This is a funny question to ask. Funny in that no one has ever asked this of me before, and yet a few moments of reflection reveal how utterly important such a question is.
The simple answer is that no, I am not living the life expected or wished for. As a child of the 50s and fan of “Dr. Kildare” and “Ben Casey”, I wanted desperately to be a surgeon. Before I was 10 years old, my plans were laid – I would work at a big hospital and save lots of lives regardless of ability to pay. I took the Hippocratic Oath to heart and believed in it completely. Although I retained the intention well into my 20s, an assault endured at 10 years of age effectively put an end to that idea.
However, my interests in science and medicine continue to this day. In grade school I submitted projects to science fairs and usually won. Science classes in junior high school were the only ones I thought worth attending or paying attention to. High school brought more complex and fascinating topics such as botany, zoology, chemistry, and physics. I did very well in all these classes except for physics, for although I had excelled in math previously, the staggering weight of hormones and the aforementioned assault evidently scrambled my abilities. How I would love to grasp the subtleties of calculus!
But we all have to play the cards we are dealt, and I think all-in-all I’ve done pretty well considering the circumstances. I’ve birthed and raised two wonderful daughters, my Dad is being cared for here at home, I’ve found a good husband that is growing along with me, and I’m finding illumination. My one real regret is the student loan conundrum. I doubt I’ll live long enough to pay them off.
Considering all of these issues, the long answer is “yes”, I am living a good and rewarding life. It’s not the one I would have chosen, but perhaps what I do have is more meaningful and lasting.
How about you?
Comments
I think being a paramedic is at least a glamorous as being a surgeon!
Perhaps it is for some, but I never found it to be glamorous. A lot of pain, fear, violence, blood, and tears. There were some humorous moments though, especially during training. I was the only woman in a class full of burly firefighters. The instructor was going to show us an old Navy film on childbirth - all in glorious B&W - and I was teased mercilessly. For some reason these fellas thought I would pass out or something.
Nope! Midway through the film some guys started heaving, followed quickly by a number of thuds. In the end, I was the "last man standing", as it were. They quit teasing me. :)
It's never too late to start playing around with math. If you're still interested in math and physics, check out Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality - he takes you from Pythagoras, through calculus, all the way to quantum field theory and general relativity. It's an amazing and remarkably readable book.
I have been thinking about doing something similar, and will check out this book. I made it through Calculus II, but just. I think my background in geometry&trig were insufficient. Thanks!
Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 12:37 PM
I was going to be a Supreme Court Justice, an astronaut, and/or a brain surgeon. My parents wrote that in my baby book when I was five, so apparently I dreamed big even back then. Up until my senior year of college I was still on the surgeon path, and then was derailed by my aunt (a nurse) who said I'd like research better than medicine. Had you asked me 10 years ago, or even five years ago, where I'd be in the future, I would have never guessed it would be where I am now. But I'm happy now, so it's ok that I didn't follow my plan.
Here's my theory on happiness: I see happiness as an asymptote - it's something that can never be truly reached, but you can always get closer and closer. It's a sliding scale. As humans we want to improve, to learn, to gain a skill, whatever. Because we're always changing and growing, we can't stay static, so we have to move ahead (or backward, I suppose), but we can't just stay in one spot. Unless we're dead. It's like that with happiness. If you attain happiness, it is only fleeting because the next minute, hour, day, week you'll need something more, or something else. You can be happy, truly happy, but never a static perfect happy.
I also think that "happiness" is tied to need/want, and our perception of our needs/wants. Who are traditionally the happiest people? Take little kids, for example. People who don't really have anything, don't want anything, don't really need anything (besides nutrition and rest, I mean). Ignorance is bliss - and I don't mean stupidity, I mean ignorance of desire, greed, jealousy. Kids simply are. Without stuff, without worries, you aren't distracted.
Buddhism's Four Noble Truths speaks to this directly. Life is suffering - we're human, we're imperfect, we're impermanent. We suffer because we're attached to things (be it goods or people or ideas or our 'self'). We can get rid of this suffering by detaching from everything. The path to detatchment is called the eightfold path, which addresses the idea of a following a "middle way" or mean. Interestingly, in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics,you'll find this doctrine of the "mean" (moderation in all things). He also postulates that happiness is not a virtue, but is a virtuous activity (and is the goal of a human - to seek this virtuous activity). This is akin to the idea that love is a verb - like the idea that God and faith are verbs - meaning love is not an end to itself, but rather the act of loving is love (or faith, or God). So by acting in moderation, acting virtously, you will continously be seeking happiness and live a good life.
