Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The below discussion on the tricks that our minds play on us is fully and brilliantly analyzed by Jon Elster in his master piece "Sour Grapes".

Jon Elster, in his study "Sour Grapes", mentions Stendhal's notes on his personal existential struggle, endured until his death without any success, over the objective of mastering himself. Stendhal's existential objective was living spontaneously or naturally. Such a goal, Elster demonstrates, was impossible; since the very decision of being spontaneous or natural is induced or planned. Thus, at the moment of beginning to try to be spontaneous, Stendhal lost spontaneity, because of the very unnatural (or unspontaneous) plan of becoming spontaneous. A similar example, which Elster gives, is roughly as follows: One tells a kid (who is young enough to believe everything you say) that he/she has a flying carpet and the only necessary thing to fly with that carpet is just not to think "a black cat". Now, the irresoluble problem for our kid is that the precondition makes the mission an impossible one. The very moment you decide not to think the black cat, you actually start to think it. These two examples (willing what cannot be willed) only involve tiny clues about my main question. (At this point, I would also like to note that the self - conscious attempt to empty the mind from any preoccupying thoughts is by virtue contradictory, and thus a self-defeating attempt. Two examples that we can discuss are the attempt of the people suffering insomnia to empty their mind to ultimately reach sleep and Buddhism's emphasis on the impossibility of willing a mental absence (Elster notes that Zen's doctrine of "no - mind" is largely negative))

Here, my main question is all about: As opposed to the famous Chinese idiom, roughly "to be the master of others, first be the master of yourself", Elster demonstrates that because of the existence of common certain logics of the working of our minds, such as "sour grapes" (see below for its brief explanation and for its Turkish equivalent) or "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" (see below for its Turkish equivalent), it is simply impossible to be the master of oneself. The incredible point here is that all of our minds, consciously or unconsciously, have to use these mechanisms to survive!

Elster by his "sour grapes" actually challenges the conception of "rationality".

There are also other mechanisms that put great impediments on our impossible attempt to be the master of ourselves, such as beliefs, prejudices, ideology, perfectionism etc.
Sour grapes:
"A fox, from Gascogne or from Normandy,
we don't know,
almost dying with hunger, going around
saw a vine-branch with grapes on
so beautiful and ripe to all appearances,
that he thought of reaching and eating them.
But after uselessly jumping and jumping
As the vine was too high for him to reach
He had a second thought,
"They're sour, I can see it,
These grapes are good just for loirs and squirrels!"
I leave for you what I can't have."
(Jean de La Fontaine)
(I don't know if our forum has any member from Turkey, but I would like to note that there is a widely used idiom in Turkish for "sour grapes": "Kedi uzanamadığı ciğere pis dermiş" A rough translation is "Cat calls the liver, that she cannot reach, filthy.") (I would also note Alcoholics Anonymous Prayer: "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage the things we can and wisdom to know the difference.")

I beg your pardon if I write too much. But let me finish by referring to my own inner existential struggle. The following text is from the first page of my diary and it also partly explains why I choose the nickname "The_Ant" for the Philosophy Forum. (I know there is a great topic in which members of the forum explain why they choose their nicknames; but I cannot explain my choice without giving reference to Elster's point):

Thanks for reading. I am looking forward to learning your ideas.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,036 • Replies: 35

No top replies

@The Ant,

We are donkeys with a carrot hanging in front of our mouths that is suspended by a stick tied to our backs. As we approach our ideal, it changes. Yeats wrote a crazy little book about this called A Vision.

I call this another example of "the impossibility of closure." We are cats chasing our tails. Be spontaneous is, as you imply, an absurd demand. And if you have depth-psychology view of the psyche, it becomes even more complex, as consciousness is then just the tip of the iceberg, and the ego is not even at the center of the self.

Still, there are people who do shape their lives, in not ideally. But what is really ideal? A moment of bliss and serenity is closure enough within its moment.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

The_Ant;111404 wrote:

Thanks for reading. I am looking forward to learning your ideas.

Ahhh.... i just messed it up...... i wrote a few paras and by mistake, i pressed the 'backspace', and lost those written words. Perhaps, in todays parlance it can be called a failure to succesful transmit my thoughts across. But, i would say, that i learn't a new lesson, and henceforth be carefull with my fingers.

Now, to cut short my point, i would say, that the Mind is very tricky, and it is only the intellect that helps you see th eother side of failure. I for one do not believe that thereis this something called 'failure'.. for me it is all experience.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

i am reconciled to the fact that no one can master their self because there are no selves. and in the recognizing of the fact that there is no individual self to master, maybe the best rule is 'first of all, do no harm.' we can never be 100% successful at that either, of course.

i spent decades believing the best thing anyone could do was to master the self. i guess i wasted my time. but i think in the end i managed to hurt people less.

i realize it sounds like a contradiction, there is no individual self but we can still hurt each other. that's because there is only the one self of which we are fragments and it is hurting itself when it hurts others.

all in all this is a dismal conclusion with which i am not happy, other than the thought of complete annihilation at death. gives me something to look forward to at least.

but i am in a bad mood tonight... things wont look any better tomorrow, but i will stop posting comments about it.

i am happy though to meet someone from turkey!

0 Replies

@The Ant,

The_Ant;111404 wrote:

The below discussion on the tricks that our minds play on us is fully and brilliantly analyzed by Jon Elster in his master piece "Sour Grapes".

Jon Elster, in his study "Sour Grapes", mentions Stendhal's notes on his personal existential struggle, endured until his death without any success, over the objective of mastering himself. Stendhal's existential objective was living spontaneously or naturally. Such a goal, Elster demonstrates, was impossible; since the very decision of being spontaneous or natural is induced or planned. Thus, at the moment of beginning to try to be spontaneous, Stendhal lost spontaneity, because of the very unnatural (or unspontaneous) plan of becoming spontaneous. A similar example, which Elster gives, is roughly as follows: One tells a kid (who is young enough to believe everything you say) that he/she has a flying carpet and the only necessary thing to fly with that carpet is just not to think "a black cat". Now, the irresoluble problem for our kid is that the precondition makes the mission an impossible one. The very moment you decide not to think the black cat, you actually start to think it. These two examples (willing what cannot be willed) only involve tiny clues about my main question. (At this point, I would also like to note that the self - conscious attempt to empty the mind from any preoccupying thoughts is by virtue contradictory, and thus a self-defeating attempt. Two examples that we can discuss are the attempt of the people suffering insomnia to empty their mind to ultimately reach sleep and Buddhism's emphasis on the impossibility of willing a mental absence (Elster notes that Zen's doctrine of "no - mind" is largely negative))

Here, my main question is all about: As opposed to the famous Chinese idiom, roughly "to be the master of others, first be the master of yourself", Elster demonstrates that because of the existence of common certain logics of the working of our minds, such as "sour grapes" (see below for its brief explanation and for its Turkish equivalent) or "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" (see below for its Turkish equivalent), it is simply impossible to be the master of oneself. The incredible point here is that all of our minds, consciously or unconsciously, have to use these mechanisms to survive!

Elster by his "sour grapes" actually challenges the conception of "rationality".

There are also other mechanisms that put great impediments on our impossible attempt to be the master of ourselves, such as beliefs, prejudices, ideology, perfectionism etc.
Sour grapes:
"A fox, from Gascogne or from Normandy,
we don't know,
almost dying with hunger, going around
saw a vine-branch with grapes on
so beautiful and ripe to all appearances,
that he thought of reaching and eating them.
But after uselessly jumping and jumping
As the vine was too high for him to reach
He had a second thought,
"They're sour, I can see it,
These grapes are good just for loirs and squirrels!"
I leave for you what I can't have."
(Jean de La Fontaine)
(I don't know if our forum has any member from Turkey, but I would like to note that there is a widely used idiom in Turkish for "sour grapes": "Kedi uzanamadığı ciğere pis dermiş" A rough translation is "Cat calls the liver, that she cannot reach, filthy.") (I would also note Alcoholics Anonymous Prayer: "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage the things we can and wisdom to know the difference.")

I beg your pardon if I write too much. But let me finish by referring to my own inner existential struggle. The following text is from the first page of my diary and it also partly explains why I choose the nickname "The_Ant" for the Philosophy Forum. (I know there is a great topic in which members of the forum explain why they choose their nicknames; but I cannot explain my choice without giving reference to Elster's point):

Thanks for reading. I am looking forward to learning your ideas.

This is all very interesting, and for all I know, it might be true. My only question is, what has it to do with the fable? How is any of this an example of rationalizing not being able to do something by telling your self that it was not worth doing anyway? That is what the Sour Grapes fable is about.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

For self mastery, meditation is needed. There is no other way. This is because the mind does not know itself sufficiently to understand where all its impulses arise from. So making any kind of firm decision is not possible, because they only arise from some kind of whim or egotistical notion.

So this person, whoever it was, probably should have sought out a spiritual teacher, probably a Sufi if in your part of the world, and learned the great way of inner observation and detachment, instead of putting himself through all this turmoil for no reason.

That is my reading of it anyway.

I am going to do a blog entry soon on the benefits of meditation.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 09:14 PM ----------

A Zen legend to illustrate the point.

There was once a seeker who had heard of the fame of the great master Bodhidharma. He travelled to the monastery where the master was sitting in solitary retreat. The master gave him no opportunity to approach him, and he waited a very long time. Finally, in desperation, he cut off his own arm, to show him the urgency of his mission.

Seeing this, Bodhidharma spoke to the man. "What is troubling you?" he said. The man said, "For years, my mind has been full of conflicts, thoughts and troubles, and I can't get rid of them".

They sat in silence for a while.

Then Bodhidharma said: 'These troubles. Where are they? Show them to me!"

At that moment the man became enlightened.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 09:49 PM ----------

that particular story is very dramatic, on account of the element of the man cutting off his own arm.

There are many legends in Zen Buddhism of encounters between seekers-after-truth and a Zen master. It usually will involve a verbal exchange or an interaction of some kind, culminating in the student suddenly having an insight, called in Zen, 'Satori'.

Zen is well known for the idea of 'sudden awakening'. These are cases where suddenly a person's whole understanding of themselves and the world is instantly transformed.

However it is also the case that Zen Buddhism places great emphasis on formal meditation, in the Lotus position, often for many hours at a time, in the context of a very formal monastic discipline.

I mention this to provide a bit more context for that story I dashed off.

The main message of Zen Buddhism is condensed into the saying: "Direct transmission, outside the scriptures - seeing into the true nature of the mind".

It is indeed the kind of training that needs to be undergone if one is to attain self-mastery. It might not require giving up your possession and living in a monastery, but it does take understanding of the principles, commitment to daily meditation, and willingness to be completely honest with yourself.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

The_ant

I get a feeling that your main point was somewhere hidden in the middle of your text. Of course, you wrote it, but since so much was written the possibility of the main point being overridden by other issues are great in long text messages.

Your quote;

Quote:

Here, my main question is all about: As opposed to the famous Chinese idiom, roughly "to be the master of others, first be the master of yourself", Elster demonstrates that because of the existence of common certain logics of the working of our minds, such as "sour grapes" (see below for its brief explanation and for its Turkish equivalent) or "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" (see below for its Turkish equivalent), it is simply impossible to be the master of oneself. The incredible point here is that all of our minds, consciously or unconsciously, have to use these mechanisms to survive!

Elster by his "sour grapes" actually challenges the conception of "rationality".

Perhaps you are right, as far as our mind tries to make decisions for us, there is one part of us, that tries to find excuses and alibi's for the sake of survival. You term it as ...the mechanisms to survive.

Half of our life, i am not sure if it is a general tendency, but is certainly in my case, we humans tend to comprehend the external world - starting right from our birth, and finding it quite perplexing we then try and attempt a look at our own mind to, as they say, 'make sense of the world around'......... you may call it, 'mastering the self'. Basically, imho, it is all to 'make sense of life' itself. As far as 'mastery over self' is concerned, according to me, it is just a phrase, to say 'I' am in control.

When we start studying our Mind, we realise that the external world is subject to various interpretations, perspectives, perceptions, and valuations, and that doe snot conform to our own experiences and thought processes.

The 'sour grapes' conception is one such interpretation of life...... but in real terms it is subjective, and largely psychological in perspective. The Mind, here, is led by Ego. The grapes are not sour, but our mind has become 'sour' out of our inability to eat what we want in the first place. Thats obvious , isn't it?.... However, why we think or exhibit the way we do, as was nicely (skillfully and tactfully) portaryed by the author, we come to realise the play of Ego. We cannot discuss the Mind here, without examining the role of Ego. [/SIZE]

0 Replies

@The Ant,

"If you want to be happy, be!" Leo Tolstoy

I would like to thank you all, first of all, for your creative reflections on my post; they positively provoke me to further clarify the point that I would like to present to you and I dare to argue that this point, originally belongs to Elster, is crucial, and even fundamental, to understand ourselves and our lives.

I would like to begin with kennethamy's question: what have all of these things to do with the fable of sour grapes? Although Jackofalltrades already explained its relevancy as one of the main tricks that our minds play on us by clarifying my point and also emphasized on the role of Ego in addition to, or more importantly than, that of Mind, I would like to demonstrate the importance of sour grapes as one of the most common mechanisms of the Mind, at worst, to survive, and at best, to be happy; since happiness, as Tolstoy puts it, is not acquired, but actually constructed. Regarding jeeprs' point, I would also like to note the exceptional position of Buddhism, of Zen doctrine, or of Sufism (tassavuf) in this respect. (I think the Zen legend that jeeprs mentioned is closely related with Tolstoy's point.) (There are actually numerous topics that we can discuss, as reconstructo's cat constantly following her tail, Salima's idea of no-self, or, more correctly, the one self, or Jackofalltrades' emphasis on Ego over Mind; but for now, let me clarify my point on sour grapes.)

(I took the following ideas from one of my response papers to Elster's work that I wrote two years ago.)

Sour grapes, i.e. adaptive preference formation, is not an endogenous preference change due to learning. Nor is it the need for a rational man to take into account in the present the fact that his preferences will change in the future. Contrary to the process of character planning, i.e. one's being master over his/her soul, the exogenous reasons (not reaching the grapes) leads to an illusion on the object ("grapes are sour anyway") through an endogenous causal mechanism (adaptive preference formation) which brings in turn relief and consolation (a way of reducing cognitive dissonance). In sour grapes, the adaptation is occurred by drives; not by meta-desires, different than Buddhism, for instance, as a sheer version of character planning, which depends not on an illusion on the object, as in Sour Grapes, but on denouncing the very illusion on the desire on the object. This is where the importance of Sour Grapes as an unconscious mental mechanism becomes crucial both for individual and societal levels. Power and prestige are not the direct causes of obedience, and there should be an intermediate mental operation, such as Sour Grapes. However, although sour grapes is good for the rulers what brings about sour grapes, as Elster argues, it is good for subjects. Here, power is a by-product of sour grapes. This is why the real social relationships do not coincide exactly with the relations of power.

Let me illustrate the importance of Sour Grapes for the societal level by deconstructing a common misreading of Marx on religion. "" is one of the most quoted statements of Marx, and it is commonly misread as follows: The dominant classes that stand on any mode of production uses religion as a means of oppression. If I use a metaphor, in this misreading of Marx, religion appears as an omnipotent philosophy for lower classes that are invented, or at least motivated, by the upper ones. In other words, while the upper classes are the drug-sellers, despite the fact that they are not the inventors of the drugs; the lower classes are the drug-users. If we deconstruct this (mis)reading of Marx on religion, we discover its elitist quality regarding its reading of society. In this picture, religion appears as certainly a "bad" thing, and doubtless, it should only be for ignorant masses. On the contrary, because of the fact that the dominant classes are deliberately intelligent and artful, religion should not be for them.

