Does an inability to control desires really absolve the human species of any wrong...

Define "true desire"

then, by that logic; is not true self-control being able to resist and ignore the compulsion for the satiation of desire? come on now, the kung fu in this thread is fucking weak

if its master tells it to sit, it will sit, even if it wants to stand

So its desire to please it's master was greater than its desire to stand.

I'd say it's seeing a human being and wanting to have sexual intercourse with them. You can lie to yourself and say "I'm above such a thing", but the desire will be there if you fully accept what is in your heart and soul.

But, ultimately, the desire is still there and totally uncontrollable. You can't say "I don't want to eat food" when you're starving as it'd be a lie.

so it was still in control of one of its desires, no?

>I'd say it's seeing a human being and wanting to have sexual intercourse with them. You can lie to yourself and say "I'm above such a thing", but the desire will be there if you fully accept what is in your heart and soul.

So what you're really asking is if we can control desire regardless of action, and not if we can control our actions in the name of desire.

It had two desires that were incompatible, the greater one out.

>So its desire to please it's master was greater than its desire to stand.

that doesn't negate the existence of control.

>But, ultimately, the desire is still there and totally uncontrollable. You can't say "I don't want to eat food" when you're starving as it'd be a lie.

what part of RESIST AND IGNORE do you not understand?

settle down there A N G R Y B O I

Most of this philosophy is based on what form of comprehension though?
Do we even have the ability to recognize what is correct in regard to choice based on what we perceive as valid in the laws of psychology?

Behavior is forever a choice to the front concious, it is fomented by chemicals and circumstances; But we would not have so unique a thing as individuals without an ability to perceive differently.

Our perception is ultimately built on our experiences in the first place.
Hence why we have differing beliefs.
And who's to say any of us have experienced all the correct annals of life as to lead to the answer of this question?
There is no set measure of which we can follow, as all measures are the amalgamation of men's experiences & observations lidless with fallacy.

Consider that a man does a thing in which appears to be emotion driven, but in reality is simply a choice of no determination in him; We are looking at the truth whilst it sits among facades.

I personally believe that the inability to measure, equates the ability to deceive predictable behavior and run with freewill by your side.
Of course, even all I say is at the mercy of culture, state of mind, perception, experiences. It may be that there is more than emotion and free will, but also ordinance of life.

At that point we would be introducing a form of religion or deity; But I would not go there, as I am partisan in favor of Biblical pedagoguery and would not submit you to the propaganda of it unwillingly.

I don't think it sounds silly at all user.

This is not very well thought out. But I think for the most part we're conditioned to believe in an identity, separate from others', that is responsible for the things we do. The criminal justice system e.g. is entirely predicated on the assumption that "humans can control their desires" aka free will. But I have a feeling that free will is simply an illusion - albeit a much more elaborate one than say santa claus.

>Of course, even all I say is at the mercy of culture, state of mind, perception, experiences. It may be that there is more than emotion and free will, but also ordinance of life.

so you're oblivious to the fact that by the very virtue of you having the awareness of these things you have the capacity to begin the process of overstepping them

I'm a bit tired, so I don't intend to work that out.

But, ultimately, I believe desire is totally uncontrollable, and we can only take the blows as they come, and, if it raps on our door strong enough, we'll open no matter what we believe, think, and say.

You can't not wish to do something.

The issue is that most desires stay within the realm of our control to the point that we can commit suicide if we want to no matter what our bodies and brains tell us to do, and it makes me wonder if desire has totality over the human species, or if it's generally subordinated to the self.

Was choosing one over the other not an exercise in control over one desire in favor of another?

This should point out the fallacy in your reasoning: you're claiming that by obeying its master, the dog is controlling/harnessing its desire to stand. But if I walk into a brothel, see a 6/10 who I grudgingly accept giving my hard earned shekels to, only to get a tap on the shoulder and see a solid 9.5 batting her lashes at me, no one in their right mind would think that my decision to walk off with the 9.5 involves "controlling my desire" to choose the 6. My desire to plow 9.5 into next week has all but eliminated and desire for the 6.
Just like the dog's desire to get yum yum's by obeying massa totally overrides the desire to stand

No.
The dog didn't choose to stop desiring, and it still desired both.

