- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The desires themselves-except indirectly, through the creation of habits. Let's say that when I'm at home, when I'm irritated or tense, I have a desire to have a little drink-I once discovered this method, and now I have to be distracted by this desire, stop it. But when traveling for work, school – I never drink, absolutely-well, there is not the slightest desire to travel, regardless of the mood. – That is, you can influence your desires, choose them – through the involuntary or special creation of habits.
But in most situations, desires arise involuntarily.
And here is the fundamental thing: they are almost always simultaneously multidirectional, and therefore we can choose which one to follow. Depending on your goals. That is, desires are involuntary. The choice between supporting desires in actions is arbitrary.
And here's another interesting thing. You can only consciously choose between the desires that you are aware of. But when there is no such habit: to recognize your feelings, to understand your multidirectional desires from your feelings. And even more so: some of your desires are considered “bad”, “blasphemous”, “vile” – and then you don't realize them at all (like, nah, this only happens with immoral bad guys). – There are many surprises waiting for you. Well, because if you don't realize it, you don't control it: you don't choose, it's “on its own”. Everything that is repressed into the unconscious – we lose control over it.
So here's a recipe for not being held hostage to your desires:
The habit of being aware of your feelings in the moment, through feelings – to understand your needs and desires. Which are usually simultaneously multidirectional or contradictory.
bThey choose, depending on their goals, which of these desires to support, turn into action, and which to keep out of action. At least in this form and now.
Create habits. I've been losing weight for almost a month, now I've had a big breakfast, and then there will only be two small snacks, like an apple or a glass of milk. “And I don't want much more than that during the day for a long time.” The desire to eat more is there, but very weak. Formed a habit.
The answer depends on how we define the words “desires, “”self, “”hostage,” and ” choice.”
* “Wishes”. I have physiological needs, my body needs food. Need for food = desire to eat? I use a definition from academic psychology: desire is a reified need. I mean, yes, my body needs nutrition, it's a need. But I can satisfy this need with a variety of different foods. At the moment when the “need for food” becomes “the desire to eat scrambled eggs”, and my desire appears.
* Then we have “himself”. This, apparently, is about whether a person has a will? Here's the academic definition of will I don't like, I use a different one. Will is the ability to predict the consequences of one's actions and change one's behavior in accordance with these predictions. If I know that eating McDuck tomorrow will give me a stomach ache, I can give up the urge to eat a hamburger. In this definition, the will is a unique human ability, it is possessed only by some animals and then in its infancy. Animals use a different mechanism, it is called learning or imprint. Remember Pavlov and his dogs: the dog learned that after the sound of the bell, it will get food.
People also have the ability to learn and actively use it. If I go to a McDonald's after work every time, over time the trip there and the coveted hamburger becomes an imprint. This behavior is popularly called “autopilot” – just follow the usual route.
Imprint воля volya. Learning does not require any predictive abilities, it does not require any intelligence or intelligence, only the simplest physiological reactions.
* Let's go further, “hostage”. Can you ignore your needs? We use Maslow's theory (the same pyramid). According to him, basic needs cannot be ignored, and there are seven such needs: physiological, safety, love, respect, cognitive, aesthetic, and self-realization. You can't jump over them in any way. A person is a hostage to their basic needs. Needs may be stronger or weaker depending on different circumstances, but they are always there.
But in addition to basic needs, there are also neurotic needs. They also feel like they're vital, but they're not really needed. People often become hostages to their neurotic needs, but this is not necessary. You can get rid of neurotic needs.
* Finally, “select”. The needs seem to have been sorted out: you need to satisfy the basic ones, but you should throw out the neurotic ones. What about wishes? No theory is needed here: a person is free to choose his desires. He doesn't always use his freedom: for example, my dinner at McDonald's is a simple imprint, I didn't choose to eat a hamburger. But still, if I turn on my will, I can free myself from this desire. From the need-no, I can't stop eating. But I can stop eating hamburgers.
A person is free from desires.
From basic needs-no.
But neurotic needs and desires can be very strong, and a person does not always use his will to control them.