To understand Marx on religion, we should make the full quotation from the "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right": "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." According to Marx, religion is the product of the people themselves. It is the product of their needs to survive in such a heartless world. It is the response of the man, but only with the power of a sigh, to his exploited and oppressed conditions. It is an illusion of happiness. Therefore, when you criticize religion, actually you criticize the tears of masses, as their expression of pain, of which religion is the halo. Religion for Marx "is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification." To understand what Marx means with the former statement, one should consult to Hegel and Feuerbach; since religion is the core of the Marxist theory to reach to a demonstration of the alienation of man in the world. On the one hand, Hegel asks why the God is a judging God, the terrible Jehovah of the Old Testament, who puts himself outside the world, and who disapproves it. Therefore, religion is the main evidence of the alienation of man. On the other hand, "If man is to find contentment in God," Feuerbach claims, "he must find himself in God."; since religion is the expression of man's hopeless search for the ultimate justice. Alongside of all these discussions, I read Marx on religion as the reflection of the Sour Grapes in the individual level to the societal one.

Finally, I would like to raise a normative issue regarding the quality of happiness that is obtained either from an object or from an illusion on the object. My question here is that does the quality of happiness change according to its acquisition? In other words, is it possible to delineate the happiness that is obtained from an object as "real happiness", and the one that is obtained from an illusion on the object, i.e. sour grapes, as "artificial happiness"? For Marx, there is indeed such a differentiation: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." However; Dan Gilbert, for instance, argues that the happiness that we call "artificial" is the way, not one of the ways, of being happy. It is true, as Elster argues, that there is the possibility of self-destruction in the process of Sour Grapes through self-criticism and envy for the unreachable. However, if the process is completed, or recompleted again and again, the individual makes himself/herself happy. In other words, if happiness is acquired by putting oneself into the way of happiness; sour grapes is certainly one of the ways of those.

One final point: Elster does not fully discuss the importance of counter-adaptive preference formation, i.e. "the forbidden fruit is sweet" or "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence", as opposed to the adaptive preference formation, i.e. sour grapes. Maybe, we can discuss it later.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

Thanks. I will try and find some time later to reflect some more on what you have written here, which really covers a very broad sweep; one could enter a book-length response, but a forum is more a sound-byte-size media, if you know what I mean. But I do recognise that there is a lot of learning and reflection behind your contribution here and will return.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

One simple kind of 'adaptive preference mechanism', could be the bohemian-like attitude best exemplified in the song 'don't worry, be happy'. The poor tend to exhibit this attitude more than any other class of people.

The 'sour grapes' concept is indeed a good way to show how adaptive thinking works. But since your author, (i not been privileged to read his entire postulation) has linked 'sour grapes' analogy with 'happiness', i am not fully able to grasp the connection.

I for one, would have thought that the fox is unhappy with the situation where he is unable to reach the much wanted grapes in the story context, (although, i am not sure whether foxes like eating grapes, in the real context....:-) ...but this a different matter, so do ignore it.

In this context, are we talking about controlling desires and aspirations?

0 Replies

@The Ant,

You are right that fox must be unhappy for one moment that he could not reach the grapes; but by creating the illusion that "grapes are sour anyway", he overcomes his frustration, if not unhappiness. This is thus the mechanism for him to give up trying to reach the unreachable (willing what cannot be willed) not by acknowledging his failure, but by a reconstruction of the object through an illusion and goes on his life.
On the one hand, therefore, the mechanism of sour grapes depends on self-deception; but the point here is that there is no pure actual happiness deriving from the success over our specific objective; we construct our happiness both in the situations of success and failure.

On the other hand, you wrote in your first post that you don't believe in failure, but that you interpret it as an experience. I certainly agree with you and this is also my perspective towards life. The crucial point, I think, for not falling into the trap of sour grapes (if it is possible) is to avoid the illusion, acknowledging what one could have done to overcome that failure and why one could not have seen these other options to overcome that failure in that situation. After that acknowledgement, one can go on. But by evaluating his failure as an invaluable experience, he actually changes himself; because the most mysterious thing to mankind is himself. Failures interpreted as experiences are the great opportunities for us to start to understand ourselves, to look at our existences from outside, and to realize constant self-revolutions. This is certainly not the illusionary restness of sour grapes, but a constant self-questioning of self restlessness and self disturbance. But, as Marx noted, improvement emerges from conflict, not from peace.

