Humans are advantage seekers
In the realm of philosophy, one of the fundamental questions that has intrigued humanity for centuries revolves around the pursuit of truth. However, upon closer examination of human behavior, it becomes apparent that our inclination is not primarily towards truth-seeking, but rather towards advantage-seeking. This perspective sheds light on why we engage in endless debates and remain uncertain on various subjects, such as the existence or non-existence of gods. Additionally, it allows us to understand the selective nature of our beliefs and the pragmatic reasons behind our choices. In this post, I aim to explore the notion that humans are primarily driven by their quest for personal advantage rather than an unwavering dedication to objective truth.
1. The Elusive Nature of Truth:
Throughout history, countless debates have arisen over existential questions, such as the existence of gods or the nature of reality. Despite the wealth of arguments and counterarguments, no definitive consensus has been reached. This perpetual disagreement suggests that our motivations are not purely centered around discovering the truth, but rather maximizing our personal advantages.
2. Contextual Truth and Shifting Beliefs:
Our beliefs tend to vary depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in. In times of hardship or uncertainty, the concept of God becomes more appealing, as it provides comfort, hope, and guidance. Conversely, during prosperous periods or when scientific advancements are celebrated, the need for a divine entity may seem less relevant. This situational nature of our beliefs further supports the notion that our quest for truth is deeply intertwined with personal advantage and psychological well-being.
3. Pragmatism and the Utility of Science:
Science, often lauded as a beacon of truth, is also subject to the advantage-seeking nature of humanity. The widespread acceptance of scientific knowledge is not solely due to its inherent truthfulness, but rather its tangible benefits to our lives. From medical advancements to technological innovations, science has consistently proven its practical advantages, making it an invaluable tool for personal and societal progress.
4. Mindfulness and the Pursuit of Advantage:
Meditation and mindfulness practices have gained popularity in recent times due to their reported benefits, such as reduced stress, increased focus, and enhanced well-being. When we engage in these practices, we are not necessarily seeking profound truths about the universe, but rather utilizing them as tools to optimize our mental and emotional states. This approach aligns with the idea that our primary motivation lies in extracting advantages from our experiences.
5. The Wishful Thinking Fallacy:
Humans have long held the belief that they possess a unique importance in the grand scheme of things. This wishful thinking may be rooted in a desire for significance and purpose. However, this belief does not necessarily reflect the objective truth about our existence. Recognizing the discrepancy between our aspirations and the reality of our advantage-seeking nature allows for a more nuanced understanding of human behavior.
While many individuals claim to be truth seekers, a closer examination of human behavior reveals that our primary motivation lies in seeking advantages rather than unwavering truths. The elusive nature of truth, the contextual nature of our beliefs, and our pragmatic approach to science all point to the fact that we use our experiences and beliefs as tools to maximize personal gains. By acknowledging this inherent aspect of human nature, we can better understand the dynamics behind our debates, choices, and the pursuit of personal advantage.
Comments (32)
First off, even if it is true(!) that "humans are primarily driven by their quest for personal advantage", it remains open to ask if the ought to be so. Perhaps we ought dissuade ourselves from seeking advantage and instead seek after truth. That's a view with a long heritage.
See also Donald Hoffmans denial of materialism
My first reaction to your post was negative. I think it was the word "advantage." To me that implies a competitive strategy against an opponent, which I don't think applies. I put it a bit differently. I think the most important question humans try to answer is "What do I do now?" rather than "What is true?" Is that the same as gaining an advantage? I don't think they're exactly the same, but they are similar. Truth for me is important as a tool we can use to answer the primary question.
That being said, I don't find your arguments for the position very convincing, or necessary for that matter. For me, a position like that you and I hold is clear just from understanding how people in the everyday world know things and how they use the knowledge they have.
This is something that's been discussed a lot here on the forum. In most situations, I don't see what value truth has beyond being a tool to help us decide what to do next. Why should I care about truth sitting up there on its pedestal not doin' nuttin?
I love this observation :lol:. The shearing of Buddhist notions of life being suffering from the practices of mindfulness.
I think this just shows a lack of understanding of what Buddhists mean by suffering. It's something different than the way you generally define it.
How do you know that I don't know how Buddhists "define" it? Explain please.
So is this true, or is it just to your advantage? Has this been widely discussed, or are you merely making a rhetorical ploy?
If you think it true, then you are yourself relying on truth in your argument. But if you are relying on truth, then you are implicitly valuing it, in contrast to what your argument claims.
And if you do not value truth, and your point is merely rhetorical, then we have no need to pay your argument any heed.
There are two points here. The first is that the logic of any discussion depends on the propositions of the argument being true. If they are not subject to truth, your arguments become illogical. The second is that if you are more concerned with advantage than with truth, you join the class of Bullshiters, in the philosophical, Frankfurt sense. And as such we ought pay no heed to what you have to say.
