Desire as the Cause of Human Suffering

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you find it at all telling that "what they really meant" happens to coincide with your desires?

Not really, since I make my opinion based not on desire, but on having met them more than once and talked at length about the site. What about you and your desires to see what is really meant?

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm not sure you've actually posted anything, so I don't know how it will help him. I'm still no nearer to seeing any post by you which explains a position or which deals with my objections. Your claim was 'most' desires were illusionary, but I'd be prepared to take one or two. Perhaps you could explain how the desire for food is illusionary, or take another from the list.

I'm not surprised that you "don't know how it will help him". You seem to be looking for a debate, but what I'm trying to tell you is that this isn't really a topic that lends itself well to that. Take some time to meditate a while on what I posted.

Originally posted by Starrman
Not really, since I make my opinion based not on desire, but on having met them more than once and talked at length about the site. What about you and your desires to see what is really meant?

I can only try to go by what they put out there. If what they said wasn't what they intended, then perhaps a communication class or two would be of benefit to them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I can only try to go by what they put out there. If what they said wasn't what they intended, then perhaps a communication class or two would be of benefit to them.

Lol, is your day to day really that dependant on structure and definition? Perhaps a holiday?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not surprised that you "don't know how it will help him". You seem to be looking for a debate, but what I'm trying to tell you is that this isn't really a topic that lends itself well to that. Take some time to meditate a while on what I posted.

As I said before, there's nothing to meditate on, I don't know what the content of your posts is.

Originally posted by Starrman
1) The desire is not borne from illusion, it is borne from the very real sense of comfort that is paralleled in a mother's arms or the smell of a dad's jumper etc.

2) I could list them all day, but here's just a few: The desire for food, the desire for quiet, the desire for companionship, the desire for understanding, the desire for safety, the desire ...[text shortened]... helter, for clothing, for love, for recognition. None of these are illusions, I could go on.

I’m having a problem here. (And this post is addressed more broadly than to just your response to ToO.) What is “needful” in order to be happy? You have listed several items, not all of which would appear on everyone’s list. Does someone who has more “needs” have greater difficulty in being happy? What about those people who are able to remain happy in dire, and painful, circumstances? (And absolutely nothing about this is to suggest that I might be able to be anything but abjectly miserable in the conditions under which some people exist—physical misery is not something I want to minimize here.)

Epicurus broke it down something like this: There are desires that are needful, and those that are not. Among those that are not, there are desires that are nevertheless natural and those that are unnatural (not in any moralistic sense). There are also desires that are easy to obtain, and those that are troublesome to attain.

In his hedonistic* calculus, one should focus on those desires that are needful, and those that are natural and relatively easy to obtain. One should also take care, lest overindulgence of even needful desires result in pain, rather than pleasure (e.g., overeating). For example, nutritious food is needful, but if steak is more troublesome to obtain than chicken, that troublesomeness may well outweigh the pleasure-difference of taste. Epicurus recommended wine (in moderate amounts) if is was easily obtainable, clean water if it was not.

For Epicurus ataraxia (non-disturbed mind) was as much a part of being happy as sensual pleasure, or intellectual pleasure. And, quite frankly, one need not be frustrated if they find that all the steak’s gone and there’s only chicken on the menu—one can be frustrated if one chooses, or one is habituated to that kind of thing, but it really isn’t a necessary psychological response.

I’d, frankly, be more inclined to keep the word “needs” in reference to the survival level (and minimal physical comfort). I would distinguish between needs, desires and cravings.** I likely would be unhappy if survival needs (and minimal physical comfort) were not being met, or were endangered, for myself and those I love. I am generally not made unhappy by unfulfilled desires. Cravings, I try to reduce to simple desires.

This from Omar Khayyam (by way of Edward Fitzgerald) is what I might call an “extravagant” Epicurean mode—

A book of verses underneath the bough,
a loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou
beside me singing in the wilderness—
Ah! Wilderness were paradise enow!

Good company, basic food and drink, intellectual/aesthetic stimulation (e.g., poetry, or philosophy): that was pretty much Epicurus’ formula. He might have said however that neither wine nor wilderness were necessary for happiness: water and a pleasant garden will do.

The basic point: happiness is not entirely externally caused. It is as much a matter of the mind, and decisions of the mind. Right now, for example, I am still going through some nicotine withdrawal—physically unpleasant and a bit distracting, but not a cause for unhappiness: I can choose to groan, or I can choose to laugh. And I am aware of my choice.

This is just a kind of first-pass: there’s likely lots of contingencies (especially in terms of extreme conditions) that I haven’t thought of.

_____________________________________

* Epicurus’ hedonism had nothing to do with “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die”; he was actually quite ascetic.

** Cravings can be the result of unsatisfied needs—such as for lack of certain nutrients in one’s diet. They can also take the form of addiction.

_______________________________________

EDIT: Perhaps more to the point of this forum would be the question, "What aesthetic desires need to be fulfilled to keep one from becoming unhappy?"

Originally posted by tomtom232
Is this true? At least in western culture? I have thought about this quite a bit
and want to know your thoughts. It seems to me that the more we desire the more we suffer...so I believe this is true...(especially in relationships 🙁 )

It's good and bad. I find it prevents me from living in the moment most of the time and instead I tend to think about what I want, what I want to happen, what I wish was different, etc... However, the times when desire is enjoyed in the moment seems alright enough. Being ok with the present moment is something I just recently have been trying to attain as I realized it was a problem sometimes that I could not.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m having a problem here. (And this post is addressed more broadly than to just your response to ToO.) What is “needful” in order to be happy? You have listed several items, not all of which would appear on everyone’s list. Does someone who has more “needs” have greater difficulty in being happy? What about those people who are able to remain happy in ...[text shortened]... —such as for lack of certain nutrients in one’s diet. They can also take the form of addiction.

As usual you have diffused my zeal with your patient approach (drat!).

I don't disagree that it is as much a matter of the mind, but I honestly don't understand the notion that a desire is not needful. The way I see it, all desires are needful, we can talk about the degrees of need which separate the strong desires from the weak ones, but it seems to me that to distinguish some desires as being of a unique type or something, well, I don't understand it. Mental desires and physical desires are all human desires, and all as rooted in the natural world as each other, since I don't believe in minds as some entity or other I have to ask what is the origin of these desires if not the human physiology?

Originally posted by Starrman
As I said before, there's nothing to meditate on, I don't know what the content of your posts is.

That's OK. It was written as a response to an inquiry made by Tomtom anyway.

Originally posted by Starrman
1) The desire is not borne from illusion, it is borne from the very real sense of comfort that is paralleled in a mother's arms or the smell of a dad's jumper etc.

2) I could list them all day, but here's just a few: The desire for food, the desire for quiet, the desire for companionship, the desire for understanding, the desire for safety, the desire ...[text shortened]... helter, for clothing, for love, for recognition. None of these are illusions, I could go on.

On a larger note: I tend to agree with your basic point about ethics and aesthetics. I wonder how much of my own ethical considerations are based on an aesthetic response—the sheer ugliness to me, for example, of the notion of child rape. That seems to be a more powerful influence, for me, than whether or not it violates any particular ethical theory.

With regard to your discussion with TOO: he is sometimes more Buddhist than I am. My “Zen” has a Zorba aspect to it as well—more Zorba-Buddha than just Buddha.

So think of me as sorting out my own thinking on this subject as I go along!

Originally posted by Starrman
As usual you have diffused my zeal with your patient approach (drat!).

I don't disagree that it is as much a matter of the mind, but I honestly don't understand the notion that a desire is not needful. The way I see it, all desires are needful, we can talk about the degrees of need which separate the strong desires from the weak ones, but it seems to m ...[text shortened]... tity or other I have to ask what is the origin of these desires if not the human physiology?

...but I honestly don't understand the notion that a desire is not needful.

You say “a” desire here, rather than just “desire”? Any desire?

I think I’d agree with you about desire (or passion) in general as a motive force without which we would likely neither survive nor thrive (individually or as a species).

But I have difficulty saying that every individual desire I might have is somehow needful.

I suspect that, underneath our wrestling over terms here, we are probably very close. I raised Epicurus because I think he gets a pretty good handle on having a framework that would differentiate among, say, (a) rice and beans, (b) a good rioja, and (c) my tobacco addiction.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...but I honestly don't understand the notion that a desire is not needful.

You say “a” desire here, rather than just “desire”? Any desire?

I think I’d agree with you about desire (or passion) in general as a motive force without which we would likely neither survive nor thrive (individually or as a species).

But I have difficulty say ...[text shortened]... d differentiate among, say, (a) rice and beans, (b) a good rioja, and (c) my tobacco addiction.[/b]

Actually c) is a very interesting one, and if I had the energy I'd talk a bit about Aristotle and Plato and the notion of akrasia but it's too close to bedtime. So I'll just quickly mention what I think on each and maybe deal with them tomorrow:

a) Physiological need, desire for food, fulfilment brings happiness, lack of; unhappiness.
b) Again physiological need, albeit borne out partly by aesthetic judgements and partly by taste and memory of the gentle inebriation a smooth Spanish can bring 🙂 Fulfilment brings happiness, lack of; unhappiness. Degrees of each are up for discussion, but essentially they don't seem to be that different to me, given that I'm mostly mechanistic and consider all mental aspects to arise in the physical.
c) Definitely physiological, but the nature of happiness is much harder to decide. Short term happiness vs long term damage. More thinking about this I think, but perhaps the short term need is indeed met and happiness achieved.

Regret is going to be an interesting thing to bring into the equation.

Originally posted by Starrman
Actually c) is a very interesting one, and if I had the energy I'd talk a bit about Aristotle and Plato and the notion of akrasia but it's too close to bedtime. So I'll just quickly mention what I think on each and maybe deal with them tomorrow:

a) Physiological need, desire for food, fulfilment brings happiness, lack of; unhappiness.
b) Again physiolo ...[text shortened]... ppiness achieved.

Regret is going to be an interesting thing to bring into the equation.

I’m going to simply think further about defining the word “happy”. 🙂

Originally posted by tomtom232
Is this true? At least in western culture? I have thought about this quite a bit
and want to know your thoughts. It seems to me that the more we desire the more we suffer...so I believe this is true...(especially in relationships 🙁 )

Probably true, since desire can equal greed.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Is this true? At least in western culture? I have thought about this quite a bit
and want to know your thoughts. It seems to me that the more we desire the more we suffer...so I believe this is true...(especially in relationships 🙁 )

To some extent. However having acid poured all over you will cause suffering no matter what. Right?