Why do we do the things we do?

[coberst]

Why do we do the things we do?

If I had the ability I would draw a cartoon character with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-like upper torso supported on two thin, spindly, and varicose veined legs. This cartoon character would represent humanity as I visualize the human species.

The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for scientific achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

The book “Beyond Alienation” by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality. Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality. We need to develop a means whereby secular moral philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.

Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static; it must be dynamic, reflecting the constant discovery initiated by science. Knowledge is that which helps to promote human welfare in the here and now.

Pragmatism is a self-consistent philosophy that honors the idea that humans value that which is relative to what is satisfying. This did not mean just the satisfaction of human appetite but there is recognition that humans are rational creatures; meaning that a value is judged so only when it is chosen in a critical mode of careful examination. “And it is the community of men, in free and open inquiry and exchange, who formulate the ideal values.”

Dewey’s pragmatism was dedicated to the task of social reconstruction. Education was considered to be “the supreme human interest” wherein all philosophical problems come to a head. Dewey’s pragmatism failed because it was a call to action without a standard for action. Education must be progressive and must have a strong critical content.

The big question then is what can philosophy tell education to do? “What truths is man to pursue for the sake of man? What should we learn about man and society, knowledge that would show us, by clear and compelling logic, how to act and how to choose in our person and social life?”

Becker thinks that we must transform the university from its present vocational education institution into one leading the transformation of society. It is in this solution that I differ with Becker. I do not think that higher education will ever change its role of preparing students to become productive workers and avid consumers—at least not until our society has developed a much greater degree of intellectual sophistication.

I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. If a small percentage of our adults would focus some small part of their intellectual energies toward self-actualizing self-learning during the period between the end of their formal education and mid-life they could be prepared to focus serious time and intellectual focus upon creating an intellectual network that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.

[blazeofglory]

This is a great question philosophically appealing in point of fact.

We do things and there are motivations or stimuli and all doings, behaviors are sheer stimuli and nothing else. In our day today affairs we have to encounter so many actions, incidents or happenings and we simply react or respond.

Of course there are genetic substances like DNA and they too kind of stimulate us to do the way we do things.

I say conclusively that there are both environmental factors and genetic factors that influence human behaviors.:ladysman:

[coberst]

To comprehend why we do what we do one needs to study psychology and cognitive science and to study Critical Thinking.

Most of the "essays" that I post include a book reference. I supply this reference in the hope that the reader will be curious and go to the books for further information. My hope is that the reader will become a self-actualizing self-learner.

I have a "Friends of the Library" card from a local college and thus have access to a very well stocked library. I suspect most colleges have such things. For a yearly fee of $25 I have access to a vast library.

[blazeofglory]

We do the things we do because circumstances demand of us it and when we drink a cup of water because thirst in us requires it. And man does things involuntarily because the environment demands of us.

[caddy_caddy]

Why do we do the things we do?
It is the most difficult question I 've ever faced with.

Can we really know why???!!
If we do , we could have changed our life entirely.
Maybe we are not allowed to know, thus the notion of destiny.

[Mimosa]

Why do we do the things we do?

If I had the ability I would draw a cartoon character with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-like upper torso supported on two thin, spindly, and varicose veined legs. This cartoon character would represent humanity as I visualize the human species.

The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for scientific achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

The book “Beyond Alienation” by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality. Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality. We need to develop a means whereby secular moral philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.

Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static; it must be dynamic, reflecting the constant discovery initiated by science. Knowledge is that which helps to promote human welfare in the here and now.

Pragmatism is a self-consistent philosophy that honors the idea that humans value that which is relative to what is satisfying. This did not mean just the satisfaction of human appetite but there is recognition that humans are rational creatures; meaning that a value is judged so only when it is chosen in a critical mode of careful examination. “And it is the community of men, in free and open inquiry and exchange, who formulate the ideal values.”

Dewey’s pragmatism was dedicated to the task of social reconstruction. Education was considered to be “the supreme human interest” wherein all philosophical problems come to a head. Dewey’s pragmatism failed because it was a call to action without a standard for action. Education must be progressive and must have a strong critical content.

The big question then is what can philosophy tell education to do? “What truths is man to pursue for the sake of man? What should we learn about man and society, knowledge that would show us, by clear and compelling logic, how to act and how to choose in our person and social life?”

Becker thinks that we must transform the university from its present vocational education institution into one leading the transformation of society. It is in this solution that I differ with Becker. I do not think that higher education will ever change its role of preparing students to become productive workers and avid consumers—at least not until our society has developed a much greater degree of intellectual sophistication.

