Desire

Tastes are given.

Something quite fundamental in economics that means we don't look at how preferences are generated or even evaluated (beyond first-order desire). That I desire something over something else (economics deals with comparative wants) is all that counts. To think otherwise is to open up the discussion to ethics-and that is something economics studiously avoids. To question why these desires and not others, or whether these desires are good is, at heart, to ask non-economic questions.

Of course, the satisfaction of preferences is a good thing, but there's no real focus on a substantive view of the good. Would the satisfaction of any preferences be a good thing, then? It seems to me that economics is vague on that question. At the very least, then, it seems that it is really interested in the 'structure' of the good and not the good per se. i.e the dominating notion is that of 'betterness' : I prefer x to y, and getting x over y is better for me.

Note: this is not meant to mean that there is anything like 'objectively' better, independent of my desires, and, secondly, 'better' is a comparative term, and thirdly, I do not desire something because it has more goodness to it. Desire comes first. It's just there. Fourthly, the satisfaction of my desire is a good thing, for sure, but why or what kind of goodness? Why should the satisfaction of my desire for two cinnamon rolls (x) over reading Bento's sketchbook (y) necessarily be a good thing, except in a purely formal sense: because I desire it so?

Of course, the connection with freedom, autonomy. But if we're not even concerned about the formation of those desires how serious are we in espousal of freedom?

Taste is not about judgement (as in the older sense of the word: a wine taster doesn't say he can go from 'I prefer x to y' to 'x is better than y' in the same way that he might say I prefer chocolate ice-cream to strawberry). Same with aesthetics. In the modern sense, taste becomes undiscriminating, a raw sensation, unmediated by culture or social norms or tradition.

What limits or what reflection can there be on our desires then? If desire is hooked to the imagination, if pleasure is not bound to our natural bodily limits or to socially defined boundaries (the absence of which is hubris: the Greeks and their fear of infinity), then what is the end, can there possibly be an end?

The definition of economic man (the irony of having a 'definition', which is a delineation!)...

'Man has infinite wants and limited resources'

Of course, we have to remember that 'wants' are not 'needs' but, rather, desires. But if we have limited means to achieve those 'wants', isn't that a recipe for disaster? Aren't we in a permanent situation of scarcity? By definition, we always lack something. Happiness is always around the corner, never here. We are 'constantly moving happiness machines'. The pursuit of liberty, happiness is what it's about.

What would it mean to take step out of this equation? What would it mean to have repose in the face of our insufficiency? To desire much is to miss much. But that is part of our humanity. To renounce desire seems neither possible nor 'desirable'. Should we, then, focus on what is (or should be) the 'object' of our desire? There is a danger there. And this line is always tempting: love is not a reason, but the origin of reasons.