Reply
Sat 25 Jun, 2011 01:38 pm
Consider the following argument.
If you don't have what you want, you either will continue to want it forever, will stop wanting it, or will get it.
The first possibility is bothersome. You would be committing yourself to a life full of false dreams and hopes. Your life would be full of suffering.
The second possibility may not even happen. You have no way of knowing the future, and so you don't know if you will ever stop wanting what you desire. Simply waiting until you stop wanting it therefore is pointless because we don't know if you ever will stop wanting it.
Therefore by process of elimination, the best course of action seems to be to go get what you want.
You should therefore do what you want, all the time.
What do you think of this argument? Is this right? If not, what is wrong with the above reasoning?
@browser32,
If you don't have what you want, you will either decide to continue to want it, or decide to stop wanting it by deciding whether or not to get it. Either you stop wanting it or you don't.
Everything else is decisions which would be based on
what it is that you
want. Your logic doesn't take the possibility of negative consequence in to account.
The best way to rid oneself of temptation is to give in to it.
This doesn't take into account that our wants are many, and often conflicting.
There is no way to avoid choices.
If no one is harmed do as thou wilst. Go for it.
@browser32,
Quote:Therefore by process of elimination, the best course of action seems to be to go get what you want.
It wouldn't be so much the best option as the actual first consideration or attempt to remedy a desire/need. One wouldn't be bothering to philosophize away such desire/need to begin with, if it could be satisfied. "
You can't judge a book by its cover" wasn't sap invented for people who had access to being rid of a bad or misleading appearance.
@G H,
Moreover, you shouldn't judge a cover by its book.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace