What we want, whether “really” or just “want”,
is a very subjective process? Maybe even a process that is both conscious and
subconscious of our brain.
The linguistic difference, of “really” wanting
something and “just” wanting something hints at our epistemic state of mind.
What we want can be something based on emotions, an immediate necessity, a possible
means for future plans, and maybe even an indulgence. However, what we “really
want” suggests that we have put some “rational” input in deciding that we want
A and not Z. What we really want seems to be more like a plan than an impulse.
We can also interpret the topic question as an
interrogation to decide what we want as opposed to an impulse or even to make
up our mind! On a good day this would be like selecting a dish from a menu del
dia when we like two of the options but can only chose one. And on a bad day
having a choice of six dishes but none are appetising. I won’t discuss this
“indecisiveness” interpretation of the question.
Wants, and up to an extent desires, are
motivating forces to interact with our environment and certainly a key factor
for our intentions and our actions. Knowing what we want suggests that we have
a plan. Surely if wants and desires are forces to interact with our
environment, then we need to have a clear idea of what will satisfy reality and
a good knowledge about how the world functions. Even simple things in life must
reach this equilibrium of our level of knowledge and reality itself to reach a
success.
In philosophical terms, we are looking at the
question: what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for our wants to be
fulfilled? Hence, in effect what I am asking here is to replace the “really” in
the question with “necessary and sufficient conditions” for what we want. In
other words, what we really want must include the necessary and sufficient
conditions that will bring about what we want otherwise nothing is going to
happen. Surely we cannot be said to really want something unless we also want to
align in our favour the necessary and sufficient conditions that can bring
about what we want?
Let’s take as an example of a political
programme that aims to achieve wealth and prosperity but at the same time has
no provisions for alliances and international cooperation. This is a desire or
a want that fails to take into account the reality of 21st century
economics and geo politics. Even countries with untold wealth will still have
to negotiate with other countries. North Korea is a very good example of a
country whose leaders are completely divorced from reality; which is why these people
are not leaders but dictators. Compare South Korea with North Korea; South
Korea is a balanced country with the necessary and sufficient conditions
relatively lined up in their favour! Of course, knowing what we really want
does not imply nor reflect any sense of perfection or superiority.
At a personal level the necessary and sufficient
conditions still apply: the balance is to know what conditions will bring about
what we want and preparing ourselves to act accordingly. Although our personal
knowledge about the situation is key, since this helps us to know when to act
and how tact, success is not just a matter for us. The world is a big place and
we are not the only people interacting with it, thus a lot depends on the
people around us.
The second issue with our mindset about what we
want is that we might be wrong. Knowing what we want and knowing what we want
but we are wrong are two different things. There are many reasons why we could
be wrong, some reasons are legitimate and some just simply ignorance about the
facts. But any anomalies regarding what people say they want and what they do
might even alert us to the honesty, naivety, or integrity of that person.
Hence, what someone wants and what someone does
might enhance or diminish the meaning of “really” in the question. The wider
the discrepancy the more cautious we have to be about any statements of fact
professed by that person. At first blush we might think of applying this test
to politicians and advertisers, but this need not be the case. In teaching, for
example, we seek to check whether our students have understood a point; and in
the case of teaching a language this could be the meaning of a word or text
etc.
When a student tries to explain or use a
particular aspect of a lesson, rather than memorise the lesson, we know what
they really want to say. We know we have no cause to question their integrity, so
this leaves us with their state of mind. In this case if how they use the
lesson reflects what they were supposed to have learnt, then we can claim that
they have learnt the lesson: given that the only variable was their state of
mind. Whether people remember the lesson the following morning is a different
matter. But even when a student forgets something, the student who has learnt
the lesson will know that they forgot.
In effect what people really want and what they
really do can tell us a lot about people, their intentions and state of their
knowledge. We can question the honesty and integrity of the person and even
ascertain whether they are mistaken or just confused. However, there is a
little problem when looking at what people say they want to ascertain what they
really want: how do we know that we are not wrong about our assessment of the
situation?
Best Lawrence
Also:
from Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting at 6:30pm: What do we really want? + News https://www.philomadrid.com/2019/03/from-lawrence-sunday-philomadrid_21.html
from Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting at 6:30pm: What do we really want? + News https://www.philomadrid.com/2019/03/from-lawrence-sunday-philomadrid_21.html
21st March 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment