Should I become something I am not?
Upon reading Harry Frankfurt and not seeing a very common sensical application towards ethics of his counterfactual use of language and one's life or psychology, I decided to frame his question about counterfactuals in terms of ordinary language in terms of modalities existing within our own subset of truth and falsity regarding ethics.
Hence, to state ethics in terms of self-hood of what is true or false or factual or lies or plain bullshit, which we all do every day in terms of what we want to be and not be, then we are confronted with decisions about whom we want to become, within the scope of ethics.
Therefore, to say, "should I become what I am not" is to state that we want to become something, be it richer or poorer or happier or more joyful. My point here is that if we have wants, and they are realized by our conception of truth or lies, then why would anyone want to live (to be) in terms of what they are not? What would be the point of living with ourselves in contradiction of who or what we are? Yet, we do this every day. My decisions of who I am, and agency are framed in regard to my personal psychology. If my psychology is distorted and I want to become happier; but I take drugs to alleviate my boredom, then I will suffer.
Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not?
Hence, to state ethics in terms of self-hood of what is true or false or factual or lies or plain bullshit, which we all do every day in terms of what we want to be and not be, then we are confronted with decisions about whom we want to become, within the scope of ethics.
Therefore, to say, "should I become what I am not" is to state that we want to become something, be it richer or poorer or happier or more joyful. My point here is that if we have wants, and they are realized by our conception of truth or lies, then why would anyone want to live (to be) in terms of what they are not? What would be the point of living with ourselves in contradiction of who or what we are? Yet, we do this every day. My decisions of who I am, and agency are framed in regard to my personal psychology. If my psychology is distorted and I want to become happier; but I take drugs to alleviate my boredom, then I will suffer.
Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not?
Comments (52)
I understand indulgence of some desires are done in exchange for others. So, I stopped smoking and taking certain risks for the buzz they gave me. I loved sparring when I was younger but don't want the hurt it would bring me now. I still drink too much. I am not guru material. But I also enjoyed (and still do) more healthy pursuits before giving up the immediate attempts to die quickly. I am pretty sure the whole thing is beyond my understanding.
I do question the Zeno paradox framing of change you present. If we 'are' something at each location of time, then whatever may be good for us or not is at odds with our 'essence'. The tiny possibilities of altering course suggest that we don't exist in that way. Talking about it needs a better model.
I find it hard to find an instance that satisfying a counterfactual to become something or someone you aren't, unless your a criminal in prison or jail that needs to reform themselves, as anything worth doing.
On the other hand, I can find examples of people who are quite straightforwardly full of themselves and quite delusional, like Donald Trump. These distorted psychologies seeking something always greater or more than their pity boredom are seldom happy with themselves. Donald Trump can be rich and wealthy, yet be boor and quite delusional.
1) What am I?
If I behave in a selfish, greedy, vindictive, manner am I then a selfish, greedy, vindictive person? Am I something other than how I behave? If I am how I behave, then changing behavior changes me. If I am something other than my behavior, what does changing mean? Can I be selfish, greedy, and vindictive but actually be a selfless, generous, forgiving person?
What constitutes "who we are" and "how we are" impinges on any efforts to become something else, it seems.
2) A person can pretend to become something he or she is not, but can a person become in fact what he or she is not?
I believe we have an identity -- who we are -- which is at first a fuzzy state that is given a push toward a particular direction and definition through childhood and into adulthood. At some point we become who we are and who we are going to be.
We can use various stage settings and flattering lighting to present ourselves, but in cold daylight, we are what we are.
3) An opposite view holds that our behavior and our identity are independent. Behavior creates a reputation that is our public identity. Our reputations are provisional and subject to change through amelioration and peroration. Whatever our reputation may be, we are not the same as our reputations.
4. If a person's identity is judged to be good, then bad behavior doesn't matter. For consistency's sake, if a person's identity is judged to be bad, then good behavior doesn't matter either. Saints can do not wrong and devils can do no right.
#3 is represented in certain varieties of religious thinking. Calvinists believe people are predestined to be saved (go to heaven) or be damned (go to hell) independent of their pious behaviors. If one is pre-ordained to be damned, nothing will help. The damned are screwed from the getgo and the saved have a validated ticket (not quite how Calvin put it).
Theologians in the Calvin camp devised escape hatches from Calvin's unknowable and inflexible system of saved and damned. They felt that Christians required a way to become (something else--saved) despite predestination.
Quoting Shawn
To quote psychologist George Kelly:
it is not so much what man is that counts as it is what he ventures to make of himself. To make the leap he must do more than disclose himself; he must risk a certain amount of confusion. Then, as soon as he does catch a glimpse of a different kind of life, he needs to find some way of overcoming the paralyzing moment of threat, for this is the instant when he wonders what he really is whether he is what he just was or is what he is about to be. It may be helpful at this point to ask ourselves a question about children at Halloween. Is the little youngster who comes to your door on the night of October 30th, all dressed up in his costume and behind a mask, piping "trick or treat, trick or treat" is that youngster disguising himself or is he revealing himself? Is he failing to be spontaneous? Is he not being himself?
Which is the real child the child behind the mask or the barefaced child who must stand up in front of adults and say "please" and "thank you?" I suspect costumes and masks worn at Halloween time, as well as uniforms worn by officers on duty, doctoral degrees, and the other devices we employ to avoid being seen as we are, are all ways we have of extricating ourselves from predicaments into which we have been cast by the language of objectivity. They represent devices for coping with the world in the language of hypothesis.
But masks have a way of sticking to our faces when worn too long. Verbs cease to express the invitational mood after the invitation has been accepted and experience has left its mark. To suggest to a person that he be what he has already become is not much of an invitation.
Thus it is that the man who has worn a uniform long enough to explore all its possibilities begins to think that he really is an officer. Once this happens he may have to go through a lot of chaos before he can make anything more of himself. A student who is awarded a Ph.D. degree can find a lot of adventure in being called "doctor" and the academic mask may enable him to experiment with his life in ways that would have seemed much too preposterous before his dissertation was accepted.
But trouble sets in when he begins to think that he really is a doctor, or a professor, or a scholar. When that happens he will have to spend most of his time making noises like doctors, professors, or scholars, with the resultant failure from that time on to undertake anything interesting. He becomes trapped by verbs that have lapsed into the indicative mood when he wasn't looking.
Well ...
[quote=Freddy Zarathustra]Truth is ugly. We possess lies lest we perish of the truth.[/quote]
... the placebo effect works.
I don't see how we cannot. Should we h. sapiens give up our civilized facades, or pretenses?
Can beliefs be delusional or borderline psychotic? Surely...
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't really know what else to say that wouldn't sound Platonic. I mean, that, to desire the good is to be in agreement with who we are with respect to the truth and the good, no?
Yet, integrity doesn't exist in a vacuum, does it?
Because it's so hard to face the ways you've failed to be the person you wanted to be. This is the topic of Sickness unto Death, by Kierkegaard.
So, you say that's it's hard as does frank. So, being ethical is hard? What's hard about accepting oneself as she or he is?
Yes, I have seen that.
Speaking for a friend.
Unless one is an anti-social sociopath, thereby lacks (common) empathy, I don't think "being ethical", as you put it, is difficult. Practice, however, makes "being ethical" easier (habitual).
That's a psychological, not ethical, question. Socialization, I guess, or poor self-esteem.
Better than bullshitting, no? :wink:
Well, Frankfurt says that there are people who lie, there are people that bullshit, and there are people that tell the truth. With these three cases we are most satisfied with the person that tells the truth, less satisfied with the person who bullshits, and disprefer the person that lies. Having that said the point of saying this is that being consistent with oneself and telling the truth is morally preferable and more ethical than living a life full of bullshit or deceiving ourselves about our self worth. Further, if behaving consistently and operating on a calculus of what's best to do then we ought to not engage in bullshitting or lying, yes? Therefore, if I am to become a more ethical person, it would be prudent to avoid bullshitting to myself and others along with lying. Thus, my best interest is to not become someone I am not (in the majority of cases where I am either already an ethical person or in the negative if I am not an honorable person).
Does that make sense?
What do you mean by "no"?
So, why do you disagree?
Oh, so there's nothing to discuss then. I thought that bullshitting was morally detrimental to ethics.
The good, a thoughtful life, being virtuous? Why do you ask?
Yes, I say that because being something you aren't isn't really necessary if who you are is good enough. Bullshitting entails wanting to say or doing things that are contrary to what you are.
IIRC, H. Frankfurt describes bullshitting as I paraphrase complete self-serving disregard for the true/false distinction especially in (demogogic) political discourse which cumulatively undermines civil society, etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
We humans along with all living beings on this Earth are firmly rooted in duality. Ups and downs, pleasure and pain, hot and cold...
Some have discovered/believed/theorized that underneath is something more, something whole... for lack of better words. Existing right now, not just in the afterlife. I think we all have had glimpses of it, moments of awakening, perhaps in dreams ironically. This well-known quote reflects this notion:
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.
? William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
As does the concept of Being, Consciousness, and Bliss in Hindu philosophy. A related idea to Platos Cave Allegory...
Counterfactuals are basically things that could have been otherwise. What I am and do, are the aggregate of dispositions and preferences towards who I want to be. This entails that I am not satisfied with who I am, if I want to be something that I am not. Thus, to achieve satisfaction, I ought to be content with who I am. Yet, everyone has wants, or the majority of people.
Therefore, how can I achieve satisfaction is through maintaining myself just as I am.
Does all the above follow to the conclusion that I should be consistent in myself and avoid being something I am not?
That's your business, not ours.
Yes, well, if it was worth saying. I don't think I need the new Google Pixel 7 Pro or the mePhone 14 Pro. I'm quite content with what I have already.
I have a pixel 6 pro. I won't be upgrading for a couple of years unless the battery goes to crap.
I have the Pixel 5. I just got it for 5G connectivity. I don't care for a 30 MP camera on a phone. Go figure.
Who we are is not a static thing - we are constantly changing, becoming something we are not, whether we like it or not.
What about the person who is forced to change, to become stronger and braver or end up dead in a ditch, or so heavily traumatized they are hollowed out from within? That seems to cut against this self-exploratory, somewhat saccharine, and speciously value-laden discussion.
Millions of people are forced to change, and it has nothing to do with ethical questions. Get tough, or perhaps even monstrous, or die. For many people it is that simple. No child forced to flee a genocide and live as a refugee in a slum asks: "should I try to become more ruthless and cleverer to survive?"
I believe that the reason for this are natural factors that cannot be accounted for ethically. These natural or social issues, such a living in poverty or being poor, can be omitted from the discussion.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Sure, however it seems that trying to come to terms with one's circumstances in life along with not wanting to become something one isn't, is a healthy and therapeutic practice. What's not to love about self-acceptance? I precise the issue in this thread about ethics and how to behave ethically when confronted with not wanting to change the way one is; but seemingly we haven't come to agreement about what a person's integrity constitutes.
Like Bart Simpson said, after taking Focusyn (a fictional ADHD drug): most people only use 10% of their brain. Today I am one of them. :snicker:
Not exactly sure how this relates to the OP about being something that we are not. Have we really discovered and explored all of our being? Maybe someone has. It probably took a while.
Yeah, well I think the hoi polloi wouldn't much care. But, for those that live an examined life, maybe?
But seriously, I usually get these type of thoughts when there is a looming choice to be made, or when going through trial by fire #3527. Then reading Greek myths or other stories of transformation, death and rebirth, and metamorphosis is comforting and maybe even helpful. At least it helps me procrastinate a little more.
If you're selling junk on eBay, it's worth it, especially the portrait mode on the pixel 6. It kicks butt.
That we have to make an effort to accept ourselves demonstrates the fact that the person we find ourselves to be is at odds with the person we had thought ourselves to be. How often does our behavior surprise or disappoint or puzzle us ? How many nights do we lay awake wracked with guilt, not recognizing who we have become? And how many relationships dissolve because because one or both of the parties are no longer who they used to be? It seems to me , then, that self-acceptance arrives after the fact. Of course we dont want changes in ourselves that we dont choose, that other people and circumstance in general seem to force on us. Thats implied by will or desire. But how many times have we resisted tooth and nail changes in our thinking or ways of doing things that we later considered to be profound improvements in ourselves? Isnt it the case that often changes in ourselves that we resist most strongly turn out in retrospect to be the most beneficial?
