Abstract: An important recent distinction in the empirical literature about self-control is between resisting and avoiding temptations.
While we have some evidence that avoiding temptations is the more efficient method of the two, philosophers have focused almost exclusively on resisting temptations.
The aim of this talk is to examine what the ability to avoid temptations depends on and argue that it depends primarily on how fragmented one’s mind is: on the inconsistencies in one’s mental setup.
The fragmentation of mind requires a significant amount of mental effort to conceal from oneself and this leads to a weakened ability to resist temptations.
Human rights activist Peter Tatchell examines the tribal nature of morality, with barrister and founder of Effective Giving UK Natalie Cargill, and political theorist David Miller. The panel unpick the binaries of tribal vs. universal morality, and moral psychology vs. ethics, to put forward their understanding of where society is at the moment, and what scope there is for social progress through better employment of our moral sense.
This debate focuses on whether the dichotomy of good and evil in Western morality does more harm than good. Tommy Curry argues that the terms good and evil have been
used as a form of control throughout history by the dominant ethno group to
impose norms and structures on other groups. This has significance in the
modern world where what we think constitutes good and evil influences economics
and use military force. Massimo
Pigliucci adds that the categories of good and evil are unhelpful because they
create a sharp distinction where there is actually a lot of nuance. They are
also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and
write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable
and uncaring. Joanna Kavenna notes that the language of good and evil has
practical origins rather than some absolute transcendent source. She concurs
that reference to good and evil is increasingly used as a means of control
through an evocation of this absolute moral realm that cannot be challenged.
This is a corrupt use of the good and evil terminology is a trap that must be
avoided.
In this short interview, philosopher Jan Westerhoff discusses what illusory experiences can teach us about the nature of reality. He considers philosophical efforts to explain the representational nature of both veridical and falsidical experiences with idealism, and discusses the ethical implications of an idealist metaphysics. Westerhoff argues that rather than holding that mind comes before matter in a foundational account of epistemology, coherentism offers and more satisfactory approach. He then discusses his own work on solipsism and considers its emergence in both ancient Indian philosophy and contemporary analytic philosophy, and concludes that if correct solipsism must explain the apparent existence of other minds.
IAI_Admin OP t1_j36l3qw wrote
Reply to Our ability to resist temptation depends on how fragmented one's mind is | On the inconsistencies in one’s mental setup by IAI_Admin
Abstract: An important recent distinction in the empirical literature about self-control is between resisting and avoiding temptations.
While we have some evidence that avoiding temptations is the more efficient method of the two, philosophers have focused almost exclusively on resisting temptations.
The aim of this talk is to examine what the ability to avoid temptations depends on and argue that it depends primarily on how fragmented one’s mind is: on the inconsistencies in one’s mental setup.
The fragmentation of mind requires a significant amount of mental effort to conceal from oneself and this leads to a weakened ability to resist temptations.