Becky Jungbauer | 07/02/09 | 12:07 PM
Who are traditionally the happiest people? Take little kids, for example. People who don't really have anything, don't want anything, don't really need anything (besides nutrition and rest, I mean). Ignorance is bliss - and I don't mean stupidity, I mean ignorance of desire, greed, jealousy. Kids simply are. Without stuff, without worries, you aren't distracted.
I agree wholeheartedly. The most miserable people seem to be those with everything. Look at celebrities, politicians, or just rich folks. So scared that they hide behind gates, walls, security details, alarm systems, and so forth. As far as their souls? Jesus is recorded as saying that it would be easier for an elephant to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to Heaven.
The best days my daughters recall are the ones where we couldn't rub two nickels together. They still ask me to prepare "poverty" dishes - it's comfort food to them.
Buddhism's Four Noble Truths speaks to this directly. Life is suffering - we're human, we're imperfect, we're impermanent. We suffer because we're attached to things (be it goods or people or ideas or our 'self'). We can get rid of this suffering by detaching from everything. The path to detatchment is called the eightfold path, which addresses the idea of a following a "middle way" or mean. Interestingly, in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics,you'll find this doctrine of the "mean" (moderation in all things). He also postulates that happiness is not a virtue, but is a virtuous activity (and is the goal of a human - to seek this virtuous activity). This is akin to the idea that love is a verb - like the idea that God and faith are verbs - meaning love is not an end to itself, but rather the act of loving is love (or faith, or God). So by acting in moderation, acting virtously, you will continously be seeking happiness and live a good life.
It would seem that these concepts; suffering, imperfection, the temporary nature of all things, moderation, striving, etc. are universal truths. Jung attributed this knowledge to the Collective Unconscious. And categorizing ideas such as love, God, and faith as verbs is a good thing in my opinion, for all three require action (or interaction) on our part.
Laura Hult | 07/02/09 | 12:55 PM
How about you?
Nope! As a young man I would never have imagined what life had in store… As someone who had applied a lot of will power toward becoming a state wrestling champion, I thought that anyone could accomplish anything within their genetic potential through sheer effort and focused determination. Boy, was I WRONG!
But we all have to play the cards we are dealt, and I think all-in-all I’ve done pretty well considering the circumstances.
Yes, and both nature and the circumstances of our environments determines the cards. (We each represent a genotype, but its our phenotype that really matters.) We play our cards according to the underlying pleasure/pain principle, which we all have in common. When we see a person who is much worse off than we are, we can truthfully say, “There but for the differences in our determinants, go I.” If an individual does well in life, or not, its really a matter of luck. Although our brains are ‘designed’ to make decisions every day (and indeed we do make many decisions) in the ultimate sense, there is no free will.
Fred Pauser | 07/03/09 | 19:24 PM
I thought that anyone could accomplish anything within their genetic
potential through sheer effort and focused determination. Boy, was I
WRONG!
Hi Fred! Thanks for your reply! I can relate to your statement, for after 20+ years of school, what's to show for it? I've got lots of ideas, done what research can be done without funding, but until stumbling on this website had no where to offer what I have learned.
If an individual does well in life, or not, its really a matter of
luck. Although our brains are ‘designed’ to make decisions every day
(and indeed we do make many decisions) in the ultimate sense, there is
no free will.
I'm still undecided about the free will business. There are times when it seems that we are presented with alternatives, but frequently too many of these rapidly end up as blind alleys. There are other instances where something I've really been concerned about turns out ok.
In looking back over my life, I wonder what could have been done differently. Without the knowledge I possess today, the same choices would have been made with the same results.
What we do seem to have control over are moral and ethical issues such as "I will not steal that cookie", or "I will not cheat on this exam". They are fleeting moments, but ones that can generate large effects. So perhaps with regard to the Big Picture we don't have any free will, but on a highly specific and very limited plane of existence, we do.
Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 20:02 PM
I'm still undecided about the free will business.
