Can your paradox be solved by the following solution. By definition if one does something that thing was what he wanted. In other words I can agree that it is perplexing, paradoxical and problematic to analyze one’s will before it is actualized for the reasons you’ve described, but once the will is actualized there is no escaping the fact that if the will was actualized than in the truest sense it was what the person wanted.
Obviously this doesn’t do much for an ethicist. How can we expect to study a way of being if we are only able to analyze our actions in a rear view mirror. But perhaps it draws us closer to reconciliation between the study of ethics and the reality you are experiencing.
You're assuming when a moralist, therapist or guide tells you, "do what you want" it means, "do what you want this spare of the moment".
I'm interpreting it as a deeper message. "You have been contemplating this something for a long long time. You're afraid because of external forces. Get your courage and do what you came to want after long long contemplation".
I also think that doing what you want is a messianic state of being. In a state of Democracy where freedom and safety are a given. One can not subscribe to organized meta-ethics, when it comes to personal ethics. But rather respond to your personal calling.
However, within boundaries. No one implies, for instance, you should go steal and kill because "you want" to. But rather let's imagine as an example, a gay person, restricted by social constraints, having contemplated coming out of the closet for years. He is encouraged to be who he wants and and do do what he wants. In this context of coming out to the public in that way.
Any human action needs some form of coercion, be it positive or negative. Coercion could be internal or could be external. We choose what to do through a hierarchy of values.
Doing what you want simply means to be able to choose one's own values and hierarchical structure, ideology if you will.
You have completely left out the Nietzschean Ubermensch, since you erroneously equate will/want with lack of consciousness/subjectivity. In other words your misunderstanding of the ethical proponent of a normative non-structured by law life Is that you are projecting it to a pre-subjective state of being. In practical life that is impossible since we have no subjectivity outside of a social life.
A bit of pedantry: yes you can do what you want; but *should* you?
Re. "They do not include in their task the primary imperative of thinking, which is interrogating the things that seems to us obvious."
Caution: thinking also includes "interrogating the things that seemed obvious to the tradition". Thinking interrogates everything.
Re. "All the more so don’t they include in their task interrogating our concepts *in light of* the concepts provided by the tradition."
And vice versa.
Re. "Once we do open ourselves to this questioning, we are surprised to find that so many things we just take to be obvious truths, or conditions for all thinking, are not. Not only are these obvious things not at all obvious, they are barely intelligible at all."
And vice versa, again. Being prone to folly is not a flaw unique to our times.
Re. "We should also question what the correct method of proceeding is, but it seems that the general must be logically prior to the details."
Agreed on both points, but we must not allow uncertainty to stop us. When in doubt, proceed in some imperfect way and see what you get.
Re. "I think this is because most religions, at least nowadays, teach by way of authority."
I don't know of any exceptions to that observation. Even fringe sects teach by the authority of their founder(s).
Re. "When people start questioning, they will question what is most salient in their education, the reason for being good, and not the specific things claimed as good."
I think this is true, and it is true largely because most religions do a craptacular job teaching believers what "good" or "evil" mean. Because most religions choose to bend everything to the advancement of their dogma; they tend to define "good" as obedience to their authority and dogma. Questioning authority or dogma results in questioning the very concept of "good" (or "evil").
Re. "... when we are asking “why ethic” we are really asking “why a certain definition of what is a good life and not another one”."
Agreed.
Re. "This alternative is thought to be the “natural” state. it is what we would have done had no system of ethics been “imposed” upon the “natural” “pre-ethical” state."
To be clear: these alternatives are CLAIMED to be the "natural" state, but those claims don't survive even a cursory examination.
The actual "natural" state of humans (as revealed by sociology/anthropology) is that humans are naturally social and naturally live in communities. In those scenarios "do what you want" fails.
Ironically, it turns out that the "force" imposing ethics on our "natural" state is nature itself: the requirements for survival.
I say this because there exists a large space between "traditional" ethical systems and "do what you want". It is not an either-or situation.
Re. "Any teenager you will discuss ethics with will ask you “but why can’t I just do what I want?”."
Having raised two children to adulthood, I can confirm this; and that it's not hard to get them past it without resorting to deities, authorities, or scriptures.
-- : --
There is a lot in your excellent post to consider, but other obligations are about to demand my attention. Until later, thank you for this.
