Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alexander Siegenfeld's avatar

I think there's an important distinction to be made between not knowing one's motives and being motivated by something wholistic that cannot be reductionalistically described in terms of other motives, even if it is related to those other motives.

There’s a difference between someone's intelligence and looks influencing how much you like them and liking them only or primarily because they're smart and pretty. Sometimes people will like somone for the latter reason and just hide that from themselves, and I agree that this is distasteful.

But I think often liking something for its own sake is just that, even if the own-sake-ness is influenced by other factors. After all, given that intelligence and looks are part of who someone is, it's totally consistent to like someone "for who they are" and for that decision to be influenced by their being smart and pretty.

I think what people primarily object to is the way of thinking in which things are a means to an end, and in which the value of something can be separated into distinct factors. That sort of thinking is super valuable in some contexts, but never captures the whole picture.

(The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist is one good book that discusses these two ways of thinking.)

Expand full comment
Chad Mulligan's avatar

I can think of no habits that I like "for their own sake."

Do people really think this way?

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts