The Fundamental Forces of the Human Mind

Introduction

This essay grew out of a consideration of the senses of reason, ethics, and aesthetics and their relationship to one another. I owe the seeds of this concept to Dr. William Davis, my philosophy professor. Davis is a moral sense theorist, meaning he believes that right and wrong are not based on reason or universal utility but rather on a authoritative moral sense that exists in every person. In explaining this, he used the aesthetic sense as an example of another sense that exists in every person, separate from reason. I am not a moral sense theorist, but I do believe the moral sense exists. My objection is the ascription of ultimate moral authority to that sense. I believe it is a guide to right and wrong, but it does not define them.

As I thought about reason, ethics, and aesthetics, I realized that they act independently of one another but in some cases they act on the same issue, either in concert or in conflict with one another. There is no single root cause that explains the whole array of human desires and actions. This struck me as being analogous to the fundamental forces of physics. There are four recognized fundamental forces in physics: the strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the gravitational force.

The Six Fundamental Forces

After noticing the analogy between the fundamental forces and the root motivations of the human mind, I considered what other motivations effect human decisions. By considering what motivates humans and on what grounds one can appeal to people, I recognized six fundamental motivations which I shall call the fundamental forces of the human mind. They are reason, conscience, self-love, human love, divine love, and the aesthetic sense. These six forces certainly influence one another, so they are not wholly separate, but they are distinct.

Reason is one of the strongest forces, and it operates on many different levels. It is a fundamental part of the smallest decisions we make and is often used unconsciously. It is a necessary part of carrying out almost every decision, no matter what motivations led to that decision to begin with. If you are hungry and out of self-love you decide you will eat a sandwich, you must use reason to guide you along the steps to make a sandwich. Reason at its most basic levels also limits the range of things we consider using our other motivations. If you knew you did not have any bread, you would not have decided to make a sandwich. You would never decide to make a roast unicorn and provolone sandwich because it is irrational to eat something that does not exist. When deciding what to do on your day off, you would not even consider going to Mars. On less trivial levels, we are attracted to things that “make sense.” Kant built his entire ethical theory on the basis of acting rationally and consistently.

The conscience is the moral sense. It tells us what we should and should not do. As I mentioned earlier, it does not create right and wrong, but it is a very reliable guide. In fact, in the absence of a very strong reason to ignore it (a direct command from God, e.g.), it is probably wrong to do so. It often act to tell us which impulses from the other forces should be followed and which should be ignored.

Self-love is a universal motivation and is never violated. Altruism does not exist. Acting in one's own self-interest is not wrong; it is a basic fact of human behavior. Certainly, people do act in ways that are harmful to themselves; however, this is due to a misunderstanding of the facts of a situation or an error in reason, not because of a desire to do ultimate harm to oneself. A couple of factors relating to this subject do deserve mention. The temporal length of perspective is a significant factor in what decision a person will make. What is best for a person for the next five minutes, for the next two weeks, for the next ten years, and for the rest of eternity may all be different things. Another factor is that people have to make judgments based on incomplete information about an uncertain future. If you knew that you were going to be bitten by a shark, you would not go swimming in the ocean. If you knew that you were going to win the lottery, you would buy a ticket. It is also important to note that Christianity does not condemn acting in one's self-interest; it assumes it. Many of Jesus' parables are calls to prudence, to act in one's own eternal best interest. I will not belabor this point any further, as it may the topic of a future essay. As a final note concerning self-love, it includes a number of motivating factors: avoidance of eternal punishment, gain for eternal reward, preservation of financial resources, enjoyment of pleasure, avoidance of pain, etc.

Human love as a motivation includes all those positive feelings people share with one another. It may in fact be a by-product of self-love due to the pleasure gained from human interaction, but this connection is so deeply-rooted that acting in the interest of human love is often instinctual; thus it usually acts as an independent motivation. I use human love to include friendship, romantic love, protective love, familial love, and charity. I do not intend to redo what C. S. Lewis has already done, so I will leave it at that.

By divine love I mean the love and devotion of humans toward God. This is certainly connected to God's love for humans; but since I am considering human motivations, I am looking at the love that exists in the human mind. This includes adoration, fear, awe, worship, and the experience of something greater than oneself. The various religions of the world are expressions of this motivation as people look for a divinity to love. Humans are not designed to be the supreme beings in the universe, so they look for something greater than themselves. The idea of God has come under attack by all manner of atheists, naturalists, and materialists who view religion to be a foolish and primitive idea. They look down on the majority of the world's population and past ages of people because they make the common mistake of assuming that they are smarter than the generations that have come before, that they are the ultimate expression of humanity.

The aesthetic sense is that part of us that appreciates art and beauty. Currently, I do not have a philosophical system of aesthetics that I find satisfactory, so I cannot explain why something is art or even what qualifies as art; but I do think the subject is interesting and important. Here I am using the aesthetic sense quite broadly. It includes an appreciation for beauty in nature and in human works as well as an appreciation for things that might not be considered beautiful in the common meaning of the term. For example, it could include a person's appreciation for the way an earthworm lives in dirt or for the way an abandoned factory looks. What one person finds aesthetically appealing may be repulsive to another. No one needs to rationally explain aesthetic appreciation because it is separate from reason. In fact, it is probably impossible to accurately explain it with reason.

Two Other Candidates

No doubt many people will disagree with me concerning the categorization of these forces as well as the inclusion or exclusion of certain possible fundamental forces, but a precise enumeration and taxonomy of these fundamental forces is not my goal here. However, two candidates for inclusion in the list which deserve a comment are love for inferior creatures and the libido.

Logically, if we are motivated by love for the superior (divine love) and love for our peers (human love), then we could also be motivated by love for inferior creatures such as animals. People certainly do love pets, and people do feel the wrongness of cruelty to animals. However, I an not sure that these are unique from the way we love other people and conscience. There is no doubt that there is also some self-love mixed up in love for a pet. In fact, self-love is mixed up in most if not all of our motivations. Perhaps love for God, other humans, and animals is really the same thing applied to different objects and should all be lumped into one category. I will keep human love and divine love separated simply because I think that love for the divine is significantly different from love for another person. It may contain some of the same elements, but it includes things like awe and worship that should not be applied to a human, and it excludes things like mercy and kindness that should be applied as a part of human love.

As for the libido, I have excluded it from my list for a variety of reasons. It seems that it is always mixed up with self-love, human love, and the aesthetic sense in such a way that I have no desire to untangle the whole mess. It also seems that it may be greater than the sum of its parts, in which case it would likely qualify as an fundamental force. Freud based all kinds of things on the libido, but I am not going to deal with his work for a number of reasons, including the fact that I am not qualified to do so.

The Expression of the Forces

I believe that to some extent, all these forces dwell in the mind of each person, but for divers reasons they are expressed in varying degrees. Often, a person is naturally drawn to favor some of these forces over others. This is a major influence on a person's choice of careers. An emphasis on reason may draw one person into a career in science or engineering. An emphasis on reason and human love can encourage a person to become a physician. An emphasis on reason and divine love may create an interest in theology.

In some cases, a particular force may have been so neglected or suppressed that it is no longer recognizable. For example, a man of science may have spent his whole life focused on his work to the extent that he cannot appreciate any form of aesthetic expression. A cynical atheist may have completely squashed any feeling of or desire for divine love.

Anyone who has eliminated one or more of these fundamental powers can rightly be said to be living in a way that is less than human. Anyone who fails to nurture and exercise all of the fundamental powers of his or her mind is also living in a way inappropriate for a human being. A good, full life will express the influence of all of the fundamental forces.

Good actions and thoughts will probably not violate any of these forces, and the best actions and thoughts will strongly display the influence of all relevant forces. A good building is rational by being structurally sound and useful and displays human love by being safe and helpful. A better building is also aesthetically pleasing.

It is important to recognize the distinction between each these forces and the field to which it is most closely related. The moral sense is a guide to right and wrong, but it is not the only force that can help a person make moral determinations. Human love and reason are also good ethical guides, which is why utilitarianism and rationalism are such plausible ethical theories. The aesthetic sense is not the only force that is applicable to the creation of art. Reason is also used, and art is often inspired by divine or human love. Engineering is heavily dependent on reason, but it should also be informed by human love so that the thing being engineered is beneficial to mankind. The various forces act in concert and care must be taken to consider every decision from all relevant positions.

Assisted Suicide

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was recently released from prison after serving eight years in prison. This sparked a number of stories on NPR, including a segment on the national call-in show Talk of the Nation. The focus of the discussion was on assisted suicide in general rather than specifically on Dr. Kevorkian. Much of the discussion centered around the Oregon law that permits assisted suicide under certain conditions and a similar bill currently before the California legislature. Of particular interest was a comment by Gayle Atteberry, Executive Director of Oregon Right to Life. She pointed out that the campaigns for the law allowing assisted suicide made an appeal to provide an escape for persons with unbearable pain. However, the statistics show that pain is not a leading reason for seeking assisted suicide and that when it is listed as a reason it is may be because of concern about future pain rather than current pain. Thus the argument that the state should allow a person to put himself out of his misery is not an accurate representation of the reality of assisted suicide.

Most of the arguments presented in favor of assisted suicide rest on the concept that a person has sole rights over his or her own body. This, however, does not fit with legal precedent or common sense. Sole ownership of one's own body is not consistent with current law. Seat belt laws and bans on illegal drugs imply that the state has authority over the way one treats one's own body and life. The state uses this authority because it has an interest in keeping people alive. A right to kill oneself might be consistent with a purely libertarian ethic, but that is not what is currently accepted in this country. Sole ownership of one's life is also inconsistent with common sense due to the way in which human lives are inevitably intertwined. The dependence of family members on each other illustrates this well. Since one person's life affects other people, they have an interest in it as well.

Since I am highly sympathetic to libertarianism, I have to ask if it is inconsistent for me to oppose the legalization of assisted suicide. My real opposition to suicide is based on the belief that one's life does not belong to oneself or to the state, but to God. Suicide in all its forms is certainly a sin, but that does not mean it should be illegal. Coveting, using God's name in vain, and idol worship are all sins; but I do not think that they should be illegal in the United States. Libertarianism rests on the idea that one owns oneself and one's products rather than the state or other people owning them. It seems that a consistent libertarian system would have to allow suicide. Since most (non-assisted) suicide attempts are considered to be the product of mental illness or other loss of rational control, the argument could be made that the person in question should not be allowed to take his own life. This still seems to run counter to libertarian ideas, especially if the state is intervening; but I do not know what positions libertarians commonly take concerning the treatment of the mentally ill who pose a risk to themselves. However, that may be irrelevant to the discussion of assisted suicide since terminally ill patients who seek to end their lives are not generally assumed to be irrational or mentally ill. In the end, I think a consistent libertarian system would have to legalize rational assisted suicide. However, the current system is no where near consistent libertarianism; and I do not believe that legalizing suicide is the best first step in that direction, so for the time being I do not support it. This may seem inconsistent, but in at least some cases a similar stance is justified. I oppose the legalization of gambling because it can lead to problem gambling which causes a burden on social services like welfare. If taxpayer-supported welfare was removed first, I would be more inclined to support the legalization of gambling. If the nation starts moving toward consistent libertarianism, I may discover that I do not like it as much as I think I would. However, I am willing to give it a shot.

Another defense of assisted suicide is the idea of maintaining control over one's own life, but this is also a fiction. Most people do not get to choose how they die. A person with a terminal illness who knows that death is approaching already has more control over how they die than a person who dies in an automobile accident or of a sudden heart attack. It is the nature of death to be out of our control. Autonomy is a deception. All of us are under the control of the state, our circumstances, our employers, and our other relationships with other people. In fact, our lack of total autonomy is part of what makes us human. A person who seeks total control and independence will miss out on some of the most important parts of the human experience. Helping a dying person who has sought autonomy for his or her whole life maintain that illusion is doing him or her a disservice.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the original Hippocratic Oath does not contain the phrase "First, do no harm," but it does say, "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." There is not much wiggle room there. The Oregon law is certainly a departure from the Hippocratic tradition for physicians.

Welcome

Welcome to To Attempt: A Collection of Essays

First, an explanation of the name To Attempt is in order. The word essay comes from the Old French word essayer, which means “to attempt.” The English word essay can also mean “an initial attempt or endeavor” and “to make an attempt at” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essay).

To Attempt is my attempt to write essays on subjects that interest me. I hope that they are interesting or at least thought-provoking to other people as well. Comments are greatly appreciated, even if they are negative. At least they let me know that someone is reading these things. Suggestions for topics are also welcome.

The first couple of essays will be coming very soon.