Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Coffee Confessions

Kind readers,

If you’ll allow, let me divulge a tad about my life. No, I will not bore you with some trivial private gossip or pent up angst and frustration about the woes of life or anything of that sort, but I would like to call your attention and get your reactions to a problem I’m dealing with: I can barely type the words, but I, regrettably, have lost my taste for coffee, and it is a sad, cold world without the brew.

This revelation will probably be better placed within the proper context. I was bred to drink this stuff. My parents are big coffee drinkers, and I was literally raised with the aroma of coffee abundant in the air and loved that smell, I’ve been told, as a very young child and have never stopped. In fact, at age four I pestered my parents so much one fateful day for a taste of their coffee that they allowed me to have a sip, thinking that, like a normal child, I would be utterly repulsed by the bitter taste (there’s never any added sugar or sweeteners in our coffee!) and give up on the drink till I got older. Well, I was not a very normal child. (Insert your own joke here about me still not being normal if you like!) To their surprise, or maybe dismay, I loved the coffee, and they were then somewhat forced to keep allowing me to have sips every now and then. When visiting either friends of my parents or my own friends’ parents as an elementary-aged child, I would often shock adults who’d ask what beverage I’d like (them expecting me to say Coke or juice) with the reply of coffee, and they’d undoubtedly proceed to question the kind of parents I had! And so began my love affair with the, to me, ineffably tasty drink.

You see, coffee for me was not about a caffeine-induced rush; in fact, it was no sort of stimulant at all, as it normally is for people. Instead of a jilting morning wake-up, coffee affected me in the reverse fashion: actually making me quite relaxed and much more focused, which is very useful as a student! But something terrible has happened! About three and a half weeks ago until this present day, my beloved coffee has not loved me back in return. It does not give those same fulfilling feelings nor taste as appealing, and the focus it once provided is gone, along with my longing for it.

I do not want the coffee any longer, but I want to want it.

In philosophy, this is known as a second-order desire: the desire to desire. This is the same feeling as the self-loathing drug addict who wants to refrain from his habit but cannot, or the unwilling antisocial person who desires to want companionship but does not actually posses that want – simply, their will is to want something other than that which they really want. A couple terms used above to describe these scenarios, “unwilling” and “the will,” are interesting here. What is it that is doing the willing and unwilling? What part of you wants and what doesn’t want?

For me, it is my mind that wants, but my body that does not. A certain event in my brain may be altered in some way to have a different effect, causing this lack of desire. But what was it that was doing the willing in the first place? Not, apparently, my mind or will. I had this craving that was brought on by something I didn’t will (though it was a bodily reaction of mine), and so it was out of my control and brought upon me. But this was far from a negative thing. Apart from just the satiation of the particular thirst, satisfying a longing of any sort, even an imposed craving, can be a great pleasure in and of itself. But now I’ve been “freed” from this craving, and yet am unsatisfied! Some will say that this is crazy: you had this thirst that you did not will and now that you’re liberated from it, you want it again? But it was not I, really, who willed the removal of the craving – again, something happened apart from my own willing to put me in this situation! I am no more free now if I did not will the abrupt cessation in the same way that I did not will the original craving.

It is strange to talk in this fashion for it is truly me – my will, maybe my mind? – who is doing the desiring and the desiring of the desire, but it is also me – my body, either in stomach or just in the brain – who is controlling it all. Perhaps willpower is not as powerful as we’d like. It seems odd that I at the same time both want and don’t want (and want to want and don’t want to want, ad infinitum), but that is the nature of the situation. As much fulfillment there is (or, was) from the coffee for what it did for me, and also the satisfying of the craving itself, am I yet irrational in my second-order desire? Ought I crave the craving, or be content coffee-need-less?

6 comments:

Tim "The Great" Medearis said...

I particularly enjoy the fact that this was put up at 1:11 a.m. But as to the matter of coffee, it is good to remain grounded. I’m taking a perspective based on finding the best possible outcome. You want the feelings you once got from the beverage, even more so due to the unexpected end to these effects. But to approach this rationally, you will want to weigh out the costs and the benefits of drinking coffee in the first place. This is something only you can truly do, in that it is safe to assume none of us have experienced coffee as you have. If the benefits coffee gave your body, mind, ect outweigh the costs, than it was rational to drink coffee as you did. However, what to do now requires a second look at these costs and benefits. If the costs of drinking coffee now outweigh the benefits, then you should stop drinking it. The final thing to think about is whether the past benefits of coffee are worth keeping up drinking for, on the off chance that the effects come back. For example, it may be worth drinking a cup each day, or if not daily then weekly, biweekly, and so on. One day, your taste for coffee may return or change again. This should be counted on, and as such the answer to whether to keep drinking should change with what it’s worth to you to have coffee.

As to the rationality of wanting or not wanting to keep drinking, I think that ties back to a psychological attachment. What you really want is the experience of drinking coffee as you once knew it, and the disappointment of not finding that anymore makes you not want any more of what at least part of your mind considers "fake coffee". Subconscious, or perhaps conscious, feelings of getting a bad deal bring about a near angry state of confusion on the matter. This also triggers an almost feral desire for the original experience, followed by negative emotions when that experience isn’t found again. This exact experience is undergone on various and sundry levels by recovering addicts, heartbroken ex’s, and even nostalgic visitors to a recently developed area. Really, the actual comprehension of the change in one’s self is the best thing for figuring out what to do next. If you can weigh out the costs and benefits, then the rest is just warm memories and hopeful anticipation for a time when a similar experience is had. Or to put it short: the best thing to do about this coffee situation is to let off some steam, realize where your tastes lie, and use that information to find where you stand relative to coffee.

Zach Sherwin said...

Good post, as usual! I should point out, by the way, that this isn't the first Arete post on coffee:

http://berryarete.blogspot.com/2009/03/coffee-and-philosophy-brewing-good.html

Oddly enough, your post seems to imply a sort of mind-body dualism. If your body wants one thing (no coffee), and your mind wants something else (coffee), it seems that either your mind/body can hold contradictory desires at the same time, or the mind and the body are different.

Or maybe not; thoughts?

Andrea Lowry said...

Zach, yes, that dualism is exactly what I was implying!

Strange, but there must be two "me's" when speaking about this, because it seems that one of me (my mind/will) wants the coffee -- or at least, wants to want the coffee -- while the other me (my brain/body) has no craving.

So if you asked me, "Would you like some coffee?" what do I answer? Usually, I think most people associate the self with the mind/will, and so I should answer from that self and say "yes," for that me does want it and its precious effects. But it is also true that I (another part)don't want it, and should then answer "no," for as I argued, my body (primarily brain) is really in control of the craving, regardless of my will/mind.

So to answer from my "self," do I follow the norm and go with my mind, or with my body? Again, what is it that is doing the wanting? To throw something additional in, perhaps second-order desires and a dualistic account like this mean that personal identity of the self, when dealing with physical things like cravings at least, must include both body and mind!

Zach Sherwin said...

Excellent posts... but, then, what is to prevent us from taking a trialist account? Rather than merely distinguishing between the mind and body, perhaps we should distinguish between the mind, the body, and the spirit. After all, a secular materialist/empiricist can believe that there is a distinction between the mind and the body, even if they do not believe in an eternal element; that which they do not believe in could be coined the "spirit" (or the "soul", if you prefer).

If that is the case, your body tells you one thing, your mind something else... is the spirit silent on the issue? If so, I would go with the mind. It seems to me, albeit without explicit argument, that the spirit ought take preference over the mind, the mind over the body, and the body over nothing. Only go with the body if there is no other conflict. That, at least, would be Zach's account, best as he can convey it. Would Andrea's (or Tim's, if he's reading this) differ? Think the trialist account fails somehow?

One great thing about it is that, if the spirit doesn't exist, it necessarily cannot object to an action, so the trialist account is still cogent-- one should simply prioritize mind over body.

R. J. Marvin said...

I feel that the mind/body dualism your proposing here further proves that the prevalance of Cartesian thought only muddles with what should be an uncontroversial synthetic a posteriori judgement. If instead of this two substance problem, make it a single substance universe. If the proponents of the Chinese Room are correct in their assertions that cognitions (including the desire to desire) are all products of a simple input/output design, then what the mind desires IS what the body desires. There is no significant difference between neural cause and effect or any other type of tissue cause and effect. The appearent dysfunction of the two is really a problem a pharmacologist can remedy. The fixation and importance we give to the phenominology of our cognitions is arbitrary. It seems to me that your nostalga for coffe is fueling your 'will' rendering your observation that the will is not as powerfull as we like it to be, true; and seemingly free judgments are still subject to the same kind of external stimuli that the rest of the corporeal body is subjected. My advice? go to a twelve step program. If you follow it correctly new neural pathways will be buit in your brain that redirects your will away from the nostalga that triggers your addiction to caffine.

Anonymous said...

This post seems ironic and perhaps a metaphor for another desire you are confessing.