"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skills. Our antagonist is our helper." (Edmund Burke - 1790)

1 Reply

@The Ant,

I was looking for one sentence, where i could differ or disagree with you, but alas, i could not find it. Hence, i am a bit dejected..... ha ha:)

Even as i agree with what you have written above, i do find myself putting my thinking hat on the word - 'self-deception'.

Do self-deception work in a positive manner, or does it eventually impinge on our character building process. My hypothesis is, that for the temporal satisfaction it may work, as a 'mechanism' of the mind; but does it work always, and if it does than how does the individual cope with the persistant desire (coming time after time) to acheive his or her goal?

0 Replies

@The Ant,

self deception-in fact any kind of deception-is rarely the right thing to do. overwhelmingly it will be the wrong choice and cause harm.

it would be better for the fox to accept a temporary setback (failure isnt complete until death) and admit how much he desired the thing he was unable to obtain. yes there is the possibility that what it was would have harmed him and he should keep that in mind, and consider the fact that desires should not always be fulfilled, think over the whole issue before looking for new ways to accomplish success.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

Dear Jackofalltrades, I am thinking about your argument for a while and I come up with the following ideas:

Let's think about a middle-aged academician working in a middle-ranked university in her country. Because of many causes (deriving from her Ego which in turn derive from basic desires of human being and from her own socialization process), let us assume that our academician desires to work in a more prestigious university. If her application to that university is rejected, she immediately encounters with an inescapable need to evaluate this rejection and its meaning and/or importance for her life. Now, sour grapes becomes the common, but not the only, mechanism to cope with this failure. Through sour grapes, she could think that that university was not that good anyway and she can go on in her own university. (After many similar failures or after altogether giving up applying to other universities after the first failure, her very desire to work in a better university vanishes if she again uses sour grapes and thinks that all other so-called top-ranked universities are not that good actually.) Here, self-deception is positive in the sense that she reconstructs her happiness through relief, though it depends on illusion. Here, Mind transforms Ego's specific desire on the object by transforming Ego's perspective on it.

My personal problem with sour grapes is that it allows one to escape from encountering with reality. There are actually other ways to interpret a failure: One can acknowledge that her desire on the object is not realizable for herself. This may lead both to a self-destructive ("I am a loser" for example) or self-constructive ways ("I have to change myself to acquire what I want" at first and if the desired object remains resistantly unattainable "I have to give up my desire altogether" by questioning the desire itself, for example as in Zen doctrine or in Sufism or realistically giving up willing what cannot be willed), in any way, there would be a change on herself. In the latter part of the self-constructive way, i.e. realistically giving up..., happiness, or at least, restness is not only guaranteed, but it is also unlikely.

In short, in my example at least, even the initial event comes from the desire, or the meta-desire, of the Ego, the outcome derives according to the reflexes of the Mind. Maybe, we can think some counter-examples to reevaluate the relationship between
the Ego and the Mind. Anyhow, this relationship seems always incredible to me.

0 Replies

@The Ant,

well perhaps a characteristic of self-master is equanimity. Equanimity is the ability to maintain emotional equilibrium in the face of difficult circumstances. Actually not only spiritual disciplines like Zen and Sufism praise this quality; it was also recognised by the Greeks as the original meaning of 'apatheia' (not like a careless apathy or indolence but remaining unmoved.)

Now let me hasten to add I am not writing from a peak of lofty philosophical detachment myself. I came home from the Gynasium the other day, and found that my dear Wife, unbeknownst to me, had agreed for a nearby tree-feller to deposit a couple of tons of woodchip in the middle of our driveway. Had I maintained my equanimity, I would have asked calmly and rationally "Why, dear Wife, have you ordered two tons of woodchips and had them put in the middle of the driveway? I know we need some for the garden, but not two tons, and not there...'

As it was, I lost my temper. Very poor show.