Everyone has the opportunity to manage their desires and get rid of neurotic needs.
I can only say once again about self-esteem. Some desires disappear as soon as you purposefully work with her and learn to respect yourself. You no longer want to grovel before anyone, so you are spared from humiliating actions. You don't have to beg anyone.�
For example, you don't love yourself and think that you don't deserve anything, and when your girlfriend cheats on you, you forgive again and again, because who else will love you? It's good that at least it's like this. And your desire in this case is to close your eyes and be with her. And if your self-esteem is adequate – you know your pros and cons, you respect yourself – you will decide that this is not possible with you. Because it's just disrespectful and low. And your natural desire will be to break up with her, even if there are feelings.�
Constantly suffering people (I mean those who have “sadness”) even want, consciously or unconsciously, that everyone feels sorry for them and something like this happens to them. A peculiar way of attracting attention that they lack.
PS I think that a person does not choose what he wants, but can prepare himself for more “correct” desires in some areas. As I described above. The same is possible with examples from childhood – if the parents 'unhealthy relationships were before their eyes, the girl may subconsciously “want” such a guy as her father was (and he was a tyrant, for example). And if you realize this – why you are attracted to ” bad ” guys – the situation can change.
! I'm not a psychologist, I just said my opinion/suggestion
Most often, a person does not distinguish between his own desires and those that he takes for his own. In this he is a hostage.
A person is usually a hostage of the society, the society in which he lives. It dictates to him the conditions of life and rules, it also forms his opinion, point of view. Deprive a person of society, society, and he will not have so many desires, then it will be possible to find out whether the person controls his desires or not. The answer to the question will be this: modern man carries on his hump a huge number of needs of his body, which made it one-dimensional, a person gives less and less than he wants to consume. A person is a hostage of his body, it dictates his desires.
If you don't want anything, it means zero price for all the ideas whose marketing was weak in relation to your EGO…So it's time for you to initiate yourself as an Idea, and to want more not for yourself, but for others, giving us something inaccessible that puts you above the usual Desire…
A person is much smarter than he needs to be happy and you have to try very hard to spoil everything. So we've been trying all our lives.
Our desires do not always correspond to logic and common sense.
But everyone chooses their own goal setting.
The greatest achievement of modern philosophy is to understand that. THAT THE PERSON HIMSELF DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE WANTS. This is 100% true, because otherwise the world would be predictable, and a person could not live in such a world.
It depends on the degree of consciousness of the person. As long as a person indulges his desires, he is not free from them. As soon as he aspires to higher goals, he gains a more significant degree of freedom, and at the same time he is attacked by past desires.
A higher speed also implies a stronger effect of inertia (all according to physical laws), which means more effort to overcome it and successfully advance. In this progress (aspiration+tension), the past base desires of the individual are burned away.
Both are equally true. He makes his own choice, but the certainty and conditionality of his choice is not accidental and is the product of certain circumstances, phenomena and processes (mental, physiological, social, economic) related to and surrounding the person making the choice. What you are contrasting in this question may actually be the same process, but with a different name. You have contrasted the independence of human decision-making and the conditionality of his desires, which make us say that these are not his desires and there is no freedom of will and choice, and that this is an illusion. But is it true?
We speak about the independence of the decision when we mean whether there is a compulsion to make a choice against the will of the chooser, i.e. the independence of the decision is the presence of the will of the one who chooses. But the question is whether we can say that a person makes a decision on his own or whether it is all an illusion.
To answer this question, you need to first answer these – Are there ideal conditions under which a person would make a decision regardless of everything? Then would we be able to say with certainty and certainty that he made the decision “on his own” ? And then what is meant by the word “self” makes a decision? He makes the same decision himself, and at the same time his “self” , so to speak, is his psyche, physiology, circumstances around him, social situation, economic situation, and so on. Let's imagine a situation where a person is not affected by such things as physiology, psyche, etc. in this case, the absence of all these processes cannot make a conclusion, otherwise what is a person without a psyche, without physical processes of the body ,etc.? Based on the fact that there are no conditions without which it is impossible to make decisions, we say that he made it himself, otherwise there is no absolutely independent decision-making, and I will say even more can not be, since decision-making must proceed from objective prerequisites of information and experience, memory of previous similar situations, opportunities, awareness of the range of solutions to a particular problem . But it is fair to say that the problem lies not only in the person himself, but also in external circumstances, sometimes he can not help but make this or that decision in view of such circumstances, and here he chooses, but his choice is partly predetermined. No one will argue that most people can do the same in the same situations. We could tell everyone with a certain probability what they will choose, if we knew the huge number of factors that influence the decision-making process.�
On this topic, I can refer you to the film ” RoboCop “(RoboCop,” Robot Cop”)-a fantastic action film of 2014 directed by Jose Padilla, a remake of the 1987 film of the same name by Paul Verhoeven, where the main character was also introduced into the brain, in addition to replacing the body. When training or testing Robocop, the scientists who worked on it discuss this topic in relation to it. For more information, follow the link – https://youtu.be/QVuVTu23u0o?t=2m24s
The main character in this case is both a hostage of the program and at the same time he is the program and it can even be said that now they are inseparable. In fact, he was “upgraded” in terms of speed and efficiency of making tactical decisions on the battlefield – instead of his personal experience and knowledge and skills that he had, they replaced the program with a more comprehensive one covering this area of knowledge and skills. A person also has programs in fact, we just do not attach the same importance to them and do not perceive them as a program on a PC or some other technical device, but this is essentially true. (Abstract: Man is a biorobot.)
If the reader has any questions about such concepts as altruism and selfishness in making decisions and choices , then I will turn to the popular science book “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins , where there is an idea that the behavior of an animal, whether it is altruistic or selfish , is only under indirect, but nevertheless very effective, control of genes. By dictating how survival machines and their nervous systems should be built, genes ultimately hold supreme power over behavior. However, at any given moment, decisions about what to do next are made by the nervous system. Genes make policy, and the brain is the executor. But as the brain reaches a higher level of development, it is increasingly taking over decision-making, using techniques such as learning and modeling. The logical conclusion of this trend, which no other species has ever reached, would be that the genes give the survival machine one comprehensive instruction: do what you think is most important for our survival.”
Thus, making a decision for oneself is an illusion, since a person is always a product of circumstances and various processes both around and in the person himself. But if it weren't for these processes and circumstances, we would never be able to say that he made his own decisions, because otherwise, who would he be without all these factors, if we take them all into account? There is no absolute independent choice in vaakum and it is unlikely that there can be, so its independence is only as independence in terms of the presence of its own will and the absence of compulsion on the part of other individuals to make this or that choice.
Like in a Russian folk tale; three roads, go to the right, earn 100 cones, go to the left, 50, go straight, 10, but at a certain time, you will be in a certain place. This is of course my subjective allegory. But sometimes it seems to me that we don't even choose the road, for the time being.
A reasonable person chooses. Sets a goal, outlines the stages of the path. Decides what you can sacrifice for the sake of your goal, what you should give up.
A person coming to the age of prudence makes a mistake: He looks in the mirror, sees his reflected image, which is completely attractive for Homo Sapiens…and concludes that the job is done, he is a Man! So we must live! Actually, on the one hand, he is right only to the corporeality, but in addition to that, there is also the soul! That's where the danger lies.the soul also implies a set of characteristics that require extreme attention and care! But this is ignored because only one part is manifested, namely the thought-form! As a result of this, very strange deviations occur,often bringing the individual to the point of Absurdity! Where the extreme state is very deplorable!
Unfortunately, all those who shout about their independence and say that “my desires are only my desires, I was not influenced by anyone” are mistaken. *my sneakers are flying at me * �
The thing is, you don't become human just by being born with a pair of arms and legs. You don't start choosing a particular book, movie, university, job, or hobby because you are you. A person is ALWAYS influenced by socio-cultural factors. Eliminate them and you will get Mowgli, who lived with the wolves, with whom he is “of the same blood”.
