A few days ago I had a conversation with a guy about getting back into shape, who said, “I don’t like running by myself. I need the motivation of running with someone.” I told him that I have run by myself for years since I never had anyone to run with, barring a few short stints. The conversation got me to thinking about what motivated me to run. Afterall, I am OK with running, but I certainly don’t love it. My motivation is a desire to stay in shape cardio vascularly speaking so that I can do the things I want to do, like hiking, playing with grandchildren, and approaching a climbing area. I don’t have the time or opportunity to do any of those things regularly enough to stay in shape that way. Running can be done on a local greenway or in the neighborhood where I work during lunch or around the house or at the local school track for a short period of time about three times a week, or simply, where and when I have time.
The questions that occurred to me were the following:
What is the difference in desire and motivation? Do desire and motivation overlap, and if so, at what points?
I start with definitions, not because I have no more creativity or original thoughts, but because many words and ideas have become confused, switched, and overlapped when they are actually distinct. For example, we say, “I feel guilty”, when guilt is a judicial problem, not a feeling. In reality, we should say, “I feel shame” about my guilt. I can almost feel some people’s response: “You know what is meant. What’s the big deal?” Well, guilty feelings, shame, may or may not follow guilt. Understanding the difference between a legitimate or false feeling and legitimate or false problem helps one to see the way forward in resolving either or both. If the problem is guilt, one needs to seek out forgiveness. If the problem is shame apart from unforgiven guilt, one needs to accept forgiveness already tendered, and forgive self. (1)
Desire is a longing or craving. Motivation is an incentive or drive.
So, it seems reasonable to say that desire is a feeling and motivation is a compelling cause behind the feeling. Where it seems to get complicated or confused is the source of the motivation. Feelings are internal, but motivation can be either internal or external. For example, running with others is clearly an external motivation. However, is it driven by a feeling or an internal motivation? Fear of being alone or desire to be with others are feelings, but they are also motivators because they push one to do certain things. But this just reversed the cause and effect in that now feeling is driving the motivation.
Desire can be an internal motivation, but so may cold logic about what is beneficial. And there may be a feedback loop where a desire causes a motivation and a motivation causes a desire. This feedback loop may be positive, more motivation produces more desire produces more motivation, etc. Or it may be negative in that a certain desire kills motivation which kills desire, etc.
It is at this point that the confused or credulous reader might ask what the usefulness of this mental exercise has been. If you know what motivation, internal or external is behind your desire, or conversely what desire is behind your motivation, you may be able to substitute other motivations or desires to change a negative feedback loop into a positive one.
For example, perhaps you are in the “Exercise Protection Program” as a friend of mine likes to say. The thought of exercise demotivates you. You consider all of the downsides of exercise: sweating, soreness, time, effort, ability deficiency. That kills any desire you have to exercise. If instead, you could focus on upsides of exercise: cardiovascular fitness, strength and coordination gains, body purifying aspects, goals you may set, good changes to your body you will observe. That grows you desire to exercise. Realizing even a few of the benefits further increases you desire, which is a further motivator to continue.
Which one comes first, desire or motivation? Some external push, a motivator, might get you started trying to learn a new skill like playing the guitar. But would you have begun if it did not touch on a desire you had to grow in that area or in general? Conversely, some internal pull, a desire, grows within you to stop, for example, speeding on the highway. Would you have that desire if you had not been motivated by hearing of a wreck or ticket or moral imperative to obey the law?
My intermediate conclusion to this discussion is that motivations include all external and internal influences. Desires are those types of motivations that are internal and sometimes first causes. (2) We can interject motivations that will change our course. Surround yourself with people who will cheer you one, or focus on outcomes that are beneficial, or pursue diligence until you acclimate to the desire for the activity. These are ways you may interject new energy into your desires and motivations.
- Sometime my examples or asides become the focus because a full explanation is needed for them to make sense. So much for brevity, conciseness, and clarity.
- THE First Cause of all things is God, but here I mean a first cause within the individual that comes from the will of that person unprovoked by outside influences. I do not here refer to moral freedom. I believe we have moral freedom, but there is a problem. Our natures are totally depraved. We always choose what we want to do, but our choice apart from the Holy Spirit of God is always wrong and in rebellion against God, since our nature compels us to do wrong. God, being totally sovereign rules over all outcomes and inputs, and we as moral agents work within the framework of His will and purpose.
“Stop Socialism”*
Posted in Cultural commentary, Discipline, Freedom, General, Government, Implications, Liberty, tagged Capitalism, Communism, Cultural commentary, Diligence, Freedom, Ownership, Role of Government, Socialism, Socialist Democracy on February 20, 2020| 2 Comments »
A colleague of mine came to me with a legitimate concern and question. He prefaced his question by saying that he had no desire to argue but had a great desire to understand the meaning of a sign he had seen several times lately. He referred to a discussion we had earlier in the week, remarking that I seemed to have strong feelings about the subject. Before I reveal the question or my answer, I would like to say that I expressed gratitude for the demeanor of my colleague and friend to want to have substantive, civil discussion. That is rare these days. We seem to not be able to agree to disagree and give calm, reasoned answers to fellow citizens and human beings on controversial subjects.
The sign said, “Stop Socialism”. I think* that this may be the slogan of someone seeking political office. He said, “Give me your three best reasons for why you don’t like Socialism. I am going to go away for an hour and come back so that you have time to think about it.”
Shortly after he left the room I quickly prayed that God would give me clarity of mind, remembrance of apropos Scriptures, and an opportunity for witness. After a few minutes thought three reasons came to mind and Scriptures by way of an online concordance. Then I thought to call my older brother, who was a preacher for many years, in order to see if he had any better Scriptures. It was kinda a “call a friend” on “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” moment, but in God’s providence we could not make connection after several tries in both directions.
Though more well thought out and concise here, my answer went some like the following:
I began by saying that I suspected that many of the people who hate Socialism would agree with the points I was about to make, even if few know why or where the ideas come from. For my part, I come from a biblical worldview that judges all of life based on what the Scriptures say. (2)
Here are my three reasons for hating Socialism:
1) Role of Government
In Romans 13:1-5, Paul clearly lays out the God ordained role of government to punish evil doers. We can extend that to include internal and external enemies. The government should punish those who murder, steal, rape, and otherwise harm fellow citizens. They should raise a defense against invading enemies (3). Redistributing wealth is a gross overreach of a government’s God ordained role. As a self-governed, free people we should do all we can to stifle this overreach.
2) Ownership
This concept flows from the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal.” (Exodus 20:15) God has given people the privilege of owning and stewarding possessions. The government is stealing possessions to give to others when taxes go beyond maintenance of the God ordained role of government. The government is playing Robin Hood with the taxpayer’s money, but much less efficiently or altruistically. A corollary to this principle arises in a parable that Jesus tells as an analogy for the kingdom of God. The reference to ownership is not the point of the parable, but Jesus teaches us truth about ownership in the midst of teaching about His kingdom. He does not use falsehood to support a truth He teaches. I read part of the parable from Matthew 20:1-16 to my colleague and explained the rest. The owner of the vineyard hires men to work in his vineyard at various times during the day as he finds them in the marketplace. At the end of the day he pays them all the same amount even though some worked all day in the heat and some worked for one hour (4). When questioned about the unfairness of this pay scheme, the owner says, “‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’” (Matthew 20:13-15). The corollary to ownership is freedom to dispose of what belongs to you as you see fit. It is not the government’s place to decide how you spend or give your possessions.
3) Diligence
This last point is the most telling as to the disaster of Socialism. I told my colleague that the Thessalonians (5) must have had a tendency toward Socialism, because Paul felt a need to mention their work ethic in both books he wrote, being quite direct in the second instance. In I Thessalonians 4:11-12, Paul admonished his readers “to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands” for the purpose of witness to outsiders. In II Thessalonians 3:6-13, Paul is very direct about those who are idle and slack in discipline: “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” (v.10) The most extreme form of Socialism, Communism, has failed numerous times to produce hard work and altruism among those laboring on collective farms and in collective factories. On the one hand, why work hard if the government will supply what you need? On the other hand, why work hard if you don’t own the property (crop, stock, interest, benefit) of the enterprise to be able to profit from it succeeding? Socialism fails to provide because of the dual selfishness of the greedy ruler and the slack worker.
I ended the discussion by saying that it seems there is a continuum from the far right of unbridled capitalism and far left of authoritarian communism. It may look something like the following:
authoritarian – socialism – socialist – regulated – unbridled
communism democracy capitalism capitalism
I understand the draw of Socialism to curb the excesses of unbridled capitalism. I think that socialist democracy is an oxymoronic attempt either to deceive others or a self-deception on the way toward socialism. I would support a minimally regulated capitalism because it puts the government in a position to punish evil doers who are stealing from the neighbors while respecting the individual’s right to own and dispose of his wealth as he sees fit. I think that I stand in good company with our founding fathers who instituted the Patent Act of 1790, for example. (6) And I believe I am in better company with the principles God’s Word lays down for our interactions with our fellow citizens.
*I don’t follow the tit for tat details of politics because I find it disheartening. A quick Google search brought up several signs past and present of politicians and political groups touting this slogan.
(2) No, I didn’t say that sentence quite so concisely or clearly, but I wish I had. Much that calls itself Christian these days is not, because it does not obey the admonition to be “destroying every speculation” by “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:5). The direction for obedience to Christ is the Scripture.
(3) Augustine’s Just War Theory would not include expansionist offensives though it could be well argued that it could include pre-emptive offensives.
(4) His actual point is that whether you come late or early, God gives the grace of salvation (“one denarius”, a day’s wage) to each so the “last shall be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:16).
(5) Thessalonica was an ancient city in Macedonia in the north of Greece from whence came Alexander the Great and where Paul planted a church.
(6) As far back as 500 B.C. right of ownership of an idea or new product is noted.
Read Full Post »