Can your paradox be solved by the following solution. By definition if one does something that thing was what he wanted. In other words I can agree that it is perplexing, paradoxical and problematic to analyze one’s will before it is actualized for the reasons you’ve described, but once the will is actualized there is no escaping the fact that if the will was actualized than in the truest sense it was what the person wanted.
Obviously this doesn’t do much for an ethicist. How can we expect to study a way of being if we are only able to analyze our actions in a rear view mirror. But perhaps it draws us closer to reconciliation between the study of ethics and the reality you are experiencing.
You're assuming when a moralist, therapist or guide tells you, "do what you want" it means, "do what you want this spare of the moment".
I'm interpreting it as a deeper message. "You have been contemplating this something for a long long time. You're afraid because of external forces. Get your courage and do what you came to want after long long contemplation".
I also think that doing what you want is a messianic state of being. In a state of Democracy where freedom and safety are a given. One can not subscribe to organized meta-ethics, when it comes to personal ethics. But rather respond to your personal calling.
However, within boundaries. No one implies, for instance, you should go steal and kill because "you want" to. But rather let's imagine as an example, a gay person, restricted by social constraints, having contemplated coming out of the closet for years. He is encouraged to be who he wants and and do do what he wants. In this context of coming out to the public in that way.
Any human action needs some form of coercion, be it positive or negative. Coercion could be internal or could be external. We choose what to do through a hierarchy of values.
Doing what you want simply means to be able to choose one's own values and hierarchical structure, ideology if you will.
You have completely left out the Nietzschean Ubermensch, since you erroneously equate will/want with lack of consciousness/subjectivity. In other words your misunderstanding of the ethical proponent of a normative non-structured by law life Is that you are projecting it to a pre-subjective state of being. In practical life that is impossible since we have no subjectivity outside of a social life.
A bit of pedantry: yes you can do what you want; but *should* you?
Re. "They do not include in their task the primary imperative of thinking, which is interrogating the things that seems to us obvious."
Caution: thinking also includes "interrogating the things that seemed obvious to the tradition". Thinking interrogates everything.
Re. "All the more so don’t they include in their task interrogating our concepts *in light of* the concepts provided by the tradition."
And vice versa.
Re. "Once we do open ourselves to this questioning, we are surprised to find that so many things we just take to be obvious truths, or conditions for all thinking, are not. Not only are these obvious things not at all obvious, they are barely intelligible at all."
And vice versa, again. Being prone to folly is not a flaw unique to our times.
Re. "We should also question what the correct method of proceeding is, but it seems that the general must be logically prior to the details."
Agreed on both points, but we must not allow uncertainty to stop us. When in doubt, proceed in some imperfect way and see what you get.
Re. "I think this is because most religions, at least nowadays, teach by way of authority."
I don't know of any exceptions to that observation. Even fringe sects teach by the authority of their founder(s).
Re. "When people start questioning, they will question what is most salient in their education, the reason for being good, and not the specific things claimed as good."
I think this is true, and it is true largely because most religions do a craptacular job teaching believers what "good" or "evil" mean. Because most religions choose to bend everything to the advancement of their dogma; they tend to define "good" as obedience to their authority and dogma. Questioning authority or dogma results in questioning the very concept of "good" (or "evil").
Re. "... when we are asking “why ethic” we are really asking “why a certain definition of what is a good life and not another one”."
Agreed.
Re. "This alternative is thought to be the “natural” state. it is what we would have done had no system of ethics been “imposed” upon the “natural” “pre-ethical” state."
To be clear: these alternatives are CLAIMED to be the "natural" state, but those claims don't survive even a cursory examination.
The actual "natural" state of humans (as revealed by sociology/anthropology) is that humans are naturally social and naturally live in communities. In those scenarios "do what you want" fails.
Ironically, it turns out that the "force" imposing ethics on our "natural" state is nature itself: the requirements for survival.
I say this because there exists a large space between "traditional" ethical systems and "do what you want". It is not an either-or situation.
Re. "Any teenager you will discuss ethics with will ask you “but why can’t I just do what I want?”."
Having raised two children to adulthood, I can confirm this; and that it's not hard to get them past it without resorting to deities, authorities, or scriptures.
-- : --
There is a lot in your excellent post to consider, but other obligations are about to demand my attention. Until later, thank you for this.