In the modern world, a person is given a lot of choices, in which he sometimes gets lost. It is not a hostage to its own desires, it is a hostage to a huge developing system that is subject to globalization. He is a hostage to the era of “acceleration”, when you are afraid to miss everything and miss something important.�
On this topic, I recommend reading Sven Brinkman's book “The End of the self-help Era: How to Stop improving yourself”.
If you are interested in the answer in this wording – “Does a person choose” – Google the word “determinism” and master all the multi-volume heritage of philosophical world literature on this topic )
If you are interested in the answer “Do I choose?” – answer it yourself, based on your own understanding of life and your own goals in your life.�
The correct questions are: “I choose? or do the wishes choose for me?”
“Am I a hostage, or the master of my own desires?”
Only in this formulation will you feel personally responsible for your answers and their significance for your life.
I think that most people have two versions of “wishlist” and wishes: “1) I want” and “2) I want”. And the difference between them is big. A person can, of course, rationally process their desires, they say, for example, I want to become a millionaire, I want to make a career, I want to start running in the morning tomorrow, etc., but this does not change the fact that in reality they want to lie on the couch, hang out on the Internet, eat chocolates.
A sore subject. Who just did not write about it ! From Buridan's Donkey to 4 noble truths in Buddhism.
But there are recent studies of the brain using MRI. It turned out that the brain makes a decision before we realize it. A thought appears in the brain earlier than we think it.
I want to go to the bathroom. I didn't choose to go to the bathroom, so I'm a hostage to my desire.
I chose to go to the Mac instead of KFC. I chose where I want to go on my own.
In short and clear – it's like a drawbar: where you turned, there it went
A hostage. A person's desires are dictated by their needs and preferences, which, in turn, are formed in advance by other factors and circumstances.
Here is a very exaggerated, but illustrative example: If you are dying of thirst in the desert and you are offered a glass of cool water or salted fish-the choice will be obvious.
The ability to make choices that don't meet our needs is irrational and can pose a potential threat to human survival. In this sense, it contradicts the evolutionary process, which provides the right to exist only for mechanisms that are sufficiently effective for the survival of the organism and displaces all tendencies to self-destruction.
A sick person is a hostage to their desires, in fact, if you even slightly open the veil of maya, then you will want almost everything.�
I mean, really – if you're convinced that in the end, there's no matter – then you won't care about almost anything.
this is a very difficult question due to the fact that man is a conciliar being, consisting of spirit, soul and flesh( body), and each component has its own desires and preferences, sometimes directly opposed to each other.
yes, and the person himself is a bunch of contradictions in himself, because he often wants to, as they say, and pricks. I will say this: a person who has submitted his flesh to the spirit is more free to choose his path. Conversely, a person who is a slave to his carnal desires – he is their hostage. Simply put, it depends on the measure of the freedom that a particular person has. For example, a person who is hooked on tobacco smoking-he starts out seemingly voluntarily – that is, he does not have an addiction, a frenzied craving for this action, but he just has an interest ( temptation, temptation) to smoke. And he starts to “shoot”. He was free of it, but he became a slave to it. Now he's a hostage, and it happens that he would be happy to leave, but it doesn't just happen. You must now free yourself from slavery..
This is a very discussed and rather controversial topic. There are several aspects here, it all depends on the” depth ” of the analysis.
On the one hand, we choose what we want, decide for ourselves what to do and what not to do, and not the least role in this is played by our desires. But on the other hand, can I want what I “don't want”? Or am I aware of all my desires that affect my “I want something”? And in general, what does it mean to “choose for myself what I want”?
I am limited in my choice by the fact that I cannot want what I have no idea about, and everything that I know and can want somehow depends on my desires. If I make a choice, ostensibly, against my wishes, it only means that some of my desires have taken over others, that's all.
We must admit that a person, by nature, is not a free being at all, no matter how much we convince ourselves otherwise and it doesn't matter if we are talking about the influence of desires or something else. We are certainly given the illusion of freedom, and we use it safely.
The answer to your question, like the very essence of a person, is contradictory: a person is a hostage to his desires, but he “chooses” what he wants.