|
|
PhiloMadrid - Pub Philosophy Meetings in Madrid
28 November 2019
From Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting at 6:30pm: Expectations(2) + NEWS
20 November 2019
From Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting at 6:30pm: Expectations + NEWS
|
Expectations
Expectations
There are two aspects to expectations: (1) what a reasonable
or rational person would reasonably and rationally expect to happen. (2) What a
person subjectively expects to happen based on experience, reason or randomly
desires.
What is reasonable or rational might itself be subjective. The
legal idea of what is reasonable (English common law) includes the idea that
the reasonable person should consider how a prudent person would act: needless
to say the subject is more complex than that. Moreover, what is prudent depends
on the context of the situation. From our perspective the subjective factor
maybe said to exist in the context aspect of what is reasonable. Does the
context determine what is reasonable or does the person come to the context as a
ready-made moral prudent person? A classical example is: would it be prudent
and, therefore, reasonable for a person to collaborate with the commandant of a
concentration camp to save one’s life? Indeed, how far can we argue that
collaborating with the enemy is reasonable? In any event are situations of expectation
always subjective since we cannot put ourselves into the actor’s context since
this is by definition always subjective?
However, compare the legal doctrine of acting reasonably and
strict or absolute liability: in a strict liability case the actor need not
have the intention (mens rea) to be strictly liable for the act (actus reus). Each jurisdiction has its own set of strict
liability “criminal” acts such as selling products under weight, rape of
sex.ual acts with someone under the age of consent, and so on. In other words,
what is reasonable is not exactly something that we can easily engage in
without problems.
There is also a difference between expectations, which
strongly suggest that a certain context might exist in the future, for example
a job interview, and finding one’s self in a context which is not anticipated
and unreasonable to anticipate; e.g. trying to survive in a concentration camp.
Maybe the Concentration camp dilemma is answered by such legal examples as cannibalism
at sea and obeying orders.
A legal pointer might be the celebrated cannibalism-at-sea
case of “R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC is a leading English
criminal case which established a precedent throughout the common law world
that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder” (Wikipedia). At the
other extreme we have the defence of “obeying orders” also known as the, “Nuremberg
Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defence for war
crimes, although it might be a mitigating factor that could influence a
sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.” (Wikipedia)
Fortunately we do not have to decide on the legal aspects of
expectations, but what is clear is that expectations might not be as innocent
looking as we might imagine: we do, however, ought to concern ourselves with
the ethical and moral issues that arise from trying to be reasonable including
acting reasonable in the legal sense.
What is rational depends once again on the context. In
economics we find the idea of the person (rational agent) maximising one’s satisfaction
or utility when choosing to buy something or do something. The issue with this
definition is that someone might forego maximising one’s present satisfaction today
in the expectations that such satisfaction might be stronger in the future. For
example, I can buy a second hand sports car today or wait two months for a new sports
car.
In psychology and behaviourism we have the principle of Delayed
gratification and in economics we have time preference or time discounting
(search terms on the internet). Sure one
can mathematically account in economics for time discounting, but I submit that
in both cases we still face the issues of what is reasonable and what is pure
subjective fantasy. In psychology we might defer trying to partner we someone
we know in the hope that we might meet someone even better or at least someone
who meets our expectations.
In philosophy we find the idea of rationality to include following
valid argument based on logical arguments. Given that there are various forms
of logic, from deductive reasoning, inductive logic, statistical analysis and fuzzy
logic, we might fail to apply the right logic methodology given the context. A
specific issue for us is what is the right logic to apply when acting on our
expectations, maybe inductive or statistical logic, and what logic to apply to
make value judgments. Whilst we accept that a general leading an army to get
rid of an invader might use the most effective weapons, but are the general’s
expectations curtailed by considering unnecessary deaths to this army and the
enemy?
What we expect, however, is different from what will
actually happen and what can happen. What happens in the future is not
necessarily caused by what we expect. This is not to say that our expectations
might not lead us to act in such a way that at the end of the process what
happens is what we expect. Students might expect to pass an exam and thus work
harder at trying to pass the exam. But we also know what we can learn better by
virtue of being fully motivated and committed. Thus what is causing us to be
better learners: our expectations or our motivation? In any event, we usually
fail to consider that our actions are a legitimate link in the causal chain of
events; e.g. Heisenberg principle and maybe even the Pygmalion effect.
At the same time our expectations might fall foul to our
lack or absence of relevant information, assumptions and the actions of others
beyond our control. Although we accept that there isn’t an evil deceiver of the
Cartesian kind, it does not mean that there aren’t people who wish us ill or
will do us ill inadvertently. Indeed this is a real issue in inductive logic
and statistical analysis. Bias and absence of relevant information can cause
errors and miscalculations in our analysis.
By identifying the issues with what is reasonable, rational
and moral will help us anticipate the pitfalls we might encounter in our
legitimate deliberations about our future encounters.
In effect expectations have no causal link with reality. However,
expectations are envisions of how our world will be like and how it will affect
us. Another aspect of expectations is that our expectations are always in a
context: indeed what would it be like to have expectations outside a given
context? We might call these expectations a strong form of expectations. In
other words, expectations that affect us directly and certainly expectations we
have been working on to bring about or cause.
Soft expectations are events we would consider to be normal
in our life, but do not have the status of strong expectations. For example, if
we leave for the office at 8am we expect the traffic to be busy and the public
transport packed with commuters. If we don’t find the metro full of people or
the roads full of cars we might be surprised and wonder whether we missed
something such as a public holiday or the countdown to Armageddon. These sorts
of expectations are part of our daily life and if we didn’t have such
reasonable regularity in our life we wouldn’t be able to function in a
civilized society. Indeed that’s one of the main advantages of living in a
civilized society: a certain degree regularity and stability, until that is
someone or something make a mess of everything for us.
Whilst it is reasonable and rational to have a certain
degree of expectations, as I have argued, not all expectations are made
equally. There is no arguments or objection that the future is wild and
uncertain, but for us what matters is how reasonable and rational are our
expectations? And the issue of expectations is, therefore, a matter of
epistemology first and certainly not a metaphysical problem only.
Best Lawrence
EXPECTATIONS Essay by Mariona
EXPECTATIONS
Essay
by Mariona
When I was a kid I used to
believe that when you expect something, it would happen. According to the
psychologist Jean Piaget, children think that their thoughts or actions have a
direct effect on the world. This is due to the fact that they do not
differentiate the world around them and their subjective idea of it. For
example, I used to think that if I was mad at someone, something bad would
happen to him or her. When we continue
to grow up, we still receive stimuli that try to convince us that we can
‘control’ the world around us. I have heard a thousand times expressions like “if
you are positive you will attract good things’’. It is difficult for us to
accept that expecting something does not magically make it happen. Nevertheless,
the expectations we had when we were young differ from the ones we currently have.
The first type are what Piaget names ‘magical thinking’, the second ones are
supported by good reasons to believe so, even probabilities. We can expect snow
tomorrow, but we are not going to believe this expectation unless we have
strong evidence for it. Otherwise, there would be disappointment.
I ask myself at this point: is
our brain rational enough to avoid disappointments? If we rely on ‘magical
thinking’ we are prone to get disappointed, as the probability that that event
occurs is very low (or inexistent), and we do not have strong evidence that it
will take place. In my opinion, the
answer is no. I have experienced many disappointments in my life: at a personal
(friendships, i.e.), inner-self, academic and family levels. When I analyse
each of them and try to find the origin of these, it is always me expecting too
much of the different situations. Therefore, no, our brain does not have enough
rationality to make us not believe some of the expectations we have and avoid
disappointments. Maybe ‘magical thinking’ is not something that belongs to our
first years alive, but we still turn to.
Expectations is a topic I talk
about on a daily basis with the people around me. Through these past years I
have realized that I have the same conversations with everyone: “I give too
much to people, and they don’t respond the same way”, “I expected more of
him/her”, “maybe I have too high standards, I should lower them”... These
expectations appear in friendships or romantic relationships mostly. I assume
this is due to the fact that we young people are more worried about these two
aspects of our lives. Many times, I ask these people the same question: “have
you told this person how you feel about it?”. Spoiler: the answer is usually
no. The expectations we have of people is a deeper issue than expecting snow
tomorrow. In the end, expectations are predictions. We predict a certain event
because of different reasons: mere probabilities, because of how we acted
ourselves, strong evidence, previous behaviours... But when dealing with other
human beings, the variables are much more complex and changeable. Human
interactions are normally what concern us the most because we are not able to
predict them nor control them. Another
aspect to take into account, specifically about showing love or affection is
subjectivism. We personally show love and affection in different ways. I learnt
recently that there are different types of love language profiles: words of
affection, physical touch, quality time, acts of service and receiving gifts.
When we say, ‘I feel I give more than I receive in this relationship’
(relationship= any kind of human relationship), the problem might be that the
two (or even more) people have two different profiles. Personally, I think we
should keep in mind that each person has a different way to prove their
feelings for someone. Maybe the solution for disappointments is not to lower
our expectations, but rationalize them. Maybe the answer is simply communication,
telling people what we expect from them. Most of the time we do not realize how people want us to
act, how can we expect them to know how we want them to?
At this point, it seems like we
went back to the “when you expect something, it will happen”. In the world of
human interactions and expectations it is not as simple as communicating
something and immediately seeing a change (or seeing a change at all). When
communicating our wishes, the expectation is higher, thus the disappointment
will be bigger. We enter a loop which we cannot escape.
In order to conclude my insights
on expectations, I would like to quote Stephen Hawking: “my expectations were
reduced to zero when I was 21. Everything since then has been a bonus”.
Mariona
14 November 2019
From Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting at 6:30pm: Success
|
|
Success
Success
We discussed “what is success?” in 2015* and reading my
essay again there is very little I would like to change. I still accept that
there are two types of successes: (1) self set objectives and criteria to
achieve such objectives and (2) socially set objectives and their criteria for
success. And more importantly socially
set criteria are open to abuse and exploitation of people.
In this essay I want to briefly discuss three issues: how
can assumptions we make in life affect our success? How does cheating affect
success? And is success an amoral phenomenon?
There is no doubt that assumptions play a very important and
key role in our lives. We start making assumptions from the minute we wake up
till the time we go to sleep. What matters for our discussion are the
assumptions we make in the context of our success. Unjustified self confidence,
arrogance and hubris are mind sets and behaviours many people believe won’t
affect their chances of success.
Indeed, one of the most important assumptions is the epistemological
trap that is: if we are confident, and maybe even know, what it takes to
achieve certain goals then we can achieve our objective unless some calamity
befalls us.
Firstly we might think we know what it takes to achieve our
objectives but maybe our knowledge is out of date, never mind misrepresenting
reality. And more importantly, others might thwart our efforts either by
accident or design. We should never underestimate the ability of others to
thwart our efforts.
Cheating by us and others affect us in a number of ways. As
I said in my previous essay, cheating is a decisive factor in the outcome of a
success or not. One of the earliest instances of cheating in our lives is at
school and university during exam time. I would argue that one of the problems
with this form of cheating is that the educational system is not really geared
at teaching how to learn but rather instructing to remember. This adds pressure
on students to remember for the short term, but there are many reasons why
someone might have issues remembering something in the short term such as an
illness, diet, stress and so on.
Memory per se is not a measure of what we know. Knowing that
we know is a more powerful state of mind than an ability to remember. Knowing
that we know means that we have the ability and motivation to remind ourselves
what we know and we know what it is that we know. Remembering, if you like, is
just a memory of the syntax, maybe even semantics, of the knowledge in
question. Knowing the said knowledge means ability to apply correctly said
knowledge in the correct context.
Thus one of the motivations to cheat is that our success is dependent
on conditions in a context that lend themselves to cheating. Basically, the
system itself might lead us to cheat. But cheating to pass an exam or a meeting
or even a sport does not necessarily mean one is proficient in that activity. Indeed,
there are some subjects that one can cheat as much as one likes to “succeed”
but one can never bluff one’s way to demonstrate one’s knowledge. Learning a
second language is a very strong example of this point; people will just know
whether you know the target language or not. Skiing and mountaineering might be
relevant sports.
But in general cheating by others distorts the standards and
criteria for success for everyone else. Those who do not cheat will be at a
disadvantage because the information they have for success is based on a
falsity: i.e. the epistemological trap I mentioned above.
My third and final point is the question of whether success
is an amoral activity or phenomenon. If one cheats at exams and not discovered then
one has achieved one’s objectives i.e. pass the exam. Sure, we might say that it
is immoral and unethical behaviour which of course it is. But with a little
help from the system the object was to pass the exam and not to be a moral
person. We assumed that sitting for an exam would also elicit a moral behaviour.
By the same token we might want to collect money for the poor and people contributed
enough money to achieve our objective and hence our success. Sure, we might
legitimately argue that this is a moral activity. But the issue is that the
criteria (achieve objective = success) of success can apply to any objective
whether it is good, bad or indifferent.
Does this mean that one’s success is nothing more than just
a functional process of setting objectives and achieving them? Does success
mean that passing exams or winning an Oscar is no more special than ordering a hamburger
with chips?
*What is success?
Best Lawrence
tel: 606081813
philomadrid@gmail.com
Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com.es/ OR
PhiloMadrid.com
MeetUp https://www.meetup.com/PhiloMadrid-philosophy-group/
Gran Clavel
(Café-Bar): Gran vía 11, esquina C/ Clavel, 28013—Madrid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)