Emotion, Desire, and Life Choices

If you don't get it, read on...

For this post I'm taking off my academic philosopher hat to gloss over fine distinctions I might otherwise make. I want to do philosophy for las masas. Wherever I use 'emotion' in this entry, don't think of it in a technical sense. I just mean any of drive, passion, emotion, strong motivating desire, and so on. The context throughout should make it clear. 

Emotions activate the imagination and enable us to see a world where we commit ourselves to embracing the spirit of that emotion in perpetuity. Let me give you an example. When I took my first philosophy class ever, I fell in love with the content. But I didn't see myself as ever being a philosopher or teaching. 

It was my second professor that opened my imagination to a career in philosophy. We've all experienced such moments and it's nearly impossible to put into words. That moment where you're utterly filled with awe and passion for something. When it hits, it hits hard. You see your entire life vividly unfolding along that new path as though it were actually happening. 

I was just a second year student. But I saw myself in the classroom teaching philosophy. I saw my students--both fascinated and perplexed by philosophy. I saw myself as I saw my professor: wise, kind, and patient. I saw myself fulfilled everyday. I saw the possibility. I saw a possible world. I felt what it was like to live there. I was there. 

In the context of important decisions, this is the value of emotion: It shows us our possible lives in a way a spreadsheet never could. But those lives only remain possible to the extent that we nurture the original emotion and sense of awe that first opened the window to them. 

(Note: I'm using positive emotions to illustrate but negative emotions have just as much value in the same respect: Negative emotions can show us what worlds to avoid and why. They show us what worlds await as the consequence of certain choices. I'll stay with positive emotions for simplicity.)

Let's go back to the familiar Sartrian tale of the young student who, during the German occupation of France, must decide between joining the French Resistance to avenge his brother's death or staying with his mother who lost both her husband to treason and her only other child to the Germans. How does he decide what to do? Make a spreadsheet of the 'pluses' and 'minuses' multiplied by their respective probabilities then weigh the outcomes against each other? Suppose, instead we tell him to look into heart. What do you feel? Is it the love for your mother or is it the thirst for revenge?

The respective feelings give him insight into the world he'll inhabit when he choses according to one or the other. 

If the thirst for revenge overwhelms but he stays with his mother, he'll resent her and they'll both be unhappy. He is estranged from the world he wants to inhabit. If his love for his mother overwhelms but he leaves seeking revenge, he'll be miserable thinking of his poor mother on her own. Again, he finds himself alienated from the world he desires. He must act according to, not against his emotion. 

Is that it? you ask. Is this is the culmination of hundreds of hours of studying philosophy? The bullshit platitude "Just do what you feel, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"? I could have spent $2, 000.00 on a special weekend with some new age self-help guru hack and learned the same thing without having to actually read anything. Why are you making me read? Just give me the answers! Stop making me work! ...

No, that's not it. 

For an emotion to have lasting value as a decision-maker it must continue to be nourished--not merely in thought but in action. The possible world into which it first gives a glimpse must be manifested through action. Otherwise, the emotion--that world's progenitor--wilts along with it.

To repeat: the emotion lets us see what is possible. But that possible world closes when it lingers only in the imagination. We are left standing in a barren landscape drained of passion. The path leading back to the original fork, unrecognizable and concealed. To say that an emotion guided us rightly we must live according to that emotion.

And so the relationship status between decisions, emotions, possibility, and guidance reads "it's complicated". An emotion guides my decision by revealing the possible. The possible becomes real and is sustained through action in accordance with the original emotion. I say I was rightly guided when I live according to the original emotion and embrace that world I construct in its spirit. 

The emotion, however, doesn't sustain itself. I must sustain it through actions characteristic of it. I must build that possible world as it was revealed to me. And as the possible becomes manifest I choose to sustain the original emotion--and hence my commitment to the world I'm constructing. 

Or I respond with a new emotion, one that reveals new future possibilities and the new forks they bring. 

There is no guarantee my future self will feel what I feel now about the world constructed in my current emotion's name. It's a matter of probability. I can't know beforehand. To speak plainly, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. And so, emotions, as I have been speaking of them, ought not on their own be appealed to. This much seems obvious. They are valuable in that they give us the best available insight into what a decision in one direction could be like. Our choices are presented to us in a way a spreadsheet never could. But then we are faced with the impossible task of knowing whether our desire for a possible world will be sustained once it is manifest.

This may appear an insurmountable task and will no doubt be a probabilistic affair. But probabilistic isn't the same as random. All of us have some sense of what sorts of things have enduring value. If an emotion encourages us to a world devoid of such values perhaps it's a world we ought not to construct...although in some cases it might be fun for while! (See: Ami's pre grad school life) Indefinitely honoring an emotion that sustains one such world is a mistake but feeling otherwise once we are there is a good thing. Our new emotions show us a way out...or at least tell us to get out. And hopefully we learned a thing or two while we were there. That counts for something. Right? 

A Defense of New Year's Resolutions (That THEY Don't Want You to Know About)

Introduction
Around this time of year my news feed is infected with click-baity articles or facebook statuses about how New Year's resolutions are stupid or bad or whatever and "I'm better than people who make NY resolutions because I recognize that every day, NAY! every second! is an opportunity to redefine myself for the better. So there, you philistines! Shield thine eyes from the light of my transcendence!" 

Anyway, here are a few counter click-baity responses to internet self-righteous anti-NY resolution sentiment. 

Reasons for NY Resolutions THEY Don't Want You to Know About
Reply 1: Fuck you. Get over yourself. 

Reply 2: This may seem odd coming out of a philosopher's mouth but maybe it's cuz it comes from experience: Too much reflection on how to live can be a bad thing. It takes you out of 'just living'. While you're thinking about how you ought to live, life is passing you by--one missed experience at a time (#gradschool). Descartes himself--of the Meditations--reprimands Princess Bohemia for being over-reflective. (Of course in this case it was cuz she had a devastating challenge that he couldn't answer, but let's pretend that it was for some other reason). 

Also, didn't Socrates famously say that the unexamined life is not worth living? True. But it doesn't mean you need to examine it all the time. You have to have experiences to examine in the first place.

OK, so there you have it. Too much navel-gazing can pull you out of your life. You emerge from your contemplative state only to find you've missed out on living. 

Where was I going with all this? Ah, yes. It's actually not a good thing to be reflecting all the time, and so having culturally agreed upon reminders to do so is helpful: No need to do it all the time. You'll be reminded at least once a year to do so and you'll probably do it on your birthday too--especially for each birthday after 30 (e.g., "Where the fuck did I go wrong?""How do I undo this mess?"). 

Make Resolutions and Keep Them Using This One Weird Trick! (Motivational Speakers Hate Me!)
Having resolutions as a social practice leverages the social resources that will make us more likely to keep them. (I said "more likely", not "guaranteed".) Many scienticians agree that the most powerful motivational forces are social forces and NY resolutions engage these forces in various ways. 

First, choosing your goals is a combination of an individual and social act.  The goals we choose are individual to us but they are also often the result of social feedback we've been getting over the year. If you're a student and your professors keep telling you that you need to work harder, this might be a sign that you should work harder. If your friends keep telling you that you don't hang out enough with them, maybe this is sign that you could be a better friend.  If people seem to avoid conversations with you this might be a sign that you need to be a better listener or need to consider your words more carefully. I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'...

Resolutions are also social in that we look to others as possible models for the types of behaviors and goals to pursue. It doesn't mean we're going to mimic someone else exactly. Looking to others we admire (or despise!) gives us a point of departure to craft a goal suitable to ourselves and our particular circumstances. It's a way to activate our imagination such that we can see possibilities for ourselves.

