Hobbes and Murray

[mono]

I have felt quite perplexed over this question for some time, of which ethical/motivational theory, to me, seems more correct - that of, British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) or, American psychologist, Henry Murray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Murray).
Besides on other topics, both thinkers explored greatly into human motives - not necessarily ethics or morals, but the core of human motives. Ironically, both thinkers theorized on three aspects that motivate human actions most; Hobbes, in a more cynical view, called them greed, envy, and fear, while Murray optimistically named them achievement, power, and intimacy.
With Thomas Hobbes, I can definitely see his stated thesis clearly, in larger or smaller human actions and motives. Take this scenario, for example: the other day, I saw a very nice car driving down the street - I could possibly purchase this car one day, and, though I would never, one could steal this car if tempted enough; this clearly identifies both greed and envy. The inhibition from stealing the car, especially, identifies fear - the fear of consequences for stealing the car.
Indeed, too, with Henry Murray, I can perceive his well-thought concept; let us follow the same example. The car looks beautiful, and, through a materialistic desire, I want it. What motivates me to desire it, however? Do I desire the achievement that would come along with its owning, or the achievement building up to its purchasing? Do I want the power that may contingently exist with owning the car (as the driver certainly demonstrates a power over my senses by owning the vehicle)? Or, lastly, does the intimacy appeal to me - the superior status that may attract others for owning and driving such an expensive and posh vehicle?
Perhaps it depends much more on the individual, of which influences a person more, Hobbes' theory or Murray's theory. Hobbes' theory, to me, tends to more directly delve into the negative aspects of human motives and behavior, while Murray, I think, searches more into the 'why' questions, but more on a positive aspect.
What do you all think?

[Asa Adams]

I agree with your opinion, Mono. It really does depend upon the individual. Whether that person would view the "car" in an optimistic or pessimistic perception, is entirely up to said persons. Though it is interesting, However, that Murray's, a psychologist, opinion delves deeper into the "Why" as you say, and not Hobbes, a philosopher. :lol: Wouldn't you agree, Mono??? :lol:

By the way, Mono, that was an excellent opinion piece :nod: .

[Asa Adams]

[QUOTE=mono]I have felt quite perplexed over this question for some time, of which ethical/motivational theory, to me, seems more correct [QUOTE]

To further my reply, I think that both are definitely correct, however, i think that i would lean towards the negative aspect contributed towards Hobbes Philosophy. Looking into the true nature of human behaviour, I have come to realize one important thing; at the core of every snow flake there is a single grain of dirt. Much like the existing human, there is always that underlying greed, fear, and envy that has permitted us to survive as long as we have. Therefore, bypassing some of the altruistic motives, Hobbe's philosophy appeals to me because I feel it has the most Merit in discussing Human behaviour and Motivation. What do you think, Mono. Your response is most Welcome!

[mono]

Well said, Asa.
I continue to feel entirely mind-boggled at the question of which, if either, seems more correct, whether in accordance with my opinion or fact.
Human nature, itself, as you explained, I can certainly perceive its darker elements, especially in its rawest form of instinct and, what others may call, in utilization of the 'lizard-brain.' With this, I can strongly see Hobbes' point in greed, envy, and fear most motivating human actions, big or small.
As humankind stretches further and further into various accomplishments, one can of course ask 'why do we do this, what motivates us, and what compels us to drive further?' In these questions, additionally, I can see Murray's response of achievement, power, and intimacy.
I laugh at myself for how frequently I think on this subject. This morning, my very irritating alarm went off, I woke up, showered, ate a small breakfast, then meandered my way to the computer. During parts of the process, I simply asked 'why did I wake up, shower, eat, etc.?' Perhaps, I intended the achievement of preparing for another day (though, to most, a rather petty achievement), the power of enhancing my appearance, smell, hygeine, and nourishment, eventually making myself able to overcome and dominate any challenges of the day, or, in terms of intimacy, to attract someone.
Not ironically, one can twist this argument entirely around. Especially the word 'power' can get manipulated in terms of the desire for dominance (greed), the desire to achieve what others have as you have seen (envy), but, perhaps, the self-hindrance, feeling you cannot succeed (fear). Maybe I woke up, showered, and ate breakfast this morning to test my abilities and succeed in everything according to those abilities, reflecting my desire to do well (greed), or through the motivation of how much I admire certain writers, thinkers, scientists, etc. (envy); of course, there only remains the hindrance, the inability, or the knowing of one's limits (fear).

