As an opening post, I think its fitting that I start by considering the nature of our own selves as individuals. After all, in order to engage with truth, goodness, and beauty we must, ourselves, commit whatever mental, spiritual, and physical resources that are available in support of our effort. The purpose of this post is not to consider each of these resources in depth – its enough now simply to say that the field of philosophy focuses on reason, logic, sense perception and knowledge; the field of theology considers the spirit, soul, and our relationship with God; and the natural sciences highlight the function of our physical bodies. My question for now is simply, what is the fundamental motivation for living? What makes us put forward any effort to engage with the multitude of experiences we are impacted by on a daily basis? Greek philosopher Aristotle said that every action and pursuit is done in order to acquire the chief “good,” this chief good being desired for its own sake.[1] English philosopher John Locke took a different approach in stating that our actions, instead of being motivated by a desire for the good for its own sake, are rather spurred on by an uneasiness we feel when we lack the good.[2] In yet another approach, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that all actions are undertaken to create and engage with, by means of willful choice, universal law; reason within man compelling him to consider the principles behind his actions as establishing law for all other persons to follow.[3] Something to note regarding all three of these proposed answers, however, is that each makes the assumption that through a given experience, motivation is supplied. Is a “good” desired? Is unease felt? Does reason demand engagement and participation with law? In each of these cases, the experiences of desire, unease, and obligation do not contain in themselves any compulsory power to cause action on the part of any person. Instead, these experiences seem to rely for their satisfaction on a pre-existing inclination on our part to engage with the world and do something about them.
Consider, for example, if a box of donuts were set in front of you (this example is for all the sweet tooths out there). Desire to devour each donut and reap sugary delights, no matter how strong, will not of itself set your body in motion. The thought that someone can be “swept up” into action by desire alone is really very misleading. Desire, while influencing our actions, always requires a “co-laboring” on our part; we must make a conscious decision to engage with the desire and actively bring it to fulfillment. The same is true of unease and the sense of obligation. When having these experiences, we are at once made aware that something on our part must be done in order to address them; they will not work themselves out and address themselves of their own accord. So the question is, what is it, then, that serves as the foundational principle for action?
My answer is that the principle that determines action is found in our nature as individuals. As individuals, we have a fundamental drive towards willful action that causes us to engage with the world around us. The reason for my answer as stated above is that, every experience that we say is of a motivational kind always stands in the same relation to the principle of action. Every motivational experience must be acted upon; we never come across an experience that has the power to directly cause conscious action on our part without our willing participation. This is just the same observation as was made in our example of the box of donuts. Furthermore, because all experience involves some perceived impact upon ourselves by things thought to be external to ourselves, it follows that, if no experience can directly cause action, then nothing thought to be outside of us can cause action. The drive to act, then, can only be found within the nature of our own selves.
If the power to act is contained within our own nature and is not governed by our experiences, then how is it that experiences can influence it? What guides us in choosing why to act and what to pursue? The power to act, being a feature of our nature as individuals, can only be directly governed by our individual natures. Because of this, the question of why we act and what we pursue must be answered by looking into our natural inclinations. If we are looking for a general principal for all of our actions, we will have to put aside specific experiences and goals and look instead for some common element or elements that these have that would appeal to our inclinations. It is at this point that we can properly insert the general motivations for action proposed by Aristotle, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant.
I’ll continue this investigation in a later post as this one has already become quite long! But what do you think? For each of my posts, if there is anything additional you would like to address or raise as a subject for conversation or future posts, feel free to send me an email at share@conversationandtheoutdoorsbooks.com.
Blessings,
- Isaac
[1] Aristotle. Aristotle (Vol 8). Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman, and Philip W. Goetz. Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003, 339.
[2] Locke, John. Locke Berkeley Hume (Vol 33). Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman, and Philip W. Goetz. Great Books of the Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003, 177
[3] Kant, Immanuel. Classics of Philosophy: Volume II Modern and Contemporary. Edited by Louis P. Pojman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 842-843