As I mentioned, many scienticians agree that the most powerful motivational forces are social. If you publicly declare your goals (to friends, family, to every damn person on social media, or all of the above) you won't want to look like a dumbass by failing. Social pressure can be used to your advantage. Fear of shame is an excellent motivator. But fear of public shame isn't the only possible benefit from publicly declaring your new goals. If you aren't surrounded by a bunch of assholes, some of the people to whom you declare your goals can (gasp!) offer you encouragement and actually help you stay on track in those moments where your own willpower subsides. Confiding our resolutions to (carefully selected) others creates a support network that can help us actually achieve our resolutions.

Of course, some of you are thinking, "I don't need nobody to help me with my goals. It's all about survival of the fittest and I can handle my shit."  Ok, maybe you can. Good for you. You're Jesus. Now, go back to reading your Ayn Rand books in the corner.

The bottom line is that while it's true in theory ("here goes the philosopher with his got-tam theory...") that we can reflect on our attributes and projects at any moment, in practice (that's the science part!) most of us don't. The collective tradition of doing so around New Year's provides a periodic reminder for us to reflect on our past year and the things we'd like to change or accomplish in the upcoming year. A healthy practice to my mind...

I Know I'm not Perfect But How Do I Pick My Resolutions? Use These THREE Weird Tricks!!!!!
For the most part, I think most of us, upon even the most cursory reflection, are aware of where we need "work". It is mostly a matter of committing to the change you want to see. That said, here are a couple of general ideas inspired by a few philosophers for how to pick some resolutions. The first involves self-directed resolutions and the second is other-directed resolutions. 

1. Aristotle: For Aristotle and most of the ancient Greek philosophers, virtues were not only a means to a good life, they were necessary components of a good life. That is to say, you can't have a good life unless you develop your virtues. Quick aside, for the Greeks, a good life meant a "flourishing" life. So, if a flourishing life is something that grabs your fancy, think about a virtue or two that you could further develop. Here's a list of the classic virtues: courage, temperance, liberality (generosity), magnanimity, proper ambition, patience/good temper, truthfulness, friendliness, and modesty.

2. Sartre/De Beauvoir: Sartre says we construct meaning in life through our projects. So, what's to prevent me from creating meaning through morally abhorrent projects? Nothing. You can derive meaning from evil projects, but this wouldn't be an ethical life. The ethical constraint on life projects for Sartre and De Beauvoir is that they must be in the service of freedom. To understand what this means in practical terms we need to take a quick step back and ask why freedom is important in the first place. 

Without going too deeply into it, freedom is morally important because it is necessary for self-actualization. And self-actualization is necessary for a shot at a life worth living. If your own opportunities and resources that are helpful for self-actualization are morally important than so are those of others (unless you think there's something metaphysically special about you). This means that your life project ought to involve in part helping those with fewer opportunities and resources for self-actualization than you. People who live in poverty or don't have access to a good education or healthcare, etc have on average greater barriers to self-actualization. An ethical life is one that includes both working toward undermining those barriers and helping the individuals affected by the barriers. 

In terms of a NY resolution, Sartre and De Beauvoir would say you ought to resolve to include in your core life activities efforts towards helping others gain access to the resources that facilitate self-actualization. In short, find a social cause to include in your life project. Resolve to serve others.

3. Suzan Wolf: We all want a life that is worth living but what does that include? Whatever it is, it requires activities that are meaningful and fulfilling. We might think that if an activity is meaningful it's also fulfilling and vice versa. Suzan Wolf argues that meaningfulness and fulfillment can come apart. 

Let me illustrate. You can have a career that is very meaningful yet not personally fulfilling. Perhaps your parents groomed you to be a doctor or something. You were too young to know how you'd feel about actually being a doctor so now that you are one, you do it. It's meaningful work. You save lives. You cure the sick (contrary to what the idiots at Alt Mama or TinFoilRUs say). Yet, strangely, you don't feel fulfilled. The idea is that despite the fact that an activity or career is meaningful, not everyone will find it fulfilling because of differences in our individual constitutions. 