As you said, Asa, 'at the core of every snow flake there is a single grain of dirt;' in response, one can think the same of the 'Yin-Yang.' With both concepts, nonetheless, I agree. But at the root of every human action, the absolute beginning of an intention, a sparkle of contemplation, preceding any subjective perception from others, can one honestly proclaim that they mean good or bad? Of course, as always, it depends on the action, or the motive. As a child, I wanted to work as both a scientist and a professional musician, and, I admit, I desired both the acquiring of achievement and power, and, indeed, the wealth, fame, and brilliance that came along with the hard work, inspired by the people who I admired; in this entire situation, one can surely see the motives of both thinkers.

[Asa Adams]

I agree, Mono. It overwhelms my senses and thoughts with ignorance. I have not really looked into this questioning, other than my university Ego, super ego, and ID studies. Although I have often thought to myself what it means to continue competing in life, to get ahead and what not, but i never really considered the fear that i have of failing and allowing others to succeed where I have not. Though i have obviously felt envy and greed. Very interesting.

[literaturerocks]

it is interesting how the different motives that each murray and hobbes described differ so much but yet can be related. very interesting opnions! i learned something new. cool! :D

[Asa Adams]

Well, I sure hope my friend Mono isn't still kicking himself about which he believes is to be most Logical. I wish him luck! :D

[mono]

Well, I sure hope my friend Mono isn't still kicking himself about which he believes is to be most Logical. I wish him luck! :D
Unlikely, as I will probably continue to 'kick myself' until I solve this question within myself, or until I develop a theory of my own (which appears even more unlikely; my brain cannot keep up with such brilliant minds of Hobbes and Murray).
The question will perplex me endlessly, among others in philosophy - which motivates human actions more: greed, envy, and fear (Hobbes); or achievement, power, and intimacy (Murray).
Nonetheless, the two theories do not necessarily have to contradict each other; Hobbes' theory, however, I feel may address more the human-animal instincts - the fight-or-flight response, and requirement to make hasty, necessary-to-survive decisions. Murray's theory also can address the specific human-animal instincts, yet seems more broad to not only uncover the motives behind subjectively/objectively good or bad actions (power, especially, can have its horrible motives - take Adolf Hitler, for example), but also delves into the common everyday questions of 'why this' and 'why that?'
An immense difference between the two theories looks greatly into inhibitions; Hobbes lists fear as the primary inhibiting factor in human motives, while Murray, in his literature, tends to describe an inherent inhibiting factor that can take part in each motive (achievement, power, or intimacy).
Regardless, what dark secrets lie behind all human motives, the voluntary motives, I think, and as Immanuel Kant writes, rely more on the intention that the end-product action. One may intend achievement, but receive great amount of negative and easily-abused power; additionally, one may intend to fulfill their requirement of greed, but only end up envying more and more, due to the indecisive nature of human desire.

[squire nick]

Hobbes' explanation seems the simpler of the two. I also approve because it provides opportunities for overcoming, which this Murray fellow's doesn't. Murray says "achievement" yet as I see it his theory provides less room for that than Hobbes'. Note that none of this constitutes a valid argument against Murray.

I hesitate at the notion of one fixed human nature, but I think Hobbes applies to most people.

[mullins]

I was actually looking for perspectives on Dostoevsky's treatment of reason, but as tends to happen in forums I got caught up looking through some of the threads :)

I am only loosely conversant with the work of Hobbes and completely unfamiliar with that of Murray. However, as a random surfer just dropping in, can I point out one thing: Hobbes lists three emotions, while Murray lists three objectives; three desirable states. This, I would suggest, means that the two theories are not exclusive - in fact they compliment one another nicely. One can view emotions as subjective states that are defined by their orientation towards an object. I.e. anger is always anger AT something, fear is always fear OF something.

