The Altruistic and the Egoistic in the Foundations of Rational Desire

Author(s):  
Robert Audi
Keyword(s):  
Apeiron ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-95
Author(s):  
Victor Saenz

Abstract One of three basic types of desire, claims Aristotle, is thumos (‘spirit,’ ‘passion,’ ‘heart,’ ‘anger,’ ‘impulse’). The other two are epithumia (‘appetite’) and boulêsis (‘wish,’ ‘rational desire’). Yet, he never gives us an account of thumos; it has also received relatively little scholarly attention. I argue that thumos has two key features. First, it is able to cognize what I call ‘social value,’ the agent’s own perceived standing relative to others in a certain domain. In human animals, shame and honor are especially important manifestations of social value. Second, thumos provides non-rational motivation to pursue what affirms the agent’s social value and avoid what denies it. Interpretations that hold thumos just is anger, or that its object is the fine (kalon), I argue, are mistaken. My account also explains the role of thumos in moral education. In a virtuous agent thumos will be affectively attuned to the correct social rankings; it will take the practically wise, the lovers of the fine, or moral exemplars, as authorities.


Phronesis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myrna Gabbe

Abstract In Eudemian Ethics 8.2, Aristotle posits god as the starting-point of non-rational desire (particularly for the naturally fortunate), thought, and deliberation. The questions that dominate the literature are: To what does ‘god’ refer? Is it some divine-like entity in the soul that produces thoughts and desires or is it Aristotle’s prime mover? And how does god operate as the starting-point of these activities? By providing a careful reconstruction of the context in which god is evoked, I argue against the popular deflationary reading of ‘god’, showing why Aristotle’s prime mover must be the end of these natural activities, and how it serves as a final cause for the rational and desirative parts of the soul. I contend that EE 8.2 provides evidence against the traditional notion that god operates as a final cause by drawing natural potentialities to their completion, and suggests instead that it serves as a final cause by entering into the explanation of natures and natural activities as their ultimate end.


Author(s):  
Ursula Coope
Keyword(s):  

This chapter raises three puzzles for the Neoplatonists. The first concerns ignorance and knowledge. How can we be responsible for our vicious activity if all such activity is involuntary and stems from ignorance? Conversely, how can knowledgeable contemplation be free, given that contemplation depends on the thing contemplated? The second puzzle concerns desire. If our passions drag us about and prevent us from being free, why doesn’t a rational desire for the good also count as dragging us about, and enslaving us to the good? If our passions enslave us, then how can we be responsible for what we do when we act on such passions? The third puzzle concerns fate. Why is freedom compatible with subjection to causation from above, but not compatible with subjection to fate? And how can we be responsible for what we do when we are enslaved to fate?


1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. Hudson

Everyone knows what it is to feel a conflict between a ‘non-rational’ desire and reason, as e.g., when we want a second dish of ice cream but think it would be unwise to take it. In such cases we commonly think of our desires as unreasonable: they prompt us to perform some action contrary to our deliberations. Nevertheless, most of us assume that reason can move us: that simply recognizing an act as the most reasonable thing to do gives us a motive to do it — even if in fact we do not perform that action. If we do not eat the second dish of ice cream we are disposed to think that we did not because we judged it unwise. If, on the other hand, we do eat the second dish, we are disposed to think we did because we were more strongly inclined toward eating than not eating, even though we were inclined toward refraining because we judged eating unwise. This is the position of the man on the street. It is the commonsensical notion of reason, motivation, and their relationship.


2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Ahrensdorf

Recent challenges to the modern secular state invite us to reexamine the arguments made by its theoretical founders, especially Hobbes. Hobbes argues that the desire for security is the most reliable and rational desire of our nature, and the state based on satisfying that desire is fully in harmony with human nature and therefore fully capable of solving the problem of anarchy. I will examine his argument that anarchy, although in some sense the natural human condition, can be overcome once and for all through political institutions that ensure the rational fear of death will control humans' destabilizing hopes and longings for immortality. I then turn to Thucydides, the classical thinker whom Hobbes admired most and who seems closest to Hobbes in outlook, and consider his more somber thesis: Because human hopes for immortality are more powerful than the fear of violent death, anarchy will return over and over again.


Author(s):  
Terrence M. Penner

One natural way of explaining the phenomenon ofakrasia, or weakness of will, would be this: to describe a conflict between a desire that is more or less rational (that represents, or corresponds to, a considered judgment on what is to be done), and a desire that is rather less rational, where the less rational desire wins out ‘against one’s better judgment.’ To explain what makes two such desiresconflictingdesires (as opposed to being just twodifferentdesires), it is then natural to suggest that they originate in distinct ‘parts of the soul’ (or in distinct ‘partitions of the mind’).


1986 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Belfiore

Plato's views on tragedy depend in large part on his views about the ethical consequences of emotional arousal. In theRepublic, Plato treats the desires we feel in everyday life to weep and feel pity as appetites exactly like those for food or sex, whose satisfactions are ‘replenishments’. Physical desire is not reprehensible in itself, but is simplynon-rational, not identical with reason but capable of being brought into agreement with it. Some desires, like that for simple and wholesome food, are in fact ‘necessary’ and approved by reason. Other appetites, like lust and gluttony, are ‘unnecessary’ andanti-rational in that they are actively opposed to reason. According to theRepublic, the satisfaction of these ‘unnecessary’ desires inevitably strengthens the elements in the soul that oppose reason. The desire to weep at the theatre is treated in this dialogue as just such an anti-rational desire. Even a temporary indulgence in tragic pity and fear has a permanent deleterious effect on the soul, although it does not lead directly to any action.This paper argues that a radically different psychological theory, with important aesthetic implications, appears in the discussion of wine-drinking in Books 1 and 2 of Plato'sLaws. Though this long passage has been much scorned and neglected, it is of considerable philosophical importance. While in theRepublicPlato condemns drunkenness and other anti-rational states, in theLawshe extols the benefits of a hypothetical ‘fear drug’ that could induce a temporary state of anti-rational terror and of wine to produce other anti-rational emotions and desires.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-31
Author(s):  
Terence Irwin
Keyword(s):  

The partition of the soul is used extensively, both in Book iv and in Books viii-ix of the Republic, to describe and to explain the structure, growth, and decay, of just and unjust cities and souls. Plato has in mind a single conception of the three parts of the soul, and he expounds it gradually. He recognizes different grades of rationality in desire. These grades help us to understand the roles of the partition of the soul in Plato’s argument.


2020 ◽  
pp. 164-187
Author(s):  
Terence Irwin

Rationalists (including Butler, Price, and Reid) defend an alternative to the sentimentalist position, in three main areas: (1) Against the view that practical reason is subordinate to non-rational desire, they argue that some of our actions result from desires that are responsive to reason, so that we are guided by the apparent merits of different course of action, not just by our non-rational preferences. (2) Against the view that moral judgments depend on our emotions, and moral facts are partly constituted by our emotional reactions, they argue that moral judgments cannot be understood unless we recognize that they are rational judgments about objective facts. (3) Against the view that our moral outlook is utilitarian, they argue that utility is only one relevant moral consideration, and that we have good reason to attend to justice, generosity, and other aspects of morality that are not subordinate to utility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document