Conversely, you can find an activity fulfilling yet it is not meaningful. I love to watch UFC. I find it really fulfilling. I feel great after watching people knock each other unconscious.  Is this a meaningful way to spend my time? Probably not.  

So here's an idea for a resolution. Try to align your life projects in terms of meaningfulness and fulfillment. If your career or some central aspect of your life is meaningful but unfulfilling, find a way to make it fulfilling. If you can't, think about finding a new fulfilling activity that is also meaningful. Conversely, if your job or some aspect of your life is fulfilling but isn't meaningful, see if you can make it meaningful. Sometimes this won't be possible and so you might consider changing to an activity in which the two attributes align. 

What I've suggested is no easy task, it means fundamentally rearranging important aspects of our lives. But if we seek a life worth living, it's hard to see how such a life is possible without consistently striving to fill our lives with activities that are both meaningful and fulfilling. This requires making room for them by letting go of those activities where both qualities don't overlap. It won't happen over night. It's a process and an approach to living that requires careful reflection on the various ways we fill our days. 

And New Year's is as good a time as any to start....

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep (Hopefully last one--then I can get back to more interesting material)

Ok, first I'd like to express gratitude to my brother and sister for not only reading but commenting. Now that I've thanked you I'd like to discuss some of your comments because they raise some interesting issues.

Ez, in part one you brought up your experience that when you exercise you find yourself eating healthy foods. Although we are only 2 little points on a graph and our evidence is anecdotal I have to concur that there seems to be a positive feedback loop with exercise and healthy eating. I also think the opposite is true--poor exercise regime leads to poor eating habits. I would like to offer a crackpot theory on why this is true.

When you work out your body will need better nutrition to recover. Healthier foods generally offer better nutrition, so your body craved these healthier foods. There's probably a psychological reason too. After a good workout nobody wants to "waste" all that hard work by eating junk food. I think the psychological reason could apply to the negative feedback loop too. If you're sitting at home eating donuts and ice cream watching the tube after a certain point you think "ah, what's the point".

Of course you could argue that in some cases exercising can lead to eating unhealthy foods. For instance, after a long run you come home and you've been craving cheese cake. After your meal you eat it because you justify to yourself that you've "earned" it or can afford it calorically. It's your reward. I'd counter this argument with another argument! ah! ha! I acknowledge that this type of behaviour does actually happen (guilty!) but tends to represent episodic, not habitual behaviour.

Now, Ez, while I do agree with your/our positive feedback hypothesis, I respectfully disagree with some of your other comments. Regarding my rant that if you're not sweating you're not working out you dared to challenge me and advanced the idea that walking was the best exercise to build upper body strength. You might of accuse me of misrepresenting your argument but for those readers who didn't read the comments, you look like a fool.

Back to reality, you tendered the idea that sweating might not be the best indicator of good exercise. Let me clarify. When I say that, if you ain't got no sweat comin' outta youz, then you ain't axercising, what I'm really referring to is exercise intensity. Sweat output is a good measure of this but, I concede, is inaccurate because it does not take into account environmental temperature and individual propensity to sweat. So, I will grant you this.

The best measure of exercise intensity is heart rate. I do not believe in these BS low intensity "fat burn zone" exercise program. Show me one person that does low intensity exercise that is slim. Show me just one and I'll believe the hype.

I believe these programs are designed by the fitness industry to take over our minds and make us kill the Malaysian prime minister....oops, I mean get people of below average fitness levels to buy gym memberships. People are such babies that they'll cry and go home if you make them work too hard. They'll never come back when they wake up with, horror of horrors, every muscle sore the next day. Guess what crybaby nation? (My pro-wrestler alter ego is coming out!) That's what happens if you sit on your ass for 10 years or more, eating donuts and then finally get up to do something beyond walking to your car. The gyms know this. They know people are soft but they want as many people as possible to buy memberships, use personal trainers, and do the classes. So they design a program that's so easy and painless (and useless) that you will keep paying for more....and KILL THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER! That said, I will agree that some exercise is better than none at all, but people should seek to maximize their efficiency in the gym. This means higher intensity. If you're going to go for an hour get as much out of that hour as possible.

