The Master Addiction 2
(This is dumbed down quite a bit. Partly because I failed so miserably with my initial post.)
Addiction seems (to me) to be inadequately defined. "The online definition is: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
What is missing is the "why" of it. Through use of the term "Master Addiction", I mean to suggest that ALL ADDICTIONS HAVE A COMMON "WHY", and that the conventional addictions represent only a small fraction of possible addictions that could be classified under the same common "why".
If the "why" is conventionally considered to be compulsion and compulsion is defined as "an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act", then there is no "why". A rational, volitional, mind is capable of resisting any persistent impulse.
I smoke and I drink fairly regularly, so this isn't some kind of Puritanical rant against vice.
Theoretically anyone can be addicted to anything. Smoking, drinking, long hot showers, chocolate, coffee, comfortable sheets... whatever.
Rather than postulate the "why" of it myself, I'd like to solicit your comments on:
1. Whether there is a common "why"
2. What that "why" is
3. How the "why" would be interpreted via Objectivism
4. Whether Objectivism reveals anything more about the "why"
Addiction seems (to me) to be inadequately defined. "The online definition is: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"
What is missing is the "why" of it. Through use of the term "Master Addiction", I mean to suggest that ALL ADDICTIONS HAVE A COMMON "WHY", and that the conventional addictions represent only a small fraction of possible addictions that could be classified under the same common "why".
If the "why" is conventionally considered to be compulsion and compulsion is defined as "an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act", then there is no "why". A rational, volitional, mind is capable of resisting any persistent impulse.
I smoke and I drink fairly regularly, so this isn't some kind of Puritanical rant against vice.
Theoretically anyone can be addicted to anything. Smoking, drinking, long hot showers, chocolate, coffee, comfortable sheets... whatever.
Rather than postulate the "why" of it myself, I'd like to solicit your comments on:
1. Whether there is a common "why"
2. What that "why" is
3. How the "why" would be interpreted via Objectivism
4. Whether Objectivism reveals anything more about the "why"
Add Comment
All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read
- 1Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years, 3 months agoI had a friend that told me that anythng you do every day is an addiction.I would say that we all need to take responsibility for taking care of ourselves to the best of our ability.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months agoI don't know much about addiction, but I've heard that some things psychologically addictive (e.g. cocaine) while other things are physically addictive (e.g. heroine or alcohol). I wonder if this model is useful. There is so much politics and irrational thinking in this area it's hard for a casual observer to know.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
