Humans Are Engines of Desire

One more thing. IMO, 'desire' can be defined as urge+energy. Without energy you wouldn't call it desire, you would call it misery. We need both energy, direction, and some channels for that energy to achieve our goals. But I do not think that desire is the core thing in human psyche. To me it's like saying that you can't live without heart, but can live without liver. You need desire, restraint, intellect, knowledge, and many other things to live your life. Without any of these components human beings would not be what they are.

reply to post by Raelsatu

Humans Are Engines of Desire

So are animal.

I find it ironic that some humans will write a thread and talk about other "humans", as if they aren't humans themselves, as if they are some god.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Raelsatu

 

Humans Are Engines of Desire

So are animal.

That's debatable. Other animals may be driven by instinct, not desire. To have desire implies a sentient consciousness. It's not yet known whether other animals have sentient consciousness like us, but I believe several animals do.

I find it ironic that some humans will write a thread and talk about other "humans", as if they aren't humans themselves, as if they are some god.

I didn't get that impression at all from what the OP said. He/she was in no way denying to be driven be desire, nor was the OP even saying that desire is a bad thing.

On the topic of desire, Nietzsche is a great read. Though, when reading Nietzsche make sure to pick the bones and not swallow the carcass whole. Beyond Good and Evil is brilliant, though overly pessimistic in my opinion. Some notable observations on human desire from BGaE,

Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to DISCHARGE its strength—life itself is WILL TO POWER; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent RESULTS thereof.

One loves ultimately one's desires, not the thing desired.

What? A great man? I always see merely the play-actor of his own ideal.

Our vanity would like what we do best to pass precisely for what is most difficult to us.—Concerning the origin of many systems of morals.

As for the notion that we are just material creatures with intellects consisting of chemical reactions, Schopenhauer took a different approach by making the will the true substance and the material world a "representation". As a society it seems we have settled on the notion that the world exists materially and objectively. It's a good exercise to review the alternative philosophies put forward to help us realize that what we have collectively settled on is not without detractors, many of them brilliant. Schopenhauer's main work can be found here and a good summary of his beliefs can be found here. I would take more time to defend his ideas (not that they're right, only that they deserve defense), but I've only just started reading his book.