Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2009 04:31 pm
So I started to read the Leviathan from Thomas Hobbes and, regretfully, I was unable to finish it, but what I did read fascinated me. Hobbes explained that each action we take, each thought we have, each desire stems from two main factions of our instincts. Appetite and aversion.

Aversion in this sense would most likely mean the absolute need to avoid harm, be it physical or emotional, this is the driving force behind each evasive action we take.

Appetite would mean the insatiable hunger for power, never quenched, but varying. Some men desire more and others less, but each will never stop wanting more.

What do you think about this? Is this still applicable?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,552 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2009 10:13 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
In conscious actions, we either desire or we don't, and that seems to be the same as saying appetite and aversion. It's binaric, there's no superposition.
0 Replies
 
xXKanpekiXx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 12:19 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
Really? I don't see how not desiring something would equate aversion of it. (Unless you aren't relating it directly)... I guess I'm just stuck on thinking they're two different forces altogether. But what makes us desire? What is appealing to us? And why?

Hobbes states that man desires power, not necessarily of something he doesn't have or more of what he does have, but he needs to somehow assure that he won't lose it. That goes with appetite, being satisified with the power/whatever you have, but expanding to greater things as to safeguard what you already posses. Is this on a tangent? I dunno, I linked it in my head XD
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 10:31 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
hmm... seems I don't have my terms right... again. I looked up aversion and it said a strong dislike (which is obviously not what I was implying). I just meant indifference to, or avoidance. That sounds more aversive to me.
0 Replies
 
xXKanpekiXx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 11:02 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
Haha I do that more often than not, so don't worry Smile Well, I like to think of it as an avoidance so as to avoid harm or pain. Something like that. With that and appetite in mind, I've yet to find a action taken by man that I can't attribute to one of those motives. Either that, or I reason it out until it conforms the way I want it to Razz
0 Replies
 
Abolitionist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 06:44 am
@xXKanpekiXx,
xXKanpekiXx wrote:
So I started to read the Leviathan from Thomas Hobbes and, regretfully, I was unable to finish it, but what I did read fascinated me. Hobbes explained that each action we take, each thought we have, each desire stems from two main factions of our instincts. Appetite and aversion.

Aversion in this sense would most likely mean the absolute need to avoid harm, be it physical or emotional, this is the driving force behind each evasive action we take.

Appetite would mean the insatiable hunger for power, never quenched, but varying. Some men desire more and others less, but each will never stop wanting more.

What do you think about this? Is this still applicable?


Yes, Hobbes might have inspired Utilitarianism.

Behavioral psychology lends support to this theory;

that we avoid pain and seek pleasure according to our inherent biology and beliefs about the future due to our memories

IMO, we all want to seek greater happiness, and lessen our suffering while avoiding death

sometimes we have beliefs about the future that make us do things that seem to contradict this statement

for example, muslim suicide bombers believe they will go to heaven, so even though they commit suicide they believe that they will continue to live and be happier for their deed
0 Replies
 
xXKanpekiXx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 04:15 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
Right, I see your point on the muslim suicide bombers, but I don't necessarily attribute aversion to strictly the need for survival so one can pass on their genes (had a nice debate about genetic and morality this morning). I think of it as the avoidance of emotional or physical pain, but I find your point about Hobbes inspiring Utilitarianism interesting. Do elaborate Very Happy. Back on aversion, the suicide bombers don't fall in this category because "aversion" is the avoidance of, ultimately, death. Conversely, I think Hobbes explains the suicide bombers with appetite (them killing themselves for the desire of what lies beyond).
Abolitionist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 05:09 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
xXKanpekiXx wrote:
Right, I see your point on the muslim suicide bombers, but I don't necessarily attribute aversion to strictly the need for survival so one can pass on their genes (had a nice debate about genetic and morality this morning). I think of it as the avoidance of emotional or physical pain, but I find your point about Hobbes inspiring Utilitarianism interesting. Do elaborate Very Happy. Back on aversion, the suicide bombers don't fall in this category because "aversion" is the avoidance of, ultimately, death. Conversely, I think Hobbes explains the suicide bombers with appetite (them killing themselves for the desire of what lies beyond).


your last example seems to show that Hobbes was an early Utilitarian

I would agree with you that aversion is not just about survival - seems that it is also about avoiding pain in the future, not just pain in the present - according to beliefs

yeah Hobbes was definately sophisticated for his time, many viewed the state as something divinely inspired or given authority through religious beliefs whereas he thought it was simply a consensual agreement with no inherent authority unless it was agreed upon

he was definately an important enlightenment thinker who advocated the individual quest for happiness at a time when most still validated their own experience in terms of religious beliefs

-----

back to the inherent drives, it's interesting to study infants who lack the social programming of adults (they have no religious beliefs and lack information with which to project the future)

(the concept of tabula rasa)

their behavior is pretty simple to predict in response to pain and pleasure and sense of threat to their own survival

they aren't going to risk pain or threat to survival unless they are sure that they will truly be safe in the long run and experience a reward
0 Replies
 
xXKanpekiXx
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 05:42 pm
@xXKanpekiXx,
Oh, I see your point. Yeah, I'd never thought of that before, but he does put more emphasis on the basic, necessary aspects of human nature.

I don't like the way a lot of people have portrayed him, especially at my school. They focused so much on his negative perception of man that his idea about aversion and appetite, one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard, were almost completely skipped over. I had to bring them up. Apparently, Hobbes was raised during the English Civil War, causing him to have a more depressed mind set. My colleagues looked down on this, but I think that's actually (dare I say it) a good thing for us now. His take on life, some adopted from the war, was more realistic and therefore, more likely to be accurate. (And I think he's right...)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Appetite and Aversion
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/21/2020 at 04:49:07