Free will is a bit too philosophical a concept to hold much meaning for me. As you may have noticed in some of my other posts, I tend to "self-interested" behaviors as the explanation for how we act. Arguably that perspective could be viewed as the exercise of free will, but since we are the product of our genes, experiences, and conditioning, I'm not sure where the "free" part comes in.
Gerhard Adam | 07/03/09 | 20:23 PM
Free will is a bit too philosophical a concept to hold much meaning for me. As you may have noticed in some of my other posts, I tend to "self-interested" behaviors as the explanation for how we act. Arguably that perspective could be viewed as the exercise of free will, but since we are the product of our genes, experiences, and conditioning, I'm not sure where the "free" part comes in.
Let's take another example. After the fall of Singapore on February 15th 1942, the Japanese imprisoned many of the women and children under horrific conditions. I cannot find the direct reference at the moment, but once it was clear that their captors were going to starve them to death, the women banded together and vowed that all of the children would survive regardless of what happened to them. Oftentimes, the mothers were so hungry that they would have to physically turn away to let the children eat.
All of the children survived, but half of the women died. An account of this is posted at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1504871/Shelagh-Lea.html
My limit for fasting is about 4 days. I do not know how these mothers accomplished this extraordinary feat to ensure the survival of children, some of whom were not not even genetically related to the surviving mothers. These women chose their destinies. They chose to die rather than let the children die. How could one do something like this without unbreakable willpower that trumped any genetic directives for self-survival?
Maybe free will is just darned rare, but I do believe it exists.
Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 21:45 PM
How could one do something like this without unbreakable willpower that trumped any genetic directives for self-survival?
I don't think it's a genetic directive at all. Our genes are going to play a role in how our brain forms, our experience is going to play a role, and our belief systems will round out the equation. As a result, you specifically have a situation whereby you can move in whatever direction you want as a "self-interested" gesture. In other words, these women you're describing had a point they wanted to make by their actions. I'm not meaning "self-interested" in the much abused sense of "selfishness". Instead, I'm saying that their choice was made based on their own values and ideas, and consequently that determined their course.
I"m not saying that this isn't "free will", but rather alluding to the fact that we are a product of our genetics and environment as much as anything else. Therefore it seems that we will behave according to that conditioning and our choices are somewhat predictable based on that background.
Gerhard Adam | 07/03/09 | 23:27 PM
I'm not meaning "self-interested" in the much abused sense of "selfishness".
Yes, I'm similarly sensitive to the distinction between "good" and "bad" selfishness and frequently have to remind clients of the difference. How easily we fall into guilt from acting in our own best interests!
Instead, I'm saying that their choice was made based on their own values and ideas, and consequently that determined their course.
And this is what may constitute free will - the ability to make a choice with the help of values, reason, experiences, education, etc. But without whatever it is that makes us sentient, we could not make a choice (much less see that a choice could be made), and our responses would be driven by instinct.
I"m not saying that this isn't "free will", but rather alluding to the fact that we are a product of our genetics and environment as much as anything else. Therefore it seems that we will behave according to that conditioning and our choices are somewhat predictable based on that background.
You are quite correct. We are products of both nature and nurture, and many behaviors can be predicted with a good degree of accuracy, but this is not all that we are. We are not simple automatons whirring and clicking in response to input. There is something else that contributes to sentience, else instances where some pets go rushing into a burning home to rescue a family member would not occur.
I recall an instance shortly after my oldest daughter was born where a wasp had gotten into her bedroom. Now as far as phobias go, stinging insects were at that time, the absolute worst thing I could encounter. I would literally run away every time one was near. Standing in the doorway to her room, shaking in fear of the wasp, I made a conscious decision to kill that damned wasp.
While keeping an eye on what I perceived as death with wings, I crept towards her crib, threw a blanket on top of her, then proceeded to hunt down this thing. I squashed it with my bare hands.
This may not seem like much to most people, after all it was just a wasp, but to me it did indeed represent death. My death. Based on my personal experiences, I knew my daughter could be injured. Based on medical history, I knew I was allergic to stings. Based on beliefs, my daughter's life was of greater value than my own. But based on fear, there was no way that I was going to get anywhere near that thing.
And yet, I decided to kill it. Had I listened to instinct alone, the wasp would have won the match.
So in my opinion, there is something else that I cannot name which contributes to our ability to make decisions - or exercise our free will.
BTW, ever since that encounter I have been unafraid of the miserable buggers. :)
Laura Hult | 07/04/09 | 00:15 AM
Free will is a bit too philosophical a concept to hold much meaning for me.
As far as I’m concerned the philosophers go pretty deep into absurdity on the determinism / free will issue. Looking at the situation from a scientific perspective and then filling out the edges with logic seems to yeild something more substantial.
…but since we are the product of our genes, experiences, and conditioning, I'm not sure where the "free" part comes in.
[…]
I"m not saying that this isn't "free will", but rather alluding to the fact that we are a product of our genetics and environment as much as anything else. Therefore it seems that we will behave according to that conditioning and our choices are somewhat predictable based on that background.
Gerhard, your ability to analyze and use logic suggests to you that there is no free will, but I’m guessing that you just don’t like the idea. Please feel free to respond to the additional comments I made below to Laura.
Fred Pauser | 07/04/09 | 13:05 PM
Equally it's intriguing that we seem to imply that our plans or amibitions for life carry with them the implicit characteristic that it would produce happiness. Clearly we couldn't possibly know any such thing, so it's interesting that we would project that attitude at all.
On another level, it's worth considering whether other animals might feel the same way, or is this a uniquely human attribute.
My personal viewpoint suggests that humans, having the ability to abstract virtually everything, can also create the fantasies in their minds about what constitutes an ideal life. Invariably, the real world intrudes and then we are perpetually questioning the discrepancy between our abstract view and the real one. In general, I find that the best course of action is to pursue what is interesting and brings me pleasure (entertainment, joy, etc.). Can we really expect any more from life than such contentment?
Gerhard Adam | 07/02/09 | 14:20 PM
I find these kinds of questions intriguing because I'm never sure what people mean when they say they are striving for happiness. What exactly is happiness? Is it more than contentment? Is it joy? Is it simply the opposite of sadness? More importantly, is such a state possible over an extended period, or does one risk getting used to it and not feeling it any more?
These are questions of an analytical mind. :) I think science can at least provide a little insight regarding happiness…
Equally it's intriguing that we seem to imply that our plans or amibitions for life carry with them the implicit characteristic that it would produce happiness. Clearly we couldn't possibly know any such thing, so it's interesting that we would project that attitude at all.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt whatsoever that the hope for happiness or “feeling good” is at the basis of the formation of those plans. Einstein was right when he said:
“Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain.”
The pleasure/pain principle (Epicurean) certainly seems to be in some way at the basis of every decision.
On another level, it's worth considering whether other animals might feel the same way, or is this a uniquely human attribute.
Even insects react to avoid harm/danger, and are attracted to favorable conditions. Neurobiologist Antonio Damasio goes further and uses the example of the sea anemone:
“The essence of joy and sadness, of approach and avoidance, of vulnerability and safety, are as apparent in this simple dichotomy of brainless behavior as they are in the mercurial emotional changes of a child at play.”
In general, I find that the best course of action is to pursue what is interesting and brings me pleasure (entertainment, joy, etc.). Can we really expect any more from life than such contentment?
But what brings you, or may bring you, the deepest and most lasting sense of satisfaction, gratification?
Laura said:
It may be that to some, simply being useful or being productive is a characteristic of happiness. This is how I define happiness for myself. Am I leaving the world a little bit better than I found it? Was I helpful to someone today? Did I do anything constructive?
I think this is on the right track. Laura reflects here both our profound interconnectedness, and the overall trend of evolution to produce better adapted, “improved,” more capable creatures. Worth repeating: “Am I leaving the world a little bit better than I found it?”
Personally, my most gratifying memories are of certain hard-earned achievements that involved ingenuity and creativity. Another kind of most pleasant memory is of a six-months period of my life on an a farm with my grandparents, mother, and her sisters. (I was four y.o.) The environment was ideal, and the spirit of caring and cooperation was extraordinary. Now in my “senior years,” there seems to be an increased desire to contribute.
Fred Pauser | 07/03/09 | 19:34 PM
But what brings you, or may bring you, the deepest and most lasting sense of satisfaction, gratification?
Basically I was really getting at doing those things that we have a desire or interest to do. While I recognize that we all have responsibilites and obligations, we also need to pay attention and not feel guilty over allowing ourselves the opportunity to be ourself. Sort of a variation on the zen "Eat when you're hungry, and sleep when you're tired".
While I have work do to, I also don't feel guilty when I put it aside and do something else. In other words, I don't agonize over being "productive" or feeling that every waking moment has to be some monumental life-altering event. Too many people have bought into the "competitiveness" argument and seem to revel in making themselves miserable.
Gerhard Adam | 07/03/09 | 19:56 PM
What exactly is happiness? Is it more than contentment? Is it joy? Is it simply the opposite of sadness? More importantly, is such a state possible over an extended period, or does one risk getting used to it and not feeling it any more?
Perhaps the only reasonable definition for happiness comes from within each of us. And each person will give a different answer because of our unique histories. Some of us can well relate to happiness simply being the absence of sorrow or pain, while others will claim that winning the lottery is happiness.
But you ask a key and very profound question about extended happiness. If one defines it by material possessions, then you are probably correct - that sort of happiness will diminish over time. We need only look at the rich and powerful for confirmation.
On the other hand, I suspect that someone like Mother Theresa experienced more happiness and joy than virtually anyone alive today. She also experienced great sorrows too, but pain has a tendency to make the good things even better. A compare and contrast sort of thing.
Equally it's intriguing that we seem to imply that our plans or amibitions for life carry with them the implicit characteristic that it would produce happiness. Clearly we couldn't possibly know any such
thing, so it's interesting that we would project that attitude at all.
It may be that to some, simply being useful or being productive is a characteristic of happiness. This is how I define happiness for myself. Am I leaving the world a little bit better than I found it? Was I helpful to someone today? Did I do anything constructive?
On another level, it's worth considering whether other animals might feel the same way, or is this a uniquely human attribute.
This is a very interesting question, but first we have to figure out if animals experience a sense of anticipation. I would say that some do. We have a dog, a mutt really, from a local shelter. When she was a pup, her first month or so with us was spent just kind of wandering about the house. However, one night a family of raccoons got onto our back porch and made quite a mess of things. I let Misty out and she quickly chased them away. When she came back inside, she was quite proud of herself and seemed to have found definition and purpose.
Does this happen, or am I anthropomorphizing? I don't know, and I don't know how to get at the answer.
In general, I find that the best course of action is to pursue what is interesting and brings me pleasure (entertainment, joy, etc.). Can we really expect any more from life than such contentment?
If we are not venturing into metaphysics or philosophy, I would say this is a good working definition.
Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 00:03 AM
The Greek word that is commonly translated as "happiness" is "eudaimonia"; it might be better translated as "Human Flourishing." In this regard, Aristotle used the phrase (for instance, in the Nicomachean Ethics) "living well, doing well." Happiness is not wealth or honor or pleasure, but a manifestation of our character as a human being at its best and highest functioning.
On the other hand, the term "contentment" inspires considerable suspicion on my part. It seems to me that this word tends to be used to mean a kind of saccharine, soporiphic animal state. This is not a necessary definition, simply a personal impression.
Gary Herstein | 07/03/09 | 00:49 AM
The Greek word that is commonly translated as "happiness" is
"eudaimonia"; it might be better translated as "Human Flourishing." In
this regard, Aristotle used the phrase (for instance, in the Nicomachean Ethics) "living
well, doing well." Happiness is not wealth or honor or pleasure, but a
manifestation of our character as a human being at its best and highest
functioning.
Plato argued that living a just life and being virtuous were necessary, so I can understand where Aristotle would be inclined to regard a person's character as an indicator of inner harmony. But Aristotle also claimed that material things were also important. I'm closer to the Stoics and Kant in this regard, where living a morally just life without undue regard to material possessions is paramount. Although, just try and take my computer away from me.
Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 06:50 AM
Material things were also important
Yes, but only as instruments. According to "A" it was nearly impossible (though not absolutely so) to achieve eudaimonia w/o a minimal level of physical sustenance (food, shelter, etc.)
Kant was actually quite the Bon Vivant insofar as the allowable pleasures went. He was quite popular in Konigsberg social circles, a lively dinner companion and conversationalist.
But I do appreciate the appeal of the stoics. I've been meaning to get back to Seneca and Marcus Aurelius these last few weeks as I attempt to regain some balance in my own life.
