First , these two statements are 2nd order and 3rd order respectively (taboo “straight” and you get -very roughly- “Larry wants to want to have sex with women” ). Second, they are not representations of the same thing, since they point in opposite directions. Thus, they don’t seem to support the claim that first and second order desires can switch places.
More importantly, you can’t just infer n-th order desires from n-m, n>m>0 order desires.
“I want chocolate,” does not imply: “I do not want to want to want to not want to want to not want to not want to want to want to not want to not want chocolate,” even though the two happen to point in the same direction. The first one is true, the second one is almost certainly false, since I really don’t think that hard about chocolate.
Higher-order desires get really, really convoluted if you use imprecise language, and they’re not exactly simple to begin with.
I am starting to agree with other posters that the whole construction may not map reality too accurately, but if you actually use precise language, n-th order desires are distinct and meaningful. Without precise language, you’re just showing it’s possible to say the same thing in more than one way, which is true, but not insightful.
More importantly, you can’t just infer n-th order desires from n-m, n>m>0 order desires.
I am starting to agree with other posters that the whole construction may not map reality too accurately
I agree. Generally people don’t have very high order desires. Discounting the accuracy/usefulness of the notion of ordered desires was the entire thrust of my original comment.
First , these two statements are 2nd order and 3rd order respectively
This is still a matter of interpretation based on wording. In my original phrasing it’s more apparent that the desire is first order. My set up was that Larry “experiences genuine disgust when he thinks about homosexual acts”, the intent being that his reaction to homosexuality is involuntary, and his desire is simply to avoid that unpleasant reaction. This is first order.
I’m not claiming the order can always be reversed. I was just giving a particular construction where it could.
First , these two statements are 2nd order and 3rd order respectively (taboo “straight” and you get -very roughly- “Larry wants to want to have sex with women” ). Second, they are not representations of the same thing, since they point in opposite directions. Thus, they don’t seem to support the claim that first and second order desires can switch places.
More importantly, you can’t just infer n-th order desires from n-m, n>m>0 order desires.
“I want chocolate,” does not imply: “I do not want to want to want to not want to want to not want to not want to want to want to not want to not want chocolate,” even though the two happen to point in the same direction. The first one is true, the second one is almost certainly false, since I really don’t think that hard about chocolate.
Higher-order desires get really, really convoluted if you use imprecise language, and they’re not exactly simple to begin with.
I am starting to agree with other posters that the whole construction may not map reality too accurately, but if you actually use precise language, n-th order desires are distinct and meaningful. Without precise language, you’re just showing it’s possible to say the same thing in more than one way, which is true, but not insightful.
I agree. Generally people don’t have very high order desires. Discounting the accuracy/usefulness of the notion of ordered desires was the entire thrust of my original comment.
This is still a matter of interpretation based on wording. In my original phrasing it’s more apparent that the desire is first order. My set up was that Larry “experiences genuine disgust when he thinks about homosexual acts”, the intent being that his reaction to homosexuality is involuntary, and his desire is simply to avoid that unpleasant reaction. This is first order.
I’m not claiming the order can always be reversed. I was just giving a particular construction where it could.