But at least, having studied philosophy, and practised Zen meditation, I know the theory now, and a part of me knows when the temper is being lost, and that one really ought not to.

1 Reply

@The Ant,

The_Ant;112261 wrote:

Let's think about a middle-aged academician working in a middle-ranked university in her country. Because of many causes (deriving from her Ego which in turn derive from basic desires of human being and from her own socialization process), let us assume that our academician desires to work in a more prestigious university. If her application to that university is rejected, she immediately encounters with an inescapable need to evaluate this rejection and its meaning and/or importance for her life. Now, sour grapes becomes the common, but not the only, mechanism to cope with this failure. Through sour grapes, she could think that that university was not that good anyway and she can go on in her own university. (After many similar failures or after altogether giving up applying to other universities after the first failure, her very desire to work in a better university vanishes if she again uses sour grapes and thinks that all other so-called top-ranked universities are not that good actually.) Here, self-deception is positive in the sense that she reconstructs her happiness through relief, though it depends on illusion. Here, Mind transforms Ego's specific desire on the object by transforming Ego's perspective on it.

I for one do not like concept of 'failure'.

Your example has brought out the bearings from the foxes story to a real human experience story. This universal experience will help us no doubt. The academic, is indeed a typical person who, as circumstances prevail, either 'copes with a situation', reconciles with whatever happens, feels dejected, or uses the 'sour grapes' idea to pacify oneself. As you point out it is self deception. But this philosophy is not a good policy to be recommended, atmho.

Lets try and deconstruct the whole situation-event.
1) The university and the job created there is prestigious and much wanted.
2) The individual is pushed by personal goals or advantages.

Now, as per the example, she is recommended to take recourse to the 'sour grapes' concept, and somehow make herself believe that the university was 'not that good anyway'. But does 1) above change by her belief. No. But due to 2) the attempt made does not result as expected is cause for concern. Here, psychological ploy is used by self or others prodding, as a means to give relief or restore confidence. It works, in some cases or many cases. I don't say it can't work, for particular conditions and circumstances. But it can't work always, and thats where the problem lies.

The fact of rejection, and the feeling of dejection will haunt a good academic, if considering that she was the lone applicant, or one among other equals. She or he will try to restrategise, better her knowledge, and try again if she is an ambitious person. On the other hand, a 'not so good academic' and/or a 'not so ambitious academic' may take recourse to the 'sour grapes' philosophy. And therefore, the 'reconstruction of happiness through relief' is merely an attempt of the intellect (Mind) to cope with the stress which the 'fact of rejection and the feeling of dejection' has caused at the moment of the event.

The_Ant;112261 wrote:

My personal problem with sour grapes is that it allows one to escape from encountering with reality. There are actually other ways to interpret a failure: One can acknowledge that her desire on the object is not realizable for herself. This may lead both to a self-destructive ("I am a loser" for example) or self-constructive ways ("I have to change myself to acquire what I want" at first and if the desired object remains resistantly unattainable "I have to give up my desire altogether" by questioning the desire itself, for example as in Zen doctrine or in Sufism or realistically giving up willing what cannot be willed), in any way, there would be a change on herself. In the latter part of the self-constructive way, i.e. realistically giving up..., happiness, or at least, restness is not only guaranteed, but it is also unlikely.

Yes, escape from reality is a good way to describe the use of Sour Grapes (SG). The SG becomes a way out of a mental jam caused by the event-situation, and can hold it self momentarily to overcome the tide of emotions that may manifest on the human self/mind and body. To that extent, it definitely is an useful tool or 'mechanism' for momentary purposes. Self-deception is just that. It is a trick of the mind/intellect to calm the restive ego. But it is a dangerous ploy to fall into on an extended basis.

The SG, from outside, helps you to understand how a person copes with the so called failure, and from the inside, it lets you believe that you are not a 'loser'. Frankly, this 'loser' concept is a flawed heavily marketed, corporatised western concept. It smacks of individualism with a heavy mascara of Ayn Rand kind of objectivism. 'Failure' is a view-point. In eastern philosophy, emphasis was put on 'overcoming difficulties', and to tide over it, how resolve and will helps to attain ones goal.