Gary Herstein | 07/03/09 | 09:32 AM
Gary Herstein | 07/03/09 | 00:51 AM
Oh, regarding the student loans: somebody shoot me now ...
Thanks! At least I won't go alone. :)
Laura Hult | 07/03/09 | 06:11 AM
We are products of both nature and nurture, and many behaviors can be predicted with a good degree of accuracy, but this is not all that we are. We are not simple automatons whirring and clicking in response to input. There is something else that contributes to sentience,
The notion that no free will seems to suggest that we must be automatons is distastful to nearly everyone. I think that accounts for much of the resistance to the concept of no free will…
In looking back over my life, I wonder what could have been done differently. Without the knowledge I possess today, the same choices would have been made with the same results.
Yes, it could not have been otherwise. Here your logic is suggesting to you, no free will.
What we do seem to have control over are moral and ethical issues such as "I will not steal that cookie", or "I will not cheat on this exam". They are fleeting moments, but ones that can generate large effects. So perhaps with regard to the Big Picture we don't have any free will, but on a highly specific and very limited plane of existence, we do.
Ethics have to do with the kind of world we want to live in. A world in which everyone steals and people must be on constant guard against theft would be a very unpleasant world. It is in our best individual interest to promote a more trusting environment by not stealing ourselves (pleasure/pain principle).
You don’t want to cheat on the exam, perhaps because to pass in that way would not be good for your self esteem. Also, you want to feel that you can really do the job! (Again, pleasure/pain… cause and effect…)
These women chose their destinies. They chose to die rather than let the children die. How could one do something like this without unbreakable willpower that trumped any genetic directives for self-survival?
These women did not chose to be prisoners and forced to exist in a horrible situation that I suppose included filthy conditions, over-crowdiing, excessive heat or cold, in additiion to the starvation food rationing you mentioned. Conditions like this caused many in the Nazi concentration camps to commit suicide. (Suicide is the attempt to escape great pain, again the pleasure/pain principle.)
The possibility existed that eventually all of the women AND the children would have died. There also existed the possibility that if the women had taken the food for themselves and allowed the children to die, and then had been rescued, could they have endured the pain of guilt over causing the children to die first? It seems that the logical choice would be to give the children the food. This would have the added advantage of showing the enemy their superior morality, in effect thumbing their noses at the enemy, while averting the prospect of unbearable guilt, and finally escaping an extremely painful situation through death – which seemed pretty likely in the end anyway. They made a choice, which seemed to be the least painful overall, in an unavoidably very painful situation in any case.
Maybe free will is just darned rare, but I do believe it exists.
Or maybe another kind of will exists. Let me attempt to show how the automaton notion can be over-ridden while still retaining the seemingly apparent fact of no free will… by substituting the negative no-free-will concept wth the postive concept of us each being uniquely individualized expressions of the will-of-the-universe:
When the Big Bang occurred, why didn’t the expansion consist of only a homogenous sea of subatomic matter? Instead there were apparently random breaks in the distribution, which enabled gravity to form various sizes and distributions of early suns. In other words, there seems to be an offset in the laws of nature that ensures a *random* aspect to nature, in conjunction with the cause-and-effect aspect. So, although the laws of nature seem to be conducive to the emergence of life, the exact nature of life forms and their activities were/are NOT pre-destined.
This random aspect does not contribute to free will, but it does ensure some degree of open-endedness and creativity of evolution, of which we are a major part at the moment. Now imagine how profoundly interconnected we are with not only each other, but with the universe itself. The very atoms of our bodies were made in suns of long ago. Our bodies are subject to same laws of nature as everything else. When we think of ourselves as expressions and representatives of the universe instead of individual egos, our decisions and actions are in a sense, produced by the universe. We are co-creators expressing the will of the universe on a journey with an indeterminant goal, summed up with the desire “to leave the world a better place!”
Fred Pauser | 07/04/09 | 12:52 PM
This is going to take some time to digest. The suggestion that free will is an illusion goes against all that I have learned these many years. It conflicts with religious values, the times I was born into, my career choices in healthcare, and the continuing global human struggle for survival and the concept of liberty.
Synchronicity - we are discussing this topic during the Fourth of July weekend.
