Subjectivity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Subjectivity (disambiguation).
Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:
Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.[3]
These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person.
Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.
*AGENCYS
Agency (law), a person acting on behalf of another person
Agency (LDS Church), "the privilege of choice... introduced by God"
Agency (moral), capacity for making moral judgments
Agency (philosophy), the capacity of an autonomous agent to act, relating to action theory in philosophy
Agency (sociology), the ability of social actors to make independent choices, relating to action theory in sociology
Agency and structure, ability of an individual to organize future situations and resource distribution
Fee Will
Free will
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the philosophical questions of free will. For other uses, see Free will (disambiguation).
A photo showing a boy jumping into a body of water. It is widely believed that humans make decisions (e.g. jumping in the water) based on free will.
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived. This problem has been identified in ancient Greek philosophy[3] and remains a major focus of philosophical debate. This view that conceives free will to be incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible, and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible. It also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
In contrast, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists even hold that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a sense of how choices will turn out.[4][5] Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma.[6] Different compatibilists offer very different definitions of what "free will" even means and consequently find different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue. Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will simply if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to reason, and there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.[7]
choice
Choice involves decision making. It can include judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them. One can make a choice between imagined options ("What would I do if...?") or between real options followed by the corresponding action. For example, a traveller might choose a route for a journey based on the preference of arriving at a given destination as soon as possible. The preferred (and therefore chosen) route can then follow from information such as the length of each of the possible routes, traffic conditions, etc. The arrival at a choice can include more complex motivators such as cognition, instinct, and feeling.
Simple choices might include what to eat for dinner or what to wear on a Saturday morning – choices that have relatively low-impact on the chooser's life overall. More complex choices might involve (for example) what candidate to vote for in an election, what profession to pursue, a life partner, etc. – choices based on multiple influences and having larger ramifications.
Most people[quantify] regard having choices as a good thing, though a severely limited or artificially restricted choice can lead to discomfort with choosing, and possibly an unsatisfactory outcome. In contrast, a choice with excessively numerous options may lead to confusion, regret of the alternatives not taken, and indifference in an unstructured existence;[1] and the illusion that choosing an object or a course, necessarily leads to the control of that object or course, can cause psychological problems.[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
1 Types
2 Evaluability in economics
3 Number of options and paradox
4 Relationship to identity
5 Attitudes
6 Other uses
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
Types[edit]
There are four main types of decisions, although they can be expressed in different ways. Brian Tracy breaks them down into:[2]
1.Command decisions, which can only be made by you, as the "Commander in Chief"; or owner of a company.
2.Delegated decisions, which may be made by anyone, such as the color of the bike shed, and should be delegated, as the decision must be made but the choice is inconsequential.
3.Avoided decisions, where the outcome could be so severe that the choice should not be made, as the consequences can not be recovered from if the wrong choice is made. This will most likely result in negative actions, such as death.
4."No-brainer" decisions, where the choice is so obvious that only one choice can reasonably be made.
A fifth type, however, or fourth if avoided and "no-brainer" decisions are combined as one type, is the collaborative decision, which should be made in consultation with, and by agreement of others. Collaborative Decision Making revolutionized air-traffic safety by not deferring to the captain when a lesser crew member becomes aware of a problem.[3]
Another way of looking at decisions focuses on the thought mechanism used, is the decision:[4]
Rational
Intuitive
Recognition based
Combination
Recognizing that "type" is an imprecise term, an alternate way to classify types of choices is to look at outcomes and the impacted entity. For example, using this approach three types of choices would be:[5]
Business
Personal
Consumer
In this approach, establishing the types of choices makes it possible to identify the related decisions that will influence and constrain a specific choice as well as be influenced and constrained by another choice.
There are many "executive decision maker" products available, such as the decision wheels[6] and the Magic 8-Ball, which randomly produce yes/no or other "decisions" for someone who cannot make up their mind or just wants to delegate.
A ouija board is also a delegated decision.
As a moral principle, decisions should be made by those most affected by the decision, but this is not normally applied to persons in jail, who might likely make a decision other than to remain in jail.[7] Robert Gates cited this principle in allowing photographs of returning war dead.[8]
Evaluability in economics[edit]
When choosing between options one must make judgments about the quality of each option's attributes. For example, if one is choosing between candidates for a job, the quality of relevant attributes such as previous work experience, college or high school GPA, and letters of recommendation will be judged for each option and the decision will likely be based on these attribute judgments. However, each attribute has a different level of evaluability, that is, the extent to which one can use information from that attribute to make a judgment.
An example of a highly evaluable attribute is the SAT score. It is widely known in the United States that an SAT score below 800 is very bad while an SAT score above 1500 is exceptionally good. Because the distribution of scores on this attribute is relatively well known it is a highly evaluable attribute. Compare the SAT score to a poorly evaluable attribute, such as the number of hours spent doing homework. Most employers would not know what 10,000 hours spent doing homework means because they have no idea of the distribution of scores of potential workers in the population on this attribute.
As a result, evaluability can cause preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations. For example, Hsee, George Loewenstein, Blount & Bazerman (1999)[9] looked at how people choose between options when they are directly compared because they are presented at the same time or when they cannot be compared because one is only given a single option. The canonical example is a hiring decision made about two candidates being hired for a programming job. Subjects in an experiment were asked to give a starting salary to two candidates, Candidate J and Candidate S. However, some viewed both candidates at the same time (joint evaluation), whereas others only viewed one candidate (separate evaluation). Candidate J had experience of 70 KY programs, and a GPA of 2.5, whereas Candidate S had experience of 10 KY programs and a GPA of 3.9. The results showed that in joint evaluation both candidates received roughly the same starting salary from subjects, who apparently thought a low GPA but high experience was approximately equal to a high GPA but low experience. However, in the separate evaluation, subjects paid Candidate S, the one with the high GPA, substantially more money. The explanation for this is that KY programs is an attribute that is difficult to evaluate and thus people cannot base their judgment on this attribute in separate evaluation.
Personal factors determine food choice. They are preference, associations, habits, ethnic heritage, tradition, values, social pressure, emotional comfort, availability, convenience, economy, image, medical conditions, and nutrition.
Number of options and paradox[edit]
A number of research studies in economic psychology have focused on how individual behavior differs when the choice set size (the number of choices to choose from) is low versus when it is high. Of particular interest is whether individuals are more likely to purchase a product from a large versus a small choice set. Currently, the effect of choice set size on the probability of a purchase is unclear. In some cases, large choice set sizes discourage individuals from making a choice[10] and in other cases it either encourages them or has no effect.[11] One study compared the allure of more choice to the tyranny of too much choice. Individuals went virtual shopping in different stores that had a randomly determined set of choices ranging from 4 to 16, with some being good choices and some being bad. Researchers found a stronger effect for the allure of more choice. However, they speculate that due to random assignment of number of choices and goodness of those choices, many of the shops with fewer choices included zero or only one option that was reasonably good, which may have made it easier to make an acceptable choice when more options were available.[12]
There is some evidence that while greater choice has the potential to improve a person's welfare, sometimes there is such a thing as too much choice. For example, in one experiment involving a choice of free soda, individuals explicitly requested to choose from six as opposed to 24 sodas, where the only benefit from the smaller choice set would be to reduce the cognitive burden of the choice.[11] A recent study supports this research, finding that human services workers indicated preferences for scenarios with limited options over extensive-options scenarios. As the number of choices within the extensive-options scenarios increased, the preference for limited options increased as well.[13] Attempts to explain why choice can demotivate someone from a purchase have focuses on two factors. One assumes that perusing a larger number of choices imposes a cognitive burden on the individual.[14] The other assumes that individuals can experience regret if they make a suboptimal choice, and sometimes avoid making a choice to avoid experiencing regret.[15]
Further research has expanded on choice overload, suggesting that there is a paradox of choice. As increasing options are available, three problems emerge. First, there is the issue of gaining adequate information about the choices in order to make a decision. Second, having more choices leads to an escalation of expectation. When there are increased options, people’s standards for what is an acceptable outcome rise; in other words, choice “spoils you.” Third, with many options available, people may come to believe they are to blame for an unacceptable result because with so many choices, they should have been able to pick the best one. If there is one choice available, and it ends up being disappointing, the world can be held accountable. When there are many options and the choice that one makes is disappointing, the individual is responsible.[16]
However, a recent meta-analysis of the literature on choice overload calls such studies into question (Scheibehenne, Greigeneder, and Todd, 2010). In many cases, researchers have found no effect of choice set size on people's beliefs, feelings, and behavior. Indeed, overall, the effect of "too many options" is minimal at best.