It's an example of self-control in the face of desire, but it's not control of desire itself.

but the point is that the dog will ALWAYS choose "gimme some yummy treats ma'faka" when presented with that option. that's literally how people train their dogs to sit and stand on command. check out operant conditioning and schedules of reinforcement.
so if the dog always seems to choose according to a certain principle (food or the promise thereof is better than none), what is actually being "controlled"?

Isn't desire part of the self? So isn't self-control controlling desire?

In this context doesn't self-control literally mean inhibiting one's response to act according to a particular desire, i.e. "an exercise in control of desire"? I feel like now you two are actually agreeing somehow

No.
Self-control is only necessary because desire itself is uncontrollable.

Self-control is subordinated to desire.

I think, even if it is macabre, Jeffrey Dahmer is a good example of the self losing to desire.

now you're just makin shit up.

I feel like there are fundamental belief systems that alter base understandings of the argument, and, in order to be in agreement, there must be congruity between what people believe humans came from.

Why would uncontrollable desire necessitate self-control?

This is true. Enter the Analytic tradition.

For the sake of survival.

sure, or at the very least some agreement on how to define basic terms like "self" "control" "desire" etc. or failing that, just a simple commitment to logical consistency.
anyway, where do you think humans came from?

>Suicide is probably the greatest example of the self triumphing over base desires.
Wow, you know absolutely nothing about the causes of suicide. Good job.

ouch. but what are you trying to say re:?

There are a lot of suicides caused by pain and suffering, but there have been willful suicides caused by thought and will alone.

A primary motivator for human behavior has to factor these.

self-control is denial of desire to protect ones self or others ( which in turn leads back to the self)

If you don't know what it is to desire, I don't know why I'm talking to you as you're most likely an AI.

I believe in the theory of evolution.

see my response to
in

Look at the prevalence of suicide in various countries.

There are more motivators than suffering at play.

In that case the self control would have to be independent of desire. If there is a desire to control another desire is that really self control?

muh martyrdom

That suicide is not necessarily the most difficult thing to do, not the greatest rejection of desire. Depending upon circumstance one desire can be stronger than another.

I for example hate my life. I firmly believe I've the capacity to end it and would even do so but for a courtesy at my parents. But considering other difficulties...such as having to engage in the drudgery that is work or school...I cannot endure it. I have tried and always fail in the endeavor, I give up, I capitulate in the rejection of unpleasant and meaningless work, though I desire to be able to do otherwise so for honor and practical purposes. I cannot. Conversely, I can and often consider leaping from a particular tall building. I I've not a shred of skepticism that my convictions could allow me to do so.

Is it clear? It's very possible even probable that those who kill themselves simply had the proper predilections to do so. One might even argue that all impressive deeds are such if equipped with the necessary cynicism.

explain what you mean by this. specifically
>the process of overstepping them

Religious suicides aren't really suicide as the bomber believes they'll continue living, but you already knew this.

I'd say Japanese Bushido is a better example.

Everything is a cost vs benefit analysis.

If you kill yourself, your desire to die was greater than your desire to live. The idea that one rejects their strongest desires is absurd, if that were so no man would ever do anything, THEN he would be inhuman, acting on the visceral, a beast of instinct rather than reason.

>There are a lot of suicides caused by pain and suffering, but there have been willful suicides caused by thought and will alone.

I think you misunderstood my post. What you just said is pretty much exactly what I was saying - that under the right conditions (extreme torture), suicide is the easiest option.
I simply quoted something OP said in order to refute it.

good point.

>this level of sophistry

* closes eyes meditatively*

Nobody controls their desires
A human has desires, and it is his will that decides to obey them or not
I can't help it that I want to wank every time my dick can get hard, but I choose not to

Do we even have the freedom to choose?

We have the freedom to choose our prison