Happy Independence Day, Fred! :)
Laura Hult | 07/04/09 | 14:36 PM
There are a few psychologists who have completely accepted the concept of the mind are being a result of evolution in combination with environmental-cultural influences – that is to say, fully caused, including a will that is also a fully caused natural phenomenon – a step in the direction of establishing a genuinely science-based psychology.
Consider this: My father was very abusive, mentally, emotionally, and physically. All of us six kids hated him. I’m not going to describe the horrible things he did, suffice to say I regarded his as a first class piece A-hole! Now he’s dead on gone. Is it possible to forgive him? According to Christianity, we should forgive him just because we should, (“to forgive is divine”), by merely asserting that we forgive. Somehow, especially while he was alive, I could not pull that off (which then only contributed to various other feelings of guilt I had developed in my 20’s).
Now, consider seeing the ol’ man as fully caused to be the way he was. In fact, I know snipets of his background that suggest how he came to be as he was. In other words, he could not really help being that way. This outlook enabled me to forgive him (while still certainly not condoning what he did). Is it possible to *genuinely* forgive someone of horrible deeds by any other means?
The fully cause-and-effect, no-free-will perspective can impart substantial psychological benefits toward allieviating feelings of shame, guilt, contempt, etc. One therapist who has adopted this perspective as a cornerstone of his therapeutic outlook is Dr. Les Garwood.
(By the way, thanks for the “happy Independence Day” – made me feel good.) :)
Fred Pauser | 07/07/09 | 12:19 PM
According to Christianity, we should forgive him just because we
should, (“to forgive is divine”), by merely asserting that we forgive.
Somehow, especially while he was alive, I could not pull that off
(which then only contributed to various other feelings of guilt I had
developed in my 20’s).
One of those "Eureka!" moments came to me during a group session for women who had been abused by their alcoholic partners. Yes, I too have a history of abuse (I'm also crazy, but that's another matter).
We were having a round robin about guilt, and I admitted to still wanting the worst things possible to happen to my ex. The guilt over these feelings was overwhelming, for I too had been indoctrinated in "to forgive, Divine". What a conundrum! My ex had abused our daughters. I wasn't concerned with the abuse I suffered, but my JOB as a mother was to protect my girls, religion be damned. We escaped one night with just the clothes on our backs. I had done the right thing, and yet was still burdened with the the knowledge that I hadn't forgiven him "seventy times seven".
One of the group facilitators asked me why I had to forgive him. I couldn't think of a single verse in the Bible that would compel me to forgive. Forgiveness may be Divine, but do we have to do it? My answer now many years later is that no, we are not required to forgive ALL things. It might be nice and Godly and all that, but we are not perfect.
In other words, he could not really help being that way.
Personal responsibility. We cannot escape this reality. In other words, if a police officer stops me for speeding, there are consequences to my actions. Similarly, an abusive parent or partner must expect that he or she will lose the respect, love, and companionship of family members. Call it akin to the Mandate of Heaven.
The fully cause-and-effect, no-free-will perspective can impart
substantial psychological benefits toward allieviating feelings of
shame, guilt, contempt, etc.
Of course, because if there is no personal responsibility for our actions, how could any of us be held responsible for anything? Sorry but this concept is not part of the world that I live in. Bills must be paid, children cared for, pets fed, fuel put into my car (if I want to go anywhere), the grass cut, ad infinitum.
On a lighter note, as my experiences with therapists in the past were, shall we say, inadequate, I decided to become my own therapist and started taking psychology classes. Now that I am a therapist, the lessons of the past are ever-present. I do not charge an obscene amount for my services, in fact many of my clients are pro bono. I just can't see charging people up the wazoo when they can't possibly afford it. Ok, so I'm an impoverished therapist. My grandfather was an honest lawyer - and he never made any money either. Maybe we've decided to invest in something other than money. :)
Laura Hult | 07/08/09 | 22:03 PM
Yes, I too have a history of abuse (I'm also crazy, but that's another matter).
Having survived a history of abuse, you are potentially in a better position to be an effective therapist. As for “crazy,” aren’t we all a bit? :) To be a little more serious, I thnk most of us are more or less neurotic. But a neurosis does not not necessarily rule out an individual’s ability to develop as good an understanding of *reality* as is possible at this stage of human development.
One of the group facilitators asked me why I had to forgive him. I couldn't think of a single verse in the Bible that would compel me to forgive. Forgiveness may be Divine, but do we have to do it? My answer now many years later is that no, we are not required to forgive ALL things. It might be nice and Godly and all that, but we are not perfect.
No one *must* forgive. I certainly understand the desire to inflict pain on perpetrators so as to “teach them a lesson” – reform them, or otherwise see them prevented from further wrong doing (jailed), etc. But, as you know, in many instances perpetrators act out due to their own pain, and causes can be quite complex.
Most religions across time teach that forgiveness as desirable. When I see a common thread across cultures, it seems worth investigating. The important point seems to be to separate the hurtful acts from the actor. It is possible to NOT forgive, not condone the acts, while simultaneously forgiving the “sinner.” After all, we are all made of the same essense, and all are prone to complex causal effects that may lead us commit hurtful acts. The “divine” aspect I suppose is about the compassion that stems from realizing our core commonality. (Besides, forgiveness, as opposed to holding anger or hatred, is better for one’s health.) Again, this does not mean condoning hurtful acts.
Personal responsibility. We cannot escape this reality. In other words, if a police officer stops me for speeding, there are consequences to my actions. Similarly, an abusive parent or partner must expect that he or she will lose the respect, love, and companionship of family members. Call it akin to the Mandate of Heaven.
Agreed. There are consequences of our actions – this is a cause-and-effect universe.
Of course, because if there is no personal responsibility for our actions, how could any of us be held responsible for anything? Sorry but this concept is not part of the world that I live in. Bills must be paid, children cared for, pets fed, fuel put into my car (if I want to go anywhere), the grass cut, ad infinitum.
Yes, we must all be held personally responsible and accountable, while at the same time we are each a representative of the evolution of life, which is dynamic, which imparts each of us with a will – a will that is born of the laws of nature and is subject to those laws. It is not easy to grasp that although we are responsible for our actions, in the ultimate sense, we are not. Although this concept may seem airy and abstract, when digested it has concrete down-to-earth appllications.
On a lighter note, as my experiences with therapists in the past were, shall we say, inadequate, I decided to become my own therapist and started taking psychology classes.
Ditto my experiences with therapists. After many years of study, and experience with various types of therapists, I also sort of evolved into becoming my own therapist. It was the study of nature and evolution that pulled together aspects of the previous years of study into a holistic set of concepts that seem to have a pretty good grounding in reality.
Now that I am a therapist, the lessons of the past are ever-present. I do not charge an obscene amount for my services, in fact many of my clients are pro bono. I just can't see charging people up the wazoo when they can't possibly afford it.
Your compassion is admirable. (Not identical, but reminds me of Obama, after graduating Harvard Law School with honors, took a low paying job as community organizer. By the way, I consider Obama to be one the sanest and least neurotic people on the planet.) All the same, I believe in compensation for merit. I would hope for you that as your ability mounts, your reputation will spread, and people of means will seek you out… and you can still do some pro bono for others.
Fred Pauser | 07/10/09 | 19:36 PM
This way perhaps we can explore more options as well as discussing some of the more philosophical elements of this topic.
Gerhard Adam | 07/04/09 | 16:22 PM
How I would love to grasp the subtleties of calculus!
Me too! Math was never my strong suit.
If you only ever read one book about math in your entire life, let it be "Mathematics for the Million" by Lancelot Hogben. This is the way math should be taught in schools: not force-feeding with indigestible chunks, but enticing you to join the party with deliciously dainty morsels.
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Million-Master-Magic-Numbers/dp/039331...
Patrick Lockerby | 07/04/09 | 15:24 PM
However, reading it again after about 40 years, it struck me how it was written in a spirit of socialist optimism. Were Hogben to look at our present time, he might be like Samu, a 350,000 year old Homo skull from Hungary, who as Robert Ardrey wrote, "must by now be a most disappointed fossil".
Robert H Olley | 07/04/09 | 16:11 PM
Patrick Lockerby | 07/04/09 | 18:31 PM
It's never too late to start playing around with math. If you're still interested in math and physics, check out Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality - he takes you from Pythagoras, through calculus, all the way to quantum field theory and general relativity. It's an amazing and remarkably readable book.