Why humans (and possibly higher cognition animals) have it especially bad
So with most other animals, instincts/drives often take the place of heuristics to come to a decision. Often that decision leads to sub-optimal results.. Stepped on the road at the wrong time, talked to a person at the wrong time, judged a situation wrong, etc. etc. Now, there might be some sort of unconscious internal calculations that all animal brains do. I'm not talking about those processes. Rather, I'm talking about the kind of self-talk, conscious, and linguistic-based decisions that humans make most part of the day. This can be considered "deliberative thinking", or "discursive thinking", or "rational thinking", depending on the context. All the helping mechanisms that other animals have- mainly internal drives and instinctual group behaviors have been completely internalized and given the full bearing of deliberation in the human. All the burden is on our thought-processes, how we deliberate and interact with the socio-physical environment. This leads to that much more psychological stress. This situation is almost maladaptive to an extent. Some thoughts from philosophers and writers getting to my point:
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work]Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.
[/quote]
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Messiah] Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."[1] Zapffe viewed the world as beyond humanity's need for meaning, unable to provide any of the answers to the fundamental existential questions.
The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.
—?Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah[/quote]
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work]Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.
[/quote]
[quote=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Messiah] Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."[1] Zapffe viewed the world as beyond humanity's need for meaning, unable to provide any of the answers to the fundamental existential questions.
The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.
—?Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah[/quote]
E.M. Cioran:“Better to be an animal than a man, an insect than an animal, a plant than an insect, and so on.
Salvation? Whatever diminishes the kingdom of consciousness and compromises its supremacy.”
E.M. Cioran:Knowledge is the plague of life, and consciousness, an open wound in its heart.
E.M. Cioran:Consciousness is nature's nightmare.
E.M Cioran:Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh
Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race:“For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.”
Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race:No other life forms know they are alive, and neither do they know they will die. This is our curse alone. Without this hex upon our heads, we would never have withdrawn as far as we have from the natural—so far and for such a time that it is a relief to say what we have been trying with our all not to say: We have long since been denizens of the natural world. Everywhere around us are natural habitats, but within us is the shiver of startling and dreadful things. Simply put: We are not from here. If we vanished tomorrow, no organism on this planet would miss us. Nothing in nature needs us.
Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race:As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give precedence to suffering will be left behind. They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that there is a 'brotherhood of suffering between everything alive' would disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one marker, we advance to the next — as if we were playing a board game we think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with the undead and the human puppet.
Thomas Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race:We are only chance visitants to this jungle of blind mutations. The natural world existed when we did not, and it will continue to exist long after we are gone. The supernatural crept into life only when the door of consciousness was opened in our heads. The moment we stepped through that door, we walked out on nature. Say what we will about it and deny it till we die--we are blighted by our knowing what is too much to know and too secret to tell one another if we are to stride along our streets, work at our jobs, and sleep in our beds. It is the knowledge of a race of beings that is only passing through this shoddy cosmos.
Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World:But all this contributes to increase the measures of suffering in human life out of all proportion to its pleasures; and the pains of life are made much worse for man by the fact that death is something very real to him. The brute flies from death instinctively without really knowing what it is, and therefore without ever contemplating it in the way natural to a man, who has this prospect always before his eyes. So that even if only a few brutes die a natural death, and most of them live only just long enough to transmit their species, and then, if not earlier, become the prey of some other animal,—whilst man, on the other hand, manages to make so-called natural death the rule, to which, however, there are a good many exceptions,—the advantage is on the side of the brute, for the reason stated above. But the fact is that man attains the natural term of years just as seldom as the brute; because the unnatural way in which he lives, and the strain of work and emotion, lead to a degeneration of the race; and so his goal is not often reached.
The brute is much more content with mere existence than man; the plant is wholly so; and man finds satisfaction in it just in proportion as he is dull and obtuse. Accordingly, the life of the brute carries less of sorrow with it, but also less of joy, when compared with the life of man; and while this may be traced, on the one side, to freedom from the torment of care and anxiety, it is also due to the fact that hope, in any real sense, is unknown to the brute. It is thus deprived of any share in that which gives us the most and best of our joys and pleasures, the mental anticipation of a happy future, and the inspiriting play of phantasy, both of which we owe to our power of imagination. If the brute is free from care, it is also, in this sense, without hope; in either case, because its consciousness is limited to the present moment, to what it can actually see before it. The brute is an embodiment of present impulses, and hence what elements of fear and hope exist in its nature—and they do not go very far—arise only in relation to objects that lie before it and within reach of those impulses: whereas a man's range of vision embraces the whole of his life, and extends far into the past and future.