While it might be expected that it is preferable to keep one’s options open, research has shown that having the opportunity to revise one’s decisions leaves people less satisfied with the decision outcome.[17] A recent study found that participants experienced higher regret after having made a reversible decision. The results suggest that reversible decisions cause people to continue to think about the still relevant choice options, which might increase dissatisfaction with the decision and regret.[18]
Individual personality plays a significant role in how individuals deal with large choice set sizes. Psychologists have developed a personality test that determines where an individual lies on the satisficer-maximizer spectrum. A maximizer is one who always seeks the very best option from a choice set, and may anguish after the choice is made as to whether it was indeed the best. Satisficers may set high standards but are content with a good choice, and place less priority on making the best choice. Due to this different approach to decision-making, maximizers are more likely to avoid making a choice when the choice set size is large, probably to avoid the anguish associated with not knowing whether their choice was optimal.[11] One study looked at whether the differences in choice satisfaction between the two are partially due to a difference in willingness to commit to one’s choices. It found that maximizers reported a stronger preference for retaining the ability to revise choices. Additionally, after making a choice to buy a poster, satisficers offered higher ratings of their chosen poster and lower ratings of the rejected alternatives. Maximizers, however, were less likely to change their impressions of the posters after making their choice which left them less satisfied with their decision.[19]
Maximizers are less happy in life, perhaps due to their obsession with making optimal choices in a society where people are frequently confronted with choice.[20] One study found that maximizers reported significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem, and significantly more regret and depression, than did satisficers. In regards to buying products, maximizers were less satisfied with consumer decisions and were more regretful. They were also more likely to engage in social comparison, where they analyze their relative social standing among their peers, and to be more affected by social comparisons in which others appeared to be in higher standing than them. For example, maximizers who saw their peer solve puzzles faster than themselves expressed greater doubt about their own abilities and showed a larger increase in negative mood.[21] On the other hand, people who refrain from taking better choices through drugs or other forms of escapism tend to be much happier in life.
Others[who?] say that there is never too much choice and that there is a difference between happiness and satisfaction: a person who tries to find better decisions will often be dissatisfied, but not necessarily unhappy since his attempts at finding better choices did improve his lifestyle (even if it wasn't the best decision he will continually try to incrementally improve the decisions he takes).
Choice architecture is the process of encouraging people to make good choices through grouping and ordering the decisions in a way that maximizes successful choices and minimizes the n
Destiny
Destiny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Fate" redirects here. For other uses, see Fate (disambiguation). For other uses, see Destiny (disambiguation).
Destiny, sometimes referred to as fate (from Latin fatum – destiny), is a predetermined course of events. [1][2] It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual.
Contents [hide]
1 Fate
2 Fortune
3 Philosophy
4 Religion
5 Literature
6 Further reading
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
Fate[edit]
Fate, by Alphonse Mucha
Although often used interchangeably, the words "fate" and "destiny" have distinct connotations.
Traditional usage defines fate as a power or agency that predetermines and orders the course of events. Fate defines events as ordered or "inevitable" and unavoidable. This is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe, and in some conceptions, the cosmos. Classical and European mythology feature personified "fate spinners," known as the Moirai in Greek mythology,[3] the Parcae in Roman mythology, and the Norns in Norse mythology. They determine the events of the world through the mystic spinning of threads that represent individual human fates. Fate is often conceived as being divinely inspired.[citation needed]
Destiny is used with regard to the finality of events as they have worked themselves out; and to that same sense of "destination", projected into the future to become the flow of events as they will work themselves out.[citation needed]
Fatalism refers to the belief that events fixed by fate are unchangeable by any type of human agency. In other words, humans can not alter their own fates or the fates of others.[1]
Fortune[edit]
Fortune differs terminologically from destiny and fate in that it has more to do with specific occurrences and outcomes, whereas destiny ultimately revolves around death rather than the events of one’s life. In Hellenistic civilization, the chaotic and unforeseeable turns of chance gave increasing prominence to a previously less notable goddess, Tyche (literally "Luck"), who embodied the good fortune of a city and all whose lives depended on its security and prosperity, two good qualities of life that appeared to be out of human reach. The Roman image of Fortuna, with the wheel she blindly turned, was retained by Christian writers, revived strongly in the Renaissance and survives in some forms today.[4]
Philosophy[edit]
Philosophy on the concepts of destiny and fate has existed since the Hellenistic period with groups such as the Stoics and the Epicureans.
The Stoics believed that human decisions and actions ultimately went according to a divine plan devised by a god. They claimed that although humans theoretically have free will, their souls and the circumstances under which they live are all part of the universal network of fate.
The Epicureans challenged the Stoic beliefs by denying the existence of this divine fate. They believed that a human’s actions were voluntary so long as they were rational.[5]
In daily language, "destiny" and "fate" are synonymous, but with regard to 19th century philosophy, the words gained inherently different meanings.
For Arthur Schopenhauer, destiny was just a manifestation of the Will to Live, which can be at the same time living fate and choice of overrunning fate, by means of the Art, of the Morality and of the Ascesis.
For Friedrich Nietzsche, destiny keeps the form of Amor fati (Love of Fate) through the important element of Nietzsche's philosophy, the "will to power" (der Wille zur Macht), the basis of human behavior, influenced by the Will to Live of Schopenhauer. But this concept may have even other senses, although he, in various places, saw the will to power as a strong element for adaptation or survival in a better way.[6] Nietzsche eventually transformed the idea of matter as centers of force into matter as centers of will to power as humanity’s destiny to face with amor fati. The expression Amor fati is used repeatedly by Nietzsche as acceptation-choice of the fate, but in such way it becomes even another thing, precisely a "choice" destiny.
Determinism is a philosophical concept often confused with fate, it can be defined as the notion that all intents/actions are causally determined by the culminations of an agent’s existing circumstances; simply put, everything that happens is determined by things that have already happened.[7] Determinism differs from fate in that it is never conceived as being a spiritual, religious, nor astrological notion; fate is typically thought of as being "given" or "decreed" while determinism is "caused." Influential philosophers like Robert Kane (philosopher), Thomas Nagel, Roderick Chisholm, and A.J. Ayer have written about this notion.
Religion[edit]
The idea of a god controlled destiny plays an important role in numerous religions.
Followers of Ancient Greek religion regarded not only the Moirai but also the gods, particularly Zeus, as responsible for deciding and carrying out destiny, respectively.
Those who followed Gnosticism believed in fate as something strict and unchangeable, resulting in salvation only for the “chosen ones.”
Followers of Christianity consider God to be the only force with control over one’s fate and that he has a plan for every person. Many believe that humans all have free will, which is contrasted with predestination, although naturally inclined to act according to God’s desire.[5]
In Islam, fate or qadar is the decree of Allah.
Literature[edit]
Historically and globally, fate has played a large role in several literary works. In ancient Greece, many legends and tales teach the futility of trying to outmaneuver an inexorable fate that has been correctly predicted. This portrayal of fate is present in works such as Oedipus Rex (427 BCE),[8] the Iliad, the Odyssey (800 BCE), and Theogony. Many ancient Chinese works have also portrayed the concept of fate, most notably the Liezi, Mengzi, and the Zhuangzi. Similarly, and in Italy, the Spanish Duque de Rivas' play that Verdi transformed into La Forza del Destino ("The Force of Destiny") includes notions of fate. In England, fate has played a notable literary role in Shakespeare's Macbeth (1606), Thomas Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles (1891), Samuel Beckett's Endgame (1957), and W.W Jacobs' popular short story "The Monkey's Paw" (1902). In America, Thornton Wilder's book The Bridge of San Luis Rey (1927) portrays the conception of fate. In Germany, fate is a recurring theme in the literature of Hermann Hesse (1877–1962), including Siddharta (1922) and his magnum opus, Das Glasperlenspiel, also published as The Glass Bead Game (1943). And by Hollywood through such characters as Neo in "The Matrix". The common theme of these works involves a protagonist who cannot escape her destiny, however hard she tries.
Fate
Fate[edit]
Fate, by Alphonse Mucha
Although often used interchangeably, the words "fate" and "destiny" have distinct connotations.
Traditional usage defines fate as a power or agency that predetermines and orders the course of events. Fate defines events as ordered or "inevitable" and unavoidable. This is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the universe, and in some conceptions, the cosmos. Classical and European mythology feature personified "fate spinners," known as the Moirai in Greek mythology,[3] the Parcae in Roman mythology, and the Norns in Norse mythology. They determine the events of the world through the mystic spinning of threads that represent individual human fates. Fate is often conceived as being divinely inspired.[citation needed]
Destiny is used with regard to the finality of events as they have worked themselves out; and to that same sense of "destination", projected into the future to become the flow of events as they will work themselves out.[citation needed]
Fatalism refers to the belief that events fixed by fate are unchangeable by any type of human agency. In other words, humans can not alter their own fates or the fates of others.[1]
Fortune[edit]
Fortune differs terminologically from destiny and fate in that it has more to do with specific occurrences and outcomes, whereas destiny ultimately revolves around death rather than the events of one’s life. In Hellenistic civilization, the chaotic and unforeseeable turns of chance gave increasing prominence to a previously less notable goddess, Tyche (literally "Luck"), who embodied the good fortune of a city and all whose lives depended on its security and prosperity, two good qualities of life that appeared to be out of human reach. The Roman image of Fortuna, with the wheel she blindly turned, was retained by Christian writers, revived strongly in the Renaissance and survives in some forms today.[4]
The world around us is syphoning off are perceived decision's. We are bombarded by sensory overload to the point of phyops lightnoise pollution. Unrelenting bombardments of news,radio or simply self advertising in clothes, vehicles tucks or commercial vehicles'. They use human phycology to entice you to buy or compare price for future purchase. More twisted sterilized shipping malls and the connivance of a home p.c. Separates us from the natural word. Numbs us to the fact it take real human resource's and destruction of habitats to mine and extracted resource's. The main stream paints consumerism as supporting then economy. If it was not a pathological behavior or simple instant gratification it could not be weaponized . Frugality an conservation have become social lepers. Name brands do not improve health ,wealth, or fulfillment. After enough income no correlation to even happiness . FOLLOW YOUR PASSION BE A BEACON OF HOPE AND LIGHT MR.FROST!!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html
How it is!
