Recently, I've been spending some time playing with and thinking about my baby cousin Raphaëlle, who is a little bit over a year old. One thing I noticed is that her attention jumps from one thing to another seemingly without necessarily going back to some main process that organizes all the other subprocesses.
For example, you might go pick a flower with her to distract her from her - at times inexplicable - crying. She'll pick the flower, smell it, and focus all her attention on it before deciding that the texture of the floor suddenly got really interesting, etc. She doesn't really know why she picked a tennis racket up or decided to put her hand in cold water.
In contrast, we seem to think that underlying our choices to give attention and importance to certain things is some kind of rational system that weighs all options and then somehow leads to a decision about what course of action makes most sense. I run in the mornings sometimes because running is good for me, and it's relaxing, etc etc. I chose the burger because I haven't had a burger in a while and the pizza here is not that good.
I think that this framework - in the way we think about it - is a complete myth. Rather than some kind of optimizing calculus, what drives our behavior seems to be mainly habit - under one guise or another - and some sort of propensity to rely on certain particular elements in particular situations. Very often, we do the things we do then reconstruct a rationale for it according to this mythical system.
In some sense, then, Raphaëlle's current mode of being is more honest, more authentic than ours insofar as it doesn't posit a nonexistent underlying logic and doesn't really worry about its own groundlessness.
Two lines of thought that seem worth pursuing from here are:
1. What's the source of our being and thinking of our lives in this way? I think it's definitely reinforced by some ideas coming out of the enlightenment (like the conviction that we can subject everything, including ourselves, to reason), but it seems like it's also natural for us to think that we have the freedom to orient ourselves and that the way we do orient ourselves comes from our choices. I can't know because I can't really get out of my time or myself, and the distinction between nature and culture is artificial in many respects, but even after blurring that distinctions we're left with a lot of unanswered questions.
2. It's important to not fall into another extreme where we think every decision we make is completely reliant on factors that have nothing to do with our conscious selves, and where even important - say - moral choices lose their whole meaning because choosing becomes as significant as picking a number out of a hat. That is to say that this rational system is a myth but it is not entirely unfounded. How do you theorize our mode of being from the particular angle I'm tackling without falling into (A) the mythology of omnipotent, omniscient reason on one side or (B) a smug deconstructionism where all that matters is to show that we have no idea what we're doing so we can show that we're smarter than those who think they know what they're doing?
For example, you might go pick a flower with her to distract her from her - at times inexplicable - crying. She'll pick the flower, smell it, and focus all her attention on it before deciding that the texture of the floor suddenly got really interesting, etc. She doesn't really know why she picked a tennis racket up or decided to put her hand in cold water.
In contrast, we seem to think that underlying our choices to give attention and importance to certain things is some kind of rational system that weighs all options and then somehow leads to a decision about what course of action makes most sense. I run in the mornings sometimes because running is good for me, and it's relaxing, etc etc. I chose the burger because I haven't had a burger in a while and the pizza here is not that good.
I think that this framework - in the way we think about it - is a complete myth. Rather than some kind of optimizing calculus, what drives our behavior seems to be mainly habit - under one guise or another - and some sort of propensity to rely on certain particular elements in particular situations. Very often, we do the things we do then reconstruct a rationale for it according to this mythical system.
In some sense, then, Raphaëlle's current mode of being is more honest, more authentic than ours insofar as it doesn't posit a nonexistent underlying logic and doesn't really worry about its own groundlessness.
Two lines of thought that seem worth pursuing from here are:
1. What's the source of our being and thinking of our lives in this way? I think it's definitely reinforced by some ideas coming out of the enlightenment (like the conviction that we can subject everything, including ourselves, to reason), but it seems like it's also natural for us to think that we have the freedom to orient ourselves and that the way we do orient ourselves comes from our choices. I can't know because I can't really get out of my time or myself, and the distinction between nature and culture is artificial in many respects, but even after blurring that distinctions we're left with a lot of unanswered questions.
2. It's important to not fall into another extreme where we think every decision we make is completely reliant on factors that have nothing to do with our conscious selves, and where even important - say - moral choices lose their whole meaning because choosing becomes as significant as picking a number out of a hat. That is to say that this rational system is a myth but it is not entirely unfounded. How do you theorize our mode of being from the particular angle I'm tackling without falling into (A) the mythology of omnipotent, omniscient reason on one side or (B) a smug deconstructionism where all that matters is to show that we have no idea what we're doing so we can show that we're smarter than those who think they know what they're doing?
Great post. This is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI believe Raphaelle is discovering the world. Also, if you observe around fifty six or seven year olds playing sports, you'll reconsider calling the framework a myth. As for your last points, just because the decision is reliant on factors doesn't mean there's an absence of free will.
Thank you!
ReplyDeleteIt's true that sports is a good challenge to what I am offering because kids are orienting themselves with a clear coherent goal in mind. But I'm not sure if they necessarily subscribe to the idea that it makes sense within a larger framework..
I've been thinking about free will for a while but I hadn't realized how this was connected. Thanks again for the comment.
I think a lot of our actions and choices come from underlying preferences which are mostly innate and not as a result of habit. Or at least at Raphaelle's age. She is simply doing what she feels and what she feels is presumably what intrigues her and what intrigues her is most likely what she is predisposed to prefer which you could say originates in her genes and DNA. I don't know if this line of reasoning is applicable to such young children because I obviously don't remember being that age nor can I say for certain that children act on this same line of processes. Also there's the play between nature vs nurture so we cannot attribute her preferences fully to nature. Having said that, she is only 1 year old so she has had less exposure to nurture than you or an older person.
ReplyDelete