Omg I didn’t realize that saved drafts were public. This is only my 3rd writing piece so I didn’t know :)
Yes I plan to show a possible solution
I’m going to finish it today
Edit: I’ve finished it. I see you’re saying the answer seems obvious. Can you explain that? It’s not obvious to me at all, so I’m curious about what you think :)
As with most philosophical problems, this conundrum originates from poor definitions. Lets taboo “good” and “bad” in the phrases “desires are good because they motivate us to action” and “desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering” and see what we really mean and where all this comes from.
Humans have complex values. Among other things we value having things done and we value not suffering. There is no contradiction in that. Our psyche was trained by evolution to execute fitness adaptations with negative and positive stimuli. Now when we are aware of that as well as causal mechanisms behind desires and their satisfaction we can decide what to do.
There are lots of possible tradeoffs. If you value getting things done more than not experiencing stress then reducing your desires may not be the correct path to optimize your values. Unless, your desires are so strong and suffering of their unsatisfaction is so disturbing that it actually harms your ability to act productively. On the other hand if you value comfort and calmness more than being productive, you may want to make your desires less intense, unless they are already very weak. And of course it can vary from desire to desire.
So there is no conundrum on objective level. But there is a difficulty in figuring out your personal utility function and understanding which desires you require to be stronger or weaker in order to optimize it.
That’s true, but only to the individual level. The problem lies in finding an optimal solution for the individual which still sufficiently benefits the collective.
Omg I didn’t realize that saved drafts were public. This is only my 3rd writing piece so I didn’t know :)
Yes I plan to show a possible solution
I’m going to finish it today
Edit: I’ve finished it. I see you’re saying the answer seems obvious. Can you explain that? It’s not obvious to me at all, so I’m curious about what you think :)
As with most philosophical problems, this conundrum originates from poor definitions. Lets taboo “good” and “bad” in the phrases “desires are good because they motivate us to action” and “desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering” and see what we really mean and where all this comes from.
Humans have complex values. Among other things we value having things done and we value not suffering. There is no contradiction in that. Our psyche was trained by evolution to execute fitness adaptations with negative and positive stimuli. Now when we are aware of that as well as causal mechanisms behind desires and their satisfaction we can decide what to do.
There are lots of possible tradeoffs. If you value getting things done more than not experiencing stress then reducing your desires may not be the correct path to optimize your values. Unless, your desires are so strong and suffering of their unsatisfaction is so disturbing that it actually harms your ability to act productively. On the other hand if you value comfort and calmness more than being productive, you may want to make your desires less intense, unless they are already very weak. And of course it can vary from desire to desire.
So there is no conundrum on objective level. But there is a difficulty in figuring out your personal utility function and understanding which desires you require to be stronger or weaker in order to optimize it.
That’s true, but only to the individual level. The problem lies in finding an optimal solution for the individual which still sufficiently benefits the collective.