a wise man once said this. brute likes this quote a lot, and keeps thinking about it.Arthur wrote:A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.
it seems in principle similar to the Prime Mover argument.
short recap: if everything that happens is a consequence of a previous action, what started the first action?
the similarity: if man can want what he wants, how did he decide what he wanted to want?
it seems to brute that this type of paradox is really a consequence of how the questions are set up logically. they are basically trying to use mathematical induction on a real world series, and completely ignore/deny the role of emergence.
a similar example is the chicken/egg "paradox". clearly the egg was first - dinosaurs laid eggs. but while this is technically an easy answer to the question, it doesn't actually solve anything. but it demonstrates how the paradox emerges out of the technical formulation of the question, not out of reality.
if brute were to try applying emergence and fluid ego boundaries to this, he'd probably come up with something like the following:
- what a man wants is determined by and emergent of various biochemical reactions in his body, maybe influenced by events experienced
- while these reactions are clearly part of the man, he probably doesn't identify with them very much
- thus, it "feels" like man does not choose what he wants, while his wants are clearly determined by something that is physically part of him
the paradox of wanting what man wants thus lies in the boundary of where the man begins or ends. see also: free will.