Question

Welcome to the Philosophy Stack Exchange. Yes, this is very puzzling, partly because the way it is explained is confusing. The starting point of this problem is the fact that our values often conflict with each other. For example, there can be a conflict between the attraction of going out for exercise and staying in where it's warm. I can want both but cannot have both. This case is resolved by making a choice. But in other cases, what is wanted has both positive and negative characteristics. So, we are ambivalent. While it is relatively easy to avoid eating something that doesn't taste very good if it is also harmful, it can be very hard to avoid eating something that tastes delicious even though it is also harmful. That situation is sometimes described as wanting not to want. It is not a particularly helpful way, but it has the merit of getting our attention. Some people describe this situation in terms of first- and second-order wants. Wanting to eat the goodie is a first-order want. Wanting not to eat the goodie is a second-order want. Perhaps that is less confusing, though, like the author of the article you link to, I am not a fan myself. The problem starts with thinking that we need to control what we want, as if wanting something is like doing something. Doing something is what we are in control of. Controlling what we do enables us to achieve what we want. What other point does being in control have? When we are doing something we don't want to do, we are not in control. The problem is how it is possible to understand what is good or right but do what is bad or wrong. It is as old as philosophy. It is usually characterized as a lack of self-control, which describes the problem without resolving it. Some people call it weakness of will, which is, on the whole, unhelpful. Philosophy has not, in my opinion, come up with any useful solutions, but psychologists have developed some techniques that can help. Perhaps it would be better to leave the problem to them. What is the main challenge discussed in the article?

a) The confusion in explaining philosophical concepts
b) The conflict between exercising and staying warm
c) The difficulty of avoiding harmful but delicious food
d) The need for psychologists to address philosophical issues

Answer 1

The article primarily addresses the philosophical challenge of managing conflicting desires, particularly when a choice has both attractive and detrimental aspects, leading to ambivalence and discussions about first- and second-order wants.

Step-by-step explanation:

The main challenge discussed in the article is the problem of wanting things that have both positive and negative characteristics, leading to a state of ambivalence and a situation often described as wanting not to want. Philosophers have struggled to address this issue, which is related to self-control and the concept of first- and second-order wants. The main challenge discussed in the article is the difficulty of avoiding harmful but delicious food. The article mentions the conflict between wanting to eat something that tastes delicious and knowing that it is also harmful. This situation is sometimes described as wanting not to want. It highlights the challenge of controlling our desires and making choices that align with what is good or right for us.

The difficulty arises when dealing with choices that both appeal to our desires and contradict our better judgment or understanding of what is good, such as the desire to indulge in harmful but tasty food. This classic philosophical problem, often related to the notion of weakness of will or akrasia, refers to the paradox of knowing what is right but acting against it.