Rejecting truth is self-negating, both logically and rhetorically.
This is the poverty of pragmatism. Sure, go ahead and do what is to your advantage. The truth will catch you up. It plays the long game.
I have been in quite a few discussions on that subject. Generally, I was the one who raised the subject, since it's an important part of the metaphysics I find most useful. You should have seen enough of my writing that it wouldn't be a surprise to you.
Quoting Banno
This is another discussion I've had many times. I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of that. As I noted, my positions on this are metaphysical. And as I've said many, many, many times on the forum, metaphysical positions are not true or false.
Quoting Banno
And you accused me of making an argument for rhetorical purposes. You should be embarrassed.
Quoting Banno
Clearly not true. Most philosophical discussions relate primarily to values, not facts.
Quoting Banno
Again, embarrassingly rhetorical. I noted in my response to @Raef Kandil that I don't think the word "advantage" is appropriate in this context. The way I say it is that the important question for people is what to do next and that truth is a tool in that regard and not the primary goal. Did you not read that post?
Quoting Banno
This is you begging the question.
Quoting Banno
You're not even trying to address my argument. You just repeat your position as if it's self-evident, but it's not.
You act as if you think what Buddhists mean by suffering and what you do are the same thing, but they're not. I'm certainly not any kind of expert in Buddhist beliefs, but I know they aren't talking about the suffering of getting up in the morning and going to work - the everyday stuff you use as the basis for your argument people should not have children. I find it hard to believe Buddhists are anti-natalists. Maybe somebody can set me straight.
Because that is what forgoing truth is; rejecting the need of consistency. And if that is your approach, then well done, since you have thereby placed yourself beyond mere argument, above coherence, and beyond the reach of reason.
So I will bow to you. An ignore you for a fool.
I I disagree with this view and would like to present an alternative perspective on the matter.
Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that our pursuit of truth is indeed a fundamental aspect of human nature. However, it would be erroneous to assert that we are solely driven by this pursuit and that our actions are divorced from our own self-interest. To suggest otherwise would be to overlook our inherent limitations and capacities as human beings.
While it is true that some individuals genuinely strive for truth and seek to expand their understanding of the world, it is equally valid to recognize that we are influenced by our own egos, desires, and limitations. Our cognitive capacities are inherently limited, and our ability to perceive the world objectively is inherently flawed. Our biases, preconceptions, and subjective experiences often shape the way we interpret and seek out truth.
Moreover, it is important to consider the role of self-interest and advantage-seeking in our pursuit of truth. If truth-seeking did not offer any personal advantage, would we truly be as motivated to engage in it? Our dreams, wishes, and the outcomes we desire often influence the topics and areas of inquiry that pique our interest. This does not invalidate our quest for truth but rather acknowledges the complex interplay between our aspirations and our understanding of reality.
David Hoffman's cognitive theory supports this perspective. It emphasizes the notion that our perceptions are shaped by evolutionary factors that prioritize survival and reproductive success. This means that our perceptions are not objective representations of the external world but rather subjective constructions that serve our evolutionary goals.
In light of these considerations, it is crucial to avoid making absolute claims about human nature and our motivations. Our pursuit of truth is undoubtedly influenced by a range of factors, including self-interest, ego, and the limitations of our cognitive abilities. To deny these influences is to overlook our true nature and hinder our capacity for self-reflection and growth.
Therefore, rather than dismissing alternative viewpoints as mere pragmatism or deceit, we should strive to embrace a more nuanced understanding of our own nature. By acknowledging our limitations and capacities, we can engage in more meaningful discussions about truth-seeking and the motivations that drive our intellectual endeavors.
Ah, young @Jamal has been looking for examples of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. So you would retreat from the Bailey of replacing truth with advantage to the Motte of "people do things for their own advantage".
Again, just restating you position without supporting argument, as if it didn't need a one.
Quoting Banno
I would be happy if you would ignore me and my posts, but you won't. I'll make a deal with you - I'll ignore yours if you'll ignore mine. That way we can end our "epic feud."
I just don't see it.
Well, for those reading on - there may be some - since you do not accept the need for truth, argument is irrelevant. And it seems you cannot recognise one, when presented. So there's that.
The purpose of a fool is to provide amusement.
1. I think it is more that certainty is desired, than truth. That said, no one is going to feel certain unless they have been able to convince themselves they have found truth. Certainty makes us feel secure, and our inability to feel certain unless we feel we have discovered truth means that our "advantage" is intimately tied up with what is true, or at least with what we believe is true.
2. This I think is an over-generalization. Some people may be satisfied with material and social security, and others not so much; so for some, God may be existentially important whatever their material and social circumstances might be.
3.Science is accepted, when it is, because it works, when it does. Part of this working, but not an essential part, is the provision of technological development. The other part is predictive success (and of course the ability to provide technological advances is part of that). Predictive success is not a proof of truth, however.
4. It's true that some undertake meditative practices merely to relax, but others need the motivation of entertaining the idea that they are seeking, and will find, truth. Of course, you can say that if our desire is for truth then practicing what is understood to be a viable discipline to that end will be seen to be to our advantage. But any human activity can be framed that way, which really just means that there are various angles one could look at anything from. What you refer to as "the contextual nature of our beliefs" applies as much to the belief that everything done by humans is done for the sake of advantage as it does to any other belief.
5.Human exceptionalism may be thought to be based on wishful thinking, but it could also be based on the observation that we really are very different from all other animals insofar as we possess language, culture, history, philosophy, the arts, science and religion. On the other hand, all animals are exceptional in their own ways, and since it is thus ordinary to be exceptional it follows that in this sense, no animal, including the human animal, is exceptional. Again, it's back to the contextual and perspectival nature of ideas and beliefs.
I'm laughing, so you must be doing a great job. :joke:
You said you were going to ignore me. In response I made you and offer, which you have not responded to. You should put you money where your mouth is.
I have responded, and here do so again. If you post, I reserve the privilege of responding; and the option of not. As, presumably, do you.
Chill out, I was just joking, and not even at your expense.
I dont even have to go looking for it; Im seeing it everywhere now.
So you are doing your own motte-and-bailey here. You cannot explain to me what my understanding of Buddhism is so you provide vague notions of "going to work". Buddhism, like any religion/belief has a long set of beliefs, ideas, and "family resemblances". For me to explicate ALL of them to you is unreasonable. If you care to look at my profile, I have a rough outline of the differences between "Eastern" and "Western" ideas of suffering. But your mischaracterization of my understanding, besides being uncharitable, and an thinly veiled ad hom, is but a strawman and for what purpose? How is pointing out that "mindfulness" and Buddhist meditation techniques (as shorn from its Buddhist roots) has taken out some core elements, for its usefulness and advantage, not an example of exactly the argument of the OP? Where I believe I was right on target, your outburst against me is but a stinking red herring, stemming from who knows what perceived sleight you took my point as.
To start, I acknowledge I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I looked at your profile page and read what you wrote about necessary suffering vs. contingent suffering. That distinction is exactly the difference I was describing.
That being said, I'm surprised by the level of offence you've taken. in what way was what I wrote an outburst? How was it an ad hominem argument?
It's true that traditional philosophy seems to have galvanized around 'the good' and 'the true'. I'm not so sure people generally search for truth, as much as they assume that the values in which they are encultured are 'true'. Human behavior seems to be a reflection of the presuppositions people hold.
You can argue advantage seeking is one such presupposition, many people settle on power. Others settle on sex. Advantage seeking seems to lack something - advantage in what way? Does it all in come down to social-Darwinist survival advantages?
But even if you are highlighting 'advantage seeking' as the idea around which all human behavior pivots, it still comes down to what is true or not. We still need to determine (and this is not always easy) does X produce an advantage, true or false? And how do we determine the true nature of an advantage? Humans tend to crave certainty and predictability in order to navigate a dangerous world, which strongly suggests we are likely to need to determine what is true.
I am not sure if humans seek *what's true" or "what works". However, I do agree with you that this is not a very straight-forward question. But, I think that we are far more practical than we think we are and far less co concerned with "the true nature" of our beings or the universe and we are profit-maximising beings seeking our own advantage and we are brilliant at that. That doesn't mean we are necessarily bad, but this is as far as our capacities go and any attempt to learn about our true nature would fail.
I would further argue that what is "true" for us can only be reached through practicing not through questioning. You just become better in this everyday whether you like it or not because it falls within your natural abilities. Endless debates about such questions as whether God exists or not would only make us good at debating but wouldn't get us one inch closer to.the truth because it has never been our attention and we never really cared enough to know the truth. However, if we recognise that prayers would bring us more success we are more likely ro pray for.God and if science proves more beneficial, we would be more inclined to use science to our own benefit and why not attach good labels to it. It deserves it!
Quoting Raef Kandil
Have you ever read Nietzsche? He combines the two motives of truth and advantage-seeking into one motive, Will to Power. Will to power isn't the desire on the part of an autonomous subject to choose to will power over others, it is the creative outcome of a competitive relation of drives within a psyche. Will to power results in the creation of value systems that assimilate and organize the world toward pragmatic ends of motivated sense making. The kind of truth you describe in your OP is motivated by a Will to truth, which is merely a subset of the Will to Power. Put differently, Will to truth is a value system (or metaphysics) that thinks of truth as correspondence, adequation or coherence in relation with external facts, objects, the way things really are. By contrast, the only kind of truth that Will to Power, as the creation of value systems, recognizes is truth as production, enaction, becoming.