I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. If a small percentage of our adults would focus some small part of their intellectual energies toward self-actualizing self-learning during the period between the end of their formal education and mid-life they could be prepared to focus serious time and intellectual focus upon creating an intellectual network that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.

We humans learn from a young age about behavior and mimic what we see around us. Genetics and brain function also come into the picture but I think that our environments have a very strong influence on us. Today we are taught that the important factor to succeed in life is power over whatever we can and in the process we are losing sight of the simple and basic things in life like enjoying nature, music, art, or just being happy with what we have. There is not much meaning to life except how much material wealth we can accumulate; and unfortunately moral spiritual wealth has gone by the wayside for many. The way the human race is going I would have to agree with Twain in his essay in the human race that we are the lowest on the rung of living things on earth right now. What makes us so superior having the human ability to think and reason if we cannot use it for the good of all? Also how many people can actually reach the point of self-actualization self-learning when their lives solely revolve around meeting their basic needs? I would like to believe that those select few who make it to that level can get together and do something to regenerate our society but so far it has not happened as we are not all on the same page as far as our needs are concerned.
I really enjoyed your piece by the way.

[pjjrfan1]

Good Question. I sure don't have an answer. I do however know from experience that a lot of people know exactly why they do what they do and when it comes to some of the evil and horrible things that mankind does that's very scary.

[blazeofglory]

We do things just because the circumstance demands and we cannot stay undoing

[Lizard__King__]

I have always tried to shy away from absolutes in all that is done. In science it is the first step towards failure of any undertaking. The nature of making statements that brook no other options could lead one to believe what is known, or what is wanted to be known, is already understood.

If I choose to pick an apple from a tree, and upon eating it find it tart and sour and generally displeasing to myself, I could spit it out and cry "Apples are disgusting." Its an absolute statement. I leave no wiggle room, if it is an apple, its going to be sour and tart. The mistake is made by the box I created around the apple that does not allow other unknowns to affect what I have laid down as the truth of apples. And heaven help the ignorant fool that believes apples can sweet and pleasing.

In the aquirement of knowledge, absolutes appear to create a blinded view of what one is trying to learn. If I create an image of a character in writing from a preface or introduction and carry that view throughout the book without bending, I would think that my impression would be spoiled from the start. Every action of that character would be imbued with my own preconceptualized view of him. When he breaks the box I have created for him, my reaction towards this, tainted by absolutes, would either refuse to accept this or create a way to misinterpret what is.

[blazeofglory]

This is a great question and this keeps me pondering over everything in the universe. Why is there this universe? What stuffs beings are? Are we really sure that inanimate things are inanimate and the like. I do not know why I do what I do. I study to be a professional and after being the professional I wanted to be I work hard to make money and I make money to earn a living and this in turn to feed myself and my family members and to please my family members for if I please them they please and if they please me I please them and this goes round and round on a circular or orbital path infinitely and why this happens and why I do all these funny things is a question I never can answer. I do not need the answer but the thing what I want and that is why I do what I do. The rest is commentary

[loki456]

Indeed thought provoking!!
The idea of social morality is fundementally perplexing as say 'I have two favorite pairs of underwear, why do I chose the one with the superman logo? This thought form has risen throughout the ages. 'the republic' by Plato, apt in this discussion, recognises the need for certain restrictions in knowledge depending on the 'business' of the individual, although this was undoubtedly his forum and ultimately his legacy for eugenics, we can't help but ponder the crucial point he raises. When faced with an ethical crossroads, namely justice, it's simply a matter of 'one minding his own business'. The obvious questions here are 'what is my business? and who defines my business?' without this knowledge we are back at square one. As a doctor, I need to define my own role, I need to accept the role given by my employer and lastly I need to understand the role that's been passed down throughout history, Aristotle simply stated medicine was the 'study of the human body and its disease state. But this definition is no longer applicable to today's standards, what once was not considered our 'business', is now nicely wrapped up in our medical history taking like a hershey's kiss. Without these limiters how can one navigate the tricky waters of medical ethics and to understand why I do what I do in certain situations.

I think the accumulation of social norms, characterised by the up bringing of a family and friend structure, tainted with our biological make up - determine a specific subset of choices we make, this gives rise to the myriad of choices people make concerning the exact same situation.

