, the delusional voices, the feelings of persecution. Those with mulitiple personalities, how does this reasoning account for the differences of each personality? It's still one individual, does this mean they can have one or more satisfactory reactions to something and so does this mean they represent 2 or more people? Why not throw some math out to support this?
I've beared through claims of mathematic wonder and undeniability. Yet, I'm sorry to say of all I've read and all my pondering, all the past couple of weeks of discussion and review with friends, other students and professors and writers...this work seems to fall into the same bin as other crack pot works. Do you realize that it takes more than just a book with philosophical logic to change an entire species established instinct, societal structure and worldly habits? Religion has tried for thousands of years and they supposedly have an all powerful deity backing them.
I came, I read, I found nothing but crap.