It is entirely possible, to return to the example of the desirable car, to be GREEDY for the ACHIEVEMENT that that car represents. Or to feel ENVY towards the apparent POWER of the one driving it. Or - moving away from the car example now - to feel FEAR that INTIMACY may not be forthcoming if one does not act in a certain way.

It seems to me that only Hobbes is actually dealing with 'motivation', while Murray is concerned with identifying objects of desire. I don't think that Hobbes would argue with Murray when Murray suggests that achievement, power and intimacy are three particularly desirable objects, given that they are objects towards which Hobbes' own trio of emotional states might well be directed (without conflicting with his typically pessimistic outlook!).

In a thread that seeks a final assessment of human motivation, it might pay to define the term 'motivation' more clearly. Does 'motivation' mean

1) 'that state which people seek most commonly to attain' (as per Murray),

or does it mean

2) 'that emotional state which most commonly drives people to act in pursuit of the more favourable existance identified in (1)' (as per Hobbes)?

I think that confusion between these two definitions would lead to a frustrating back & forth that has no end (because it is forced to compare two arguments that are not commensurate).

Probably best to run the two investigations concurrently then match them up at the end (as in my example of the car, above). If you've done a good job with each, they should fit together neatly.

[mono]

Hobbes lists three emotions, while Murray lists three objectives; three desirable states. This, I would suggest, means that the two theories are not exclusive - in fact they compliment one another nicely. One can view emotions as subjective states that are defined by their orientation towards an object. I.e. anger is always anger AT something, fear is always fear OF something.

It is entirely possible, to return to the example of the desirable car, to be GREEDY for the ACHIEVEMENT that that car represents. Or to feel ENVY towards the apparent POWER of the one driving it. Or - moving away from the car example now - to feel FEAR that INTIMACY may not be forthcoming if one does not act in a certain way.

It seems to me that only Hobbes is actually dealing with 'motivation', while Murray is concerned with identifying objects of desire. I don't think that Hobbes would argue with Murray when Murray suggests that achievement, power and intimacy are three particularly desirable objects, given that they are objects towards which Hobbes' own trio of emotional states might well be directed (without conflicting with his typically pessimistic outlook!).
Exactly! I have thought something very similar since first stumbling on the subjects of Thomas Hobbes and Henry Murray; I suppose I merely needed someone to reaffirm the concept before entirely believing it as truth. Thank you for your post, mullins; you stated the fact better than I could have. :D

[Maerlook]

Mullins, I think that you are on to something in when you refer to the subjective/ objective distinction between the Hobbes and Murray. I would like to propose that Murray is not dealing with the objects themselves but conditions in the objects which create Hobbes’ emotional states.

If left as it stands the concept “to be GREEDY for the ACHIEVEMENT that that car represents.” Only works in the case of a positive achievement, buying or winning the car. In the negative case, stealing the car, the car no longer represents an ACHIEVEMENT but an exercise of POWER. It could be said that one is GREEDY for the perception of ACHIEVEMENT present in the car; however, this solution does not allow for the distinction between ACHIEVEMENT and INTIMACY. The question becomes is perception an act of ACHIEVEMENT or a relationship of INTIMACY? With the distinction between ‘motivations’ breaking down, the model begins to loose its effectiveness.

The theories might be combined in such a way that I am greedy for the car because it is an achievement to own one, it provides the power of transportation (among other things), and could grant the possibility for intimacy. In this model, it is not any of the attributes specifically creates the greed but some combination of them.

The question then becomes am I greedy and the car happens to possess those attributes, or am I greedy because the car possesses those attributes.

The real difference between the two theories lies not in the subjective or objective nature of the arguments but in whether the subjective emotions or the objective traits (or some combination of the two) drive action.

I am personally more inclined to believe the Hobbesian concepts because I have questions about the ‘objective’ nature of an object’s attributes. They could be totally subject to the interpretation of the actor (in the Lockian sense) or the society to which the actor belongs.