Argument from Desire

[JDaniel]

Lots of people have desires that do not correspond to real objects that satisfy the desire. You could have a desire to fly like Superman or Peter Pan, or for there to be purple cows.

We’re not talking about the desires of children. Sooner or later, we become adults and our desires become adult-like.

We can imagine such a thing in our minds, but there are not real objects of satisfaction for these. However, these are not innate and universal desires.

Of course not. We’re not kids.

And… of course if you end up in Hell, you won’t ever experience satisfaction for your desire. Hmmm… I wonder if you’ll have desire in hell still? That seems to make sense…

Isn’t that part of what Hell is? The constant desire for the Beatific Vision? Well, they’ve been warned. What else can we do, my friend?

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Isn’t that part of what Hell is? The constant desire for the Beatific Vision? Well, they’ve been warned. What else can we do, my friend?

God bless,
jd

But doesn’t the existence of Hell disprove the argument? That desire will never be satiated.

 

[JDaniel]

The problem is that you cannot verify premise b. There may very will be a dog one day who isn’t mortal (interestingly, it’s also unfalsifiable), thus providing a counterexample.

Yes. And, one day pigs may fly. but, we can’t worry about every “maybe.” Maybe everything will be gold. Maybe banks will open their doors and give money away.

That is not a defeater for the argument.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That’s not unreasonable. It may very well happen that our desire for eternal happiness is not fulfilled. There’s nothing illogical or contradictory about that at all.

But, Awatkins, is that the point of the syllogism? To our knowledge, we don’t know. So, until someone comes back from the dead and shows us otherwise, that may continue to be the most desired object.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Here are is possible response:

Is it not true that we are oriented toward an economy of unlimited wants? Aren’t the animals never satiated? But no eternal life and eternal happiness exists to correspond to their desires.

Windfish:

Good point. But, it seems to me that this desire has been perennial - forever. What you’re talking about is here and now - and, still the desire is present amongst most people. Don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I desire to go instanteously to the moon and back in less than a second, surviving the journey.

Huh? Look at that. My desire to see the moon and look, ever so briefly, upon the Earth, was not fulfilled.

So how do we know that every desire corresponds to a something that will satiate it? Clearly the thing I want that will get me to the moon as I described does not exist.

Well, not yet at least. It did on Star Trek! But, aren’t most sane people’s sane desires achievable?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But doesn’t the existence of Hell disprove the argument? That desire will never be satiated.

No. It merely has to be “objectify-able.” Not necessarily absolutely achievable. We must be able to dematerialize it and wish for it. At least that’s the way I read the syllogism.

God bless,
jd

 

[Windfish]

Windfish:

Good point. But, it seems to me that this desire has been perennial - forever. **What you’re talking about is here and now **- and, still the desire is present amongst most people. Don’t you think?

God bless,
jd

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure what you mean.

Take a look at this video: youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI It addresses, somewhat, the argument from desire, and it also addresses my response about animals. What do you think about his handling of it?

 

[awatkins69]

But, Awatkins, is that the point of the syllogism? To our knowledge, we don’t know. So, until someone comes back from the dead and shows us otherwise, that may continue to be the most desired object.

God bless,
jd

Exactly. We don’t know unless someone comes back from the dead. So we can’t verify our claim that all innate desires correspond to a real object that can satisfy those desires. Thus, our claim is only highly plausible, as opposed to being certain.

 

[JDaniel]

Exactly. We don’t know unless someone comes back from the dead. So we can’t verify our claim that all innate desires correspond to a real object that can satisfy those desires. Thus, our claim is only highly plausible, as opposed to being certain.

Ahh. Good point! I concede, for now.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Exactly. We don’t know unless someone comes back from the dead. So we can’t verify our claim that all innate desires correspond to a real object that can satisfy those desires. Thus, our claim is only highly plausible, as opposed to being certain.

A:

My “concession” is hereby and hence forward removed and remanded to the trash bin! The object of desire merely has to be “objectifyable” not “achievable.” (I think I might have asserted “achievable” in another post. That was incorrect. Sorry for any confustion.)

God bless and keep thinking,
jd

 

[reggieM]

Right, I think you have to identify the desire, and that is the “root”, not the specifics.

So, it’s not like saying:

“I desire a chocolate chip ice cream cone with 38 red, green and orange sprinkles”.

Then you get one with only 37 sprinkles and you’re not satisfied.

No, it’s really the root. In this case, you desire that your hunger for food be satisfied. Plus, you have a desire for a taste sensation.

Why do you desire that?

Now we move along the hierarchy of values … from good, to better, to best. From the less perfect to the more perfect.

“I want the sensation of flavor and my hunger filled for the happiness it brings”.

Therefore – if I give you “this” (even greater) ice cream cone instead, your hunger will be more fulfilled and your joy greater due to the incredibly better flavor.

Now, you won’t even want your first choice. So, it’s not the specific.

“I want to go to the moon and back”.

Why? What is the root of that desire?

Perhaps sensation, excitement, adventure, learning.

All of those desires correspond with objects that fulfill them.

What if you had got greater fulfillment by something other than going to the moon?
What if you discovered that the cost (pain, hardship) of going to the moon was higher than the value you got?

“Ok, I want to go to the moon so that it’s entirely pleasurable and not at all painful and with no cost”.

The root desires? Freedom, pleasure of sensation, escape …

Again, all of those correspond with some real objects.

We have desires (at the root) and every one corresponds with something.

We don’t have the desire XYZ which has zero real objects that it corresponds with.

 

[reggieM]

That’s not unreasonable. It may very well happen that our desire for eternal happiness is not fulfilled. There’s nothing illogical or contradictory about that at all.

I might be wrong, but I think the argument is a bit different.

Our desire for eternal happiness is the same as our desire for happiness.

But the argument is saying that “the desire for happiness corresponds with a real object”.

In other words, we know what happiness is (it’s universal) and we know of objects that bring us happiness. The satisfaction we receive is of various quality on a scale of fulfillment. Ultimately, we retain a longing for happiness, even though we know of things that can partially satisfy it.

What we never see is a human desire (at the root, not in the specifics) which has absolutely nothing in the real world that can satisfy it.

How about “the desire for eternal youth”?

Ok, it doesn’t seem possible to fulfill that. But what is at the root? The desire to wear diapers? The desire to make stupid mistakes?

No, it’s a desire for innocence, freedom, health, a carefree attitude, etc.

All of those desires correspond with real objects that can satisfy them.

Now the only remaining problem I’m having is taking it to the next point.

How do we know that there are real objects, not on earth or in time, that satisfy these desires?

I believe that’s an inferrence.

How about this?

Since, these desires are universal in human nature (the word “innate” is important).
and
Since these desires are never fulfilled completely, but only partially …
Therefore,
It’s resonable to conclude that these desires relate to something beyond this world.

 

[vardaquinn]

Take a look at this video: youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI It addresses, somewhat, the argument from desire, and it also addresses my response about animals. What do you think about his handling of it?

I like Fr. Robert Barron very much… he’s very good. I think he handles the argument very well, especially in the understanding I’m getting from it recently.

 

[awatkins69]

Since, these desires are universal in human nature (the word “innate” is important).
and
Since these desires are never fulfilled completely, but only partially …
Therefore,
It’s resonable to conclude that these desires relate to something beyond this world.

That’s another way of putting it and I think it’s valid.

 

[awatkins69]

A:

My “concession” is hereby and hence forward removed and remanded to the trash bin! The object of desire merely has to be “objectifyable” not “achievable.” (I think I might have asserted “achievable” in another post. That was incorrect. Sorry for any confustion.)

God bless and keep thinking,
jd

Hey jd. To be honest, I’m not sure what you mean. To make sure we don’t get off track, let’s remember: The first premise says that every innate desire corresponds to some real object which can actually fulfill it.

My point is that this premise cannot be fully verified, since we can’t be sure that there is a real object outside of this universe which satisfies our innate desire for eternal happiness. The object of this innate desire could very well not exist, and we can’t prove it without going to some other argument. However, the premise is still very plausible, since we are sure that for every other innate desire there is some real object that actually satisfies it.

 

[JDaniel]

First of all, Reggie, I must say that your analyses, in the last two posts, was superb. And, I believe that it is no doubt that the burning desire comes from the desire’s root.

Take, for instance, the happiness one derives from loving your girlfriend or wife. That happiness is indescribable and you want it to last forever. It is objectifyable. It’s the happiness I feel when I’m near her.

Now, that’s not an “object,” in the sense that it is an earthly object. But, it is an object of the mind. It is an “objectifying.” And, the relation of me with my wife, for example, is a mental object.

Each snapshot we store is a photograph of a real object or event, which is also an object. “Object” here is not restricted to something like an exigency with mass. It may well be an aggregate of events, that is objectified by our minds. So, I don’t think it is meant to be literally taken as an extant object.

Does that make sense?

God bless,
jd

 

[awatkins69]

Hey jd. I know what you mean by object. I agree with your definitions. What I don’t agree with is that we can be sure that object actually exists to fulfill our innate desire. Best.

 

[JDaniel]

Hey jd. To be honest, I’m not sure what you mean. To make sure we don’t get off track, let’s remember: The first premise says that every innate desire corresponds to some real object which can actually fulfill it.

My point is that this premise cannot be fully verified, since we can’t be sure that there is a real object outside of this universe which satisfies our innate desire for eternal happiness. The object of this innate desire could very well not exist, and we can’t prove it without going to some other argument. However, the premise is still very plausible, since we are sure that for every other innate desire there is some real object that actually satisfies it.

AW:

It is like the moral saying, “Don’t objectify women.” There are several different types of objects, in this world. The first is the per se object: a 300 lb meteorite worth $150,000.00, for example. (Which I have seen and would make me very happy.) The second, is that which our minds do to non-objects, that objectifies them; such as, objectifying swimming on a hot summer day. And, the third, which is the objectifying of a love relationship. I’m sure there are more. Do I make sense?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hey jd. I know what you mean by object. I agree with your definitions. What I don’t agree with is that we can be sure that object actually exists to fulfill our innate desire. Best.

AW:

Well, but if we can’t, why would it be desired? We’re not going to desire what we don’t have any knowledge of, are we?

God bless,
jd