Just as your actions don’t follow seamlessly from the theoretical understanding of what’s the right thing to do, and just as the understanding of what is the right thing to do doesn’t precisely reflect what really is the right thing to do, what you actually do doesn’t always reflect what you really prefer. There are errors and biases at every step, and the role of theoretical and intuitive understanding of what you want is in implementing a stronger procedure that gets the things you care about done reliably, that fights the imperfections in the causes of your actions, and imperfections in itself, instead of using them as an excuse for failure.
Your true preference is not the ultimate source of you actions, and much less so where the cause of discrepancy with your own judgment is a known problem, one you don’t accept as a part of yourself.
Not at all. It’s simply to recognize the difference between the map and the territory. What we say about ourselves is the map. What we do is the territory.
If the two don’t match, it’s the map that needs to be updated.
What we say about ourselves is the map. What we do is the territory.
Every map is part of the territory. But what a particular map a map of? When we reason about what we want, we don’t reason about what we actually do, but about what we should do.
“what you actually do doesn’t always reflect what you really prefer.”
It is possible for the body to be broken so that it doesn’t reflect the will. But if the body is whole, its actions reflect the genuine will of the entity—to the degree that it can, of course.
If my neck is broken and my spinal cord severed, I can’t say that I don’t prefer to eat because I don’t pick up the apple sitting on the table. I’m paralyzed. My movements (or lack thereof) are no longer connected to my will.
With me just sitting here, though, the fact that I have not picked up the apple means that I do not prefer to pick up the apple.
Just as your actions don’t follow seamlessly from the theoretical understanding of what’s the right thing to do, and just as the understanding of what is the right thing to do doesn’t precisely reflect what really is the right thing to do, what you actually do doesn’t always reflect what you really prefer. There are errors and biases at every step, and the role of theoretical and intuitive understanding of what you want is in implementing a stronger procedure that gets the things you care about done reliably, that fights the imperfections in the causes of your actions, and imperfections in itself, instead of using them as an excuse for failure.
Your true preference is not the ultimate source of you actions, and much less so where the cause of discrepancy with your own judgment is a known problem, one you don’t accept as a part of yourself.
Yes. To say “we always do what we want” is to refuse to apply reductionism to motivation.
Not at all. It’s simply to recognize the difference between the map and the territory. What we say about ourselves is the map. What we do is the territory.
If the two don’t match, it’s the map that needs to be updated.
Every map is part of the territory. But what a particular map a map of? When we reason about what we want, we don’t reason about what we actually do, but about what we should do.
People who talk about what they want usually aren’t talking about what they should want.
“what you actually do doesn’t always reflect what you really prefer.”
It is possible for the body to be broken so that it doesn’t reflect the will. But if the body is whole, its actions reflect the genuine will of the entity—to the degree that it can, of course.
If my neck is broken and my spinal cord severed, I can’t say that I don’t prefer to eat because I don’t pick up the apple sitting on the table. I’m paralyzed. My movements (or lack thereof) are no longer connected to my will.
With me just sitting here, though, the fact that I have not picked up the apple means that I do not prefer to pick up the apple.