I have one more bone to pick with you Ez: You suggested that swimming was a strenuous activity in which one doesn't sweat. Actually you do sweat, ya just don't notice cuz you're already in the water. What's next? I don't breath when I'm in air!? Booya!

To address your question about how long to exercise, there is a short and long answer. The short answer is 45 min of med-high intensity not including warm up and cool down. The long answer is that it depends on your fitness goals. For the average Joe shmo 3x a week of 45min is fine. But if you want above average fitness you need to put in above average work. I find that if you want to take it to the HNL (hole nuva lev'l) you should work out 4x a week 45-60min a session. When you approach the 60min mark the law of decreasing marginal returns starts kicking in (unless you are an endurance athlete--I'm just talking about general health, fitness and "wellness"). But in truth, if you are working out with sufficient intensity, eating healthful foods (notice I didn't say "healthy". Bet ya didn't know that "healthful" is the correct adjective!) , and are mindful of your caloric intake, 3 days a week is fine.

Coonie, I offer my sincerest apologies for the mistakes with my possessives. I usually write at about 2am and finish at 3am. By then my proof reading skills aren't anything to write home about. Nevertheless, I will be more vigilant.

SLEEP

Done with the comments from the peanut gallery...last item to discuss in the triad of health: Sleep. I know! It sounds so simple! But as someone who suffered from insomnia for 5 years, I can tell you it isn't always. (I overcame my insomnia 2 years ago). Allz I'm gonna say is that if you aren't getting enough sleep regularly, the other 2 elements of health (exercise and nutrition) don't mean poop. In fact, without sleep, exercise can harm your health.

He's a couple of quick notes on sleep (mostly directed at those who have some degree of sleep disorder): 1) Try to keep a regular wake up schedule. 2) Only use sleeping pills for 1 or 2 nights in a row to get back on schedule, never use them regularly (you build tolerance--at one point I would take 4 and still be wide awake) 3) Be outside as much as you can to get direct sunlight--at least 30 min a day. 4) Invest in blackout curtains. 5) Avoid any stimulants (caffein, cocain) after noon. It takes at least 8 hours for caffein to completely leave your body. 6) Read academic books before bed (anecdotal...worked ok for me). Reading books that don't require much brain power and are plot driven won't tire you and will end up drawing you in making you stay up even later. 7) Find time for yourself during your day for your mind to unwind (no TV or internet!). Rushing around from the time you get up until the time you go to bed leaves your mind no time to reflect on your day and this need is what might be keeping you up.

Anywho, those are some things that worked for me. I hope that in writing this somebody can learn from my mistakes and hard earned knowledge. Most of my life I've made a living off my body, whether it be manual labour, sports, dancing, or prancing. To maintain my livelyhood I've done plenty of tinkering with different approaches to exercise, nutrition, and sleep. Through trial and error and research I've learned a lot and I've also been very fortunate to have met many people along the way that were willing to share their hard earned knowledge with me. Shout out to: Coach Buono, James Wilcox, Carlos, Shaun Thomas, my seester (coondawg), my ma, my pa, Anne, Auntie Katinka, Tiki, Clay Cannon, Lind Walter, Yohan, Chris Connel, quackcast.com (Mark Crislip), Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and many more I can't remember at this moment.

By the by here are some AP approved websites for health info:

quackwatch.org

saveyourself.ca (canadian website...woohoo!)

skepticblog.org

pubmed.gov (for research--u can access all published medical studies here, unfiltered by the "evil" media)