Thomas Szasz a notable writer of anti-authoritarian publications states in 'The theology of medicine' Human life - that is, a life of consciousness and self awareness is unimaginable without suffering. without pain and sorrow there could be no pleasure or joy. Just without death there could be no life; without illness, no health; without ugliness, no beauty; without poverty, no riches and ad infinitum with the countless human experiences we regard as desirable and undesirable. By no means do I subscribe to anarchic, or social upheavel ideals, although I have read many books regarding these subjects, for knowledge sake only. I do however think this passage invokes a different kind of question, 'do I do what I do, because I know I need it to exist, for the opposite to be true? for e.g do I willingly accept my illness, because without it, there would be no need for my profession or health? thereby indicating my predisposition for a particular set of choices I have make on a daily basis?

Finally, coberst makes an excellent statment, something I have noticed for awhile now 'I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. The thing is, this doesn't just pertain to Americans, I'm from Australia and see the exact same principles of 'I want mine now'. I remember walking into a mobile phone store, being served by a young man no older than 18, I asked him what he wanted to do with his life, a fairly open question aimed at provoking discussion. He was a jovial, very outspoken young man, I could tell he was bright and had a lot going for him, so the question in my mind was not out of the ordinary. The boy looked at me puzzled, as if never asked, or really thought about the question himself. The glaze in his eyes turned a shade of wanting and he simply answered 'don't know ey, probably just work here for awhile and see if I can get a managers position'. The answer broke my heart, here was a young man, could do whatever he wanted and he had no worries in simply settling for a managers position in a phone shop in a small rural town in Australia. The truth is, if that is wanted he REALLY wanted to do, I would be more than happy for him, but the fact that he simply thought about it for 30 seconds and made a choice based on 'well that seems good enough' logic, is what gets me down. I think our school teachers, parents and people we class as mentors have a lot to answer for concerning the current mind set in the younger generations. My younger brother is a legacy to this growing social norm of 'lets just have fun' or something I have termed personally, 'the mindset of triviality', that is situations, concerns and epic moments which have been reduced to nothing more than a trivial blip in their computer generated lives. why do we do what we do? If a computer can't answer that for you, than I'm afraid our current generation wouldn't know and sadly, I doubt they care anyways.

I think the better question is, why have we lost our faculty to think?

[blazeofglory]

Man is a queer creature; and most of his acts, except for a few innately inbred ones come out of what he acquires thru observations and this observatory faculty in animals is quiescent where it is dominant in humans. Most of what we do in every walk of life stems from not what I really instinctively choose to do involuntarily or automatically. When it comes to eating I can stuff my bowel by thieving, rubbing, and what we call discriminatory free will in Christianity is bred in schools, or families. Cognitive capacities in humans are acquired. From this what inferences we can draw are why we do what we do springs little from what we are and more from what we want to be and what we want to be is not what we are. .

[loki456]

From this what inferences we can draw are why we do what we do springs little from what we are and more from what we want to be and what we want to be is not what we are. .

I agree to a certain point. The truth about that statement is that while we do what we do, because we 'want to be' something or something different, it is not always the case. does the stripper paying her way through college, want to be a stripper? why does she strip to pay for college? there are thousands of students who get regular jobs, what is stopping her from obtaining a part time job somewhere else? did she make that choice based on what she wants to be? no she based it on circumstance, if what you want to be pertains to a circumstance than I agree, it becomes an integral part to the choices made.

the social, personal and biological interplay between the ability to chose a specific action is immense. think about this, the choices made at the beginning of human civilisation still affect us today. the advancement of medicine was halted for almost 1100 years because the church deemed Galen's theories absolute and anyone contradicting these theories were put to death. hence recent medical advancements may have been made some time ago. Now lets look at the ripple effect of that, cancer may be on the brink of extinction, people are not only living longer but are living qualitatively better lives, retirement age rises because of longer/quality lives, productivity raises, raising the GNP, thereby increasing a nations wealth. With that wealth further advancements are made in all fundemental area's and the way we live has changed yet again. vaccines can be made cheaper, because taxes are being made on a much higher worker threshold, third world countries can be sustained by wealthier countries. wars will still occur, it's in human nature after all, but casualities will be lower. this is obviously the rhetorical extreme, or the illegitimate statement as Aristotle would call it, but I think the emotive speaks for itself.

choices simply made on 'what we want to be', is all well and good, but why did we chose to be what we are in the first place? what previous choices did we make to help us decide what we want to be? I'm not being non-chalant about your statement, I just think that there is far more parameters, than 'innate breeding or being a queer creature', plus pavlovian doctrine would say that 'experience with reward or punishment' is far superior to how we act than just simple 'observation'.