Therapists are familiar with the scenario where just as a client is getting close to achieving a breakthrough in insight about some aspect of their life, they are overwhelmed with a feeling of threat, even when they perceive the changes to be potentially positive. They feel threatened because they anticipate the insights will bring wrenching, confusing readjustments in their way of relating to themselves and others. Threat acts as a protective valve against the initial disruption that personal transformation brings. It prompts us to retreat back into the old and familiar habits of self, even when those habits have become confining.
The fact is the self is changing all the time. Self-acceptance is not about desiring a self frozen in place (which describes the mood of despair) , but striking a balance between who we are becoming and who we have been. We must not move too quickly into unexplored frontiers, so that we can preserve enough integrity and coherence in our identity to be able to accept our changing self.
I'm not convinced that many of us know who we are (whatever that might mean) or that we have much idea who we wish to be (same problem). Sure, we might make plans or attempt to tweak elements of behaviour (like quitting smoking) but how deep does this go and, if it does go deep, what are we really aware of?
On the practical side, there are obvious reasons why one might want to become fluent in French, or a qualified electrician, or a hit with the ladies. Such becoming capable takes time, but can be realised eventually -- or sometimes not.
But for a liar to become honest, for a violent man to become peaceful, for a selfish man to become unselfish, these things cannot be done with time, gradually. It takes a flash of insight, and there is an instant transformation, or there is not.
What tends to happen in self-observation is that one is divided into the observer and the observed, the critic or analyser and the criticised or analysed. Suppose for example I smoke, and I am wanting to be a non-smoker. The wannabe non-smoker looks critically at the smoker and demands an effort to stop. This can last up to three hours, until the smoker's desire to smoke reasserts itself. Because the wannabe non-smoker is actually the smoker - the one who wants to stop wants to continue. And so I go about saying "I'm trying to give up, but it's very hard.", and thinking that in time it will be easier, like speaking French. But insight is seeing without the separation, that one's desire to stop has always been imaginary to the extent that it has always been separated from one's desire to smoke. Once that conflict sees itself whole, it will be instantly resolved. If one wants not to do something, one simply stops and there is no difficulty, effort, or time involved. It takes a few days for the nicotine in the body to disperse, but stopping has already happened.
Spotting the conflict can be tricky: I want to be a concert pianist/rock and roll guitar-god, but I don't want to spend 10,000 hours training my eyes to read music and my hands to play it. That cannot be.
It's not necessarily a conflict arising in the individual at stake here; but more of an issue of internal consistency. I guess, @180 Proof called it 'integrity'; but, I side with being consistent with oneself.
I suppose one has the goal of ideal in mind first and then the rest follows, in that, when I want to become happier I no longer engage in the habits that cause my neuroticism or addiction. If I want to be, want to be, in wanting the issues arise and some discomfort also arises. So, why suffer with so much wanting?
If I have an ethical goal (the highest good), or an ideal, wouldn't it be a sine qua non to maintain myself with respect to that goal, always to behave truthfully?
The counterfactual would be to deviate from that goal and that would not be desired to realize that goal.
Anyone think that's true?
How does one instill a higher order volition without appeal to ethics and the good?
I see this as a cognitive distortion, as to not knowing who we are until confronted with a situation that demands a choice. Apathy or ignorance can be detrimental to ethics and knowing what to do. Maintenance of ourselves with respect to potential eventualities are encompassed by having a set and steady way of behaving in the world when confronted with decisions that inconvenient to us. Having a moral compass is essential, don't you think?
Essential to something, I'm sure it is, yes. Integrity perhaps. By 'moral compass' do you mean values that determine behaviour in a wide variety of situations? Of something more than that, perhaps. If it were just that greed could be a moral compass in that you can decide what to do in a situation based on what results in the most material gain. Are some values better than other? But that is to evaluate values, which can get a bit bootstrappy.
Yes.
Quoting bert1
I believe your right about this. In my opinion, what matters most are volitions such as a desire to do good. It goes without saying that consequentialism typically is what the hoi polloi have adopted as their calculus or rationale to make these decisions.
What are your thoughts about this?