The_Ant;112261 wrote:

In short, in my example at least, even the initial event comes from the desire, or the meta-desire, of the Ego, the outcome derives according to the reflexes of the Mind. Maybe, we can think some counter-examples to reevaluate the relationship between
the Ego and the Mind. Anyhow, this relationship seems always incredible to me.

Perhaps the opposite of SG would be the 'spade'. Calling 'a spade, a spade' is better, but it does have its own disadvantages.

Ultimately, as far as analysis of SG goes, it is a fairly legitimate psychological study to measure how adaptive behaviour is caused. I consider, Ego and Intellect to be the faculty of Mind. The interplay between the two aspects are indeed 'incredible', as you said.

salima;112260 wrote:

self deception-in fact any kind of deception-is rarely the right thing to do. overwhelmingly it will be the wrong choice and cause harm.

Yes, basically agree. Another example would be how a beautiful film actress on the verge of losing roles due to age would help cope with her otherwise unrealistic desires or aspirations. Self-deception can be a step while coming to terms with an unfavourable situation.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;112313 wrote:

Yes, basically agree. Another example would be how a beautiful film actress on the verge of losing roles due to age would help cope with her otherwise unrealistic desires or aspirations. Self-deception can be a step while coming to terms with an unfavourable situation.

the better route would be to go like some do in films and find appropriate roles if they can act. in the industry they may be few and far between, but they could suggest roles to writers and producers, learn to write and produce themselves, etc. these are constructive and honest ways of dealing with reality. to simply say after each rejection 'sour grapes' would do nothing but she would only be out of work and get older and older and eventually die forgotten. i guess if she was really happy with the sour grapes method, fine. but if my opinion were asked was she doing a good thing, i would say no. better to accept the truth, try to deal with it, even if you FAIL...(defined as in this scenario not getting any roles in movies). it would ultimately increase her value as a person (being one who can cope, learn new things, engage other people in new work and ideas, etc) rather than as a commodity (that of an actress in a film).

as yes, i didnt address the issue that perhaps they never could act anyway and were only stars because of their youth and beauty. in that case, they should try and find something else of value in their person or if there isnt anything , try and create something of value. do social service, work for a cause. (only dont become a nut like brigitte bardot... Laughing

)

0 Replies

@The Ant,

This shows you are a good counsuller!

0 Replies

@The Ant,

I agree with all of you on the point that SG is not a recommended method and I personally try to choose "calling a spade a spade" despite the restlessness it causes. (However, note that SG invades the lives of almost everbody very tacitly and cunningly.) I now think that SG emerges from the concept of failure, and as Jackofalltrades noted, one should grasp the fact that failure is only a view point.

1 Reply

@The Ant,

Just to add on to that........

It does ...... and you said it rightly....it (SG) invades, ..... I for one, was called for interview at an prestigious organisation. I did not wanted the department they offered for me to work at...... they did not called me back, and i said in my mind addressing them that 'it is your loss'......
The selfish mind (of mine) learns of such a concept like SG idea, in everyday conversations (readings and hearings). This helps my mind to keep it in my memory to use it in such occassions where the initial desire to have the job at that organisation is high, but the fact of reality of a rejection of your application has to be overcome in the mind by the mind.

The adaptive strategy of the mind is to say, 'your loss' or 'they are fools by rejecting me'......... which may make me feel better, .... this momentary sense or feeling of feeling better by few words or concepts, which in fact may be a lie also, is a sense of relief, as you had put it earlier....... but it would be a folly to think that there lies happiness in it (as was also pointed out by salima).

This kind of thought-concept invades surreptitiously into almost all educated individuals and even the most developed intellectual mind too, including philosophers and to-be's in this forum!
I think, if we think of whether there are any who may not think like the fox, then i would guess that the poor and the humble may not think with such cunningness as like the fox, and the afore mentioned group of people, does.

This brings us to a rather uncomfortable question of whether highly developed , educated individuals and philosophers being a part of the group, by default, are cunning or not?......:sarcastic:

Perhaps this is what makes us humans.
lol!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know