There really isn’t a good long-term alternative to being stronger than your cravings.


6 thoughts on “Musings

  1. For one, you can’t plan your cravings. Thus, you can’t see them coming. Then my question… why would you want to be stronger than your cravings? A craving is a message from some part of you – body and/or sub-conscious self – saying that you require something – a sort of food or an activity – to satisfy some need. I would argue that the only strength you need is for staving off a craving long enough to figure out what will satisfy the craving and then wait for the appropriate time to satisfy that craving.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I disagree with your underlying premise of not being able to anticipate cravings; I can study my behavioral patterns for a given length of time and track a trend in how I think or act in response to a given stimuli. Deductively, I can use psychoanalysis tools and behavioral studies to assess myself and find a suitable starting point for this. As far as why you would want to be stronger than your cravings, there are multiple scenarios where there is practical value in doing so. All forms of addiction for one, and anger as well. If I want to kill someone, I better know for sure if it serves a greater good, or I’m simply indulging my craving—a brief moment of intense anger—in that circumstance. As far as food goes, I disagree with you there as well. If you look at the genetic basis for food cravings, then yes, the environments humans evolved in allowed us to follow our cravings and enjoy a high measure of fulfillment and well-being. But in the modern day first-world (the environment I occupy), this is not the case. Junk food companies genetically engineer their products so that they will take advantage of a consumer’s dopaminergic response and lead them down a path of hormonal dysfunction and excess stored energy (obesity). I think your premise was a valid one for most of the course of human evolution, but is not the case now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I will consider myself more educated now. You have made very valid points. You’re right. I only considered a very broad perspective of human behavior that, I suppose now, is a little dated. Good stuff. I must mentally chew on that now to make sure it sticks to my “ribs of wisdom”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’m heartened by our civil discourse, and believe you’re using the word “valid” in the exact right capacity; my understanding of logic is that there’s no definite “proof” of anything, only theories that satisfy a certain burden of reliability (a p-value) which satisfies the SCIENTIFIC burden of proof. The word “valid” applies to a conclusion where the premise is considered “true” as a matter of faith, and the logical steps between premise and conclusion are sound. Meaning that when you say my points are valid, we are both keeping in mind that we are taking certain premises on faith and we’re open to changing our minds about said premises, should new evidence present itself. I think this attitude is largely lacking today, but your reply implies what I consider to be the proper stance in regards to truth and logic. Good deal, man! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s