Following upon this, there is one respect in which brutes show real wisdom when compared with us—I mean, their quiet, placid enjoyment of the present moment. The tranquillity of mind which this seems to give them often puts us to shame for the many times we allow our thoughts and our cares to make us restless and discontented. And, in fact, those pleasures of hope and anticipation which I have been mentioning are not to be had for nothing. The delight which a man has in hoping for and looking forward to some special satisfaction is a part of the real pleasure attaching to it enjoyed in advance. This is afterwards deducted; for the more we look forward to anything, the less satisfaction we find in it when it comes. But the brute's enjoyment is not anticipated, and therefore, suffers no deduction; so that the actual pleasure of the moment comes to it whole and unimpaired. In the same way, too, evil presses upon the brute only with its own intrinsic weight; whereas with us the fear of its coming often makes its burden ten times more grievous.
Comments (47)
Right. Which is why the solution to the problem is out-of-scope for naturalism.
All I'm saying is that we are given the burden of, "If I don't want this, I have to do that.. but I don't want to do that". There's bad decision-making and heuristics. It's all confined to the individual's own deliberation.. It isn't unthinking instinct or shared amongst the group.. It is each person's individual deliberative situation. Don't forget the monkey wrench of mental illness.. So human condition is burdensome even for the most well-adjusted.. Add in mental illness for inefficiencies, and you get all sorts of glitches for more maladaptation to the psycho-physical circumstances. Perhaps they would have simply been dead earlier in previous times.
Either way, humans have the burden of how to exist each and every day/moment.. Other animals don't have that extra burden.
What's funny is when you try to answer that "no there is a way.." this becomes untenable in its own justifications.. Yes, humans "tend" to form habits based on cultural cues but this is still up to the individual if they want to accept that and use it, or even if they do, whether they integrate the habits well, or even if they are decent at integrating social-survival habits, they can still make a bad choice somewhere at a particular time or use the judgement wrong, or simply contingent circumstances don't work out etc..
Phase 1: Cynical comment on human misery: "Yes, what great non-paradise conditions we are born into as humans".
Phase 2: Pessimist answer: If not paradise conditions, let's do something about it for future people.. As for ourselves, let's commiserate.
Phase 3 The crowd's answer: [Throw rotten vegetables.. and in Monty Python-cockney accents] "Boooo you! Fuck off! Leave us alone! You are such a downer! Talk science or politics! Boo you!!! Fuck off with your pessimism!!! We like this non-paradise arrangement!! Don't remind us of the structural downsides!! I'll ignore you!! I'll sublimate it!! I'll anchor it in X!! I'll wave you off as a [place degrading remark here]!!! That ad hom will show him and hopefully those other pessimists will get the point!! You're not wanted!! Go away!! Did I say Fuck off?!! Make sure none of the other you lot get any ideas now!! Let's talk economics, politics, and science.. Those are LEGITIMATE!! Now fuck off!!
It is an inescapable consequence of self-awareness. In my view, that is one of the meanings of 'the myth of the fall'. That is why religions exist at all - to resolve that existential bind. Schopenhauer, in spite of his purported pessimism, still recognised that. See this heading in the SEP entry.
There's also something in Eric Fromm's notion of 'the fear of freedom'. Liberty is a kind of burden in some ways, because so much is left up to the individual. I think that's why people used to join the army or become monks - it removes that burden. But ultimately the burden is that of self-hood, and that is inextricably part of the human condition. The philosophy of individualism actually excerbates that in some respects. That was also central to Durkheim's analysis of 'anomie' and Weber's 'spirit of capitalism'.
Totally agree. I would add prison to this. Thirty years ago I would have added university too, which used to function as a kind of sheltered workshop for so many men and women of tenure. Freedom is terrifying to many people. I have often noticed that for many people having a dependency on substances is also a good way to avoid calling the shots.
Also, all of your supporting quotes have a foundation/assumption that the other, "lower" forms of life (suggesting that man is higher, a laughable concept) are unaware of all that man is aware of, however, that foundation is based entirely on the assumption that we, humans, are the higher form of life, and that we are aware of things that the other lifeforms are not aware of. I say that they are aware of these things, they have simply found balance, something that we, generally, have yet to find.
We are hardly the higher being.
Yes Schop’s denial of the Will. But I think even he thought this was reserved for the few who had the ascetic character to do so. The rest of us have aesthetic contemplation and compassionate-driven acts. Much lesser vehicles for overcoming the PSR and the world of Representation.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, the individual bears the brunt of everything. Interestingly, this then becomes a vicious cycle whereby your sub-optimal condition is the individuals “inability” to make the right “judgement call” or decision. The very fact humans must even try to find or cultivate a heuristic is it’s own burden.
We’ve achieved balance, damnit! [fist pounds on desk].
Quoting Book273
I don’t think other animals “find” balance. Not in the way humans must do. Because of this inability, we are miserable aberrations from the rest of nature. The origins are the same. I’m not claiming metaphysical difference, but a resultant consequence of how we evolved. If I claimed bats can do things birds can’t and vice versa, you would probably not have a problem. Humans are different as well obviously, and the individual heuristic based self-talk justifications and decisions we make to survive, and our own ability to know this situation puts us on our own miserably outcast ship, part of nature but not at home in the same way.
Meditating and “taking in nature and the moment” is not the same as an animal that doesn’t have linguistic based, conceptual, heuristic self-talk cognition. You might say we try to mimic these states through things like mediation and meditation.
See my responses above as it addresses your confusion..I’ll put the most salient one below.
Quoting schopenhauer1
(Consciousness, not living itself, is the problem.)
Yes, I’m giving an account specifically of how human cognition is especially the problem. The fact that I can point to this and explain it is significant.
Do you have a cat or dog? Especially a cat would object and show you why.
You’re probably misinterpreting me. Contra other animals, humans strive to (or need to) find balance.
Consider Buddhist Analogues of Sin and Grace.
Quoting 180 Proof
'I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy' ~ Kenney Everett.
How exactly do you know that? I certainly do not.
Just because I cannot understand the animal does not mean that it, and others of it's kind, cannot understand it. I notice that birds in my yard very quickly communicate with more distant birds when I have renewed the water during hot dry weather. My dogs dream, bark and growl in their sleep, and have food preferences, as well as preferred sleeping spots. As do my cats. They communicate with me as best they can, likely far more eloquently than I am able to deduce. That is a communication problem, not an intelligence problem. When my dog behaves poorly he certainly responds in a dejected, embarrassed manner which would support his self-talk of behaving poorly.
Other animals don’t self talk any more than we use echo location to find food. It is a very specific kind of internal linguistic ability. Anyways, To focus on this aspect of what I’m saying is to miss the point entirely.
If you don’t think humans have evolved certain traits different from other animals, I can’t help you. You’re now playing around with the very idea of difference. A fly is a whale is a chimp is a dog is a human. No differences.
Anyway, coming back to the dynamic vs static distinction I referred to, the suffering multiplied in humans (cognitively "superior") essentially becomes the impetus for a call to change, the hope being a change for the better. This change we desire originates in the higher cognitive centers which is also the the very means by which the change we desire can be achieved. All this - plan + implement plan - takes time (I spent an entire hour in a f**king traffic jam :grimace: :angry: ) but what needs to be noted is the dynamic quality of reality as it were - it's a process not a state. Once we become cognizant of this simple fact, we realize that, yes, it's bad but it doesn't have to stay that way. The winds of change have blown, are blowing, and will blow.
:100:
A categorical distinction between man and animal can be drawn if you like. But that distinction is neither psychological nor genetic. You have to seek other grounds.
Like other animals, we are also instinctively and emotionally driven in making most quick decisions. Reasoning takes time and is subject to omissions and errors resulting in questionable decisions.
What the crucial difference is is that we are social animals with spoken and written language. Our intellect in limited areas (but sadly not in philosophy) has grown exponentially over the generations due to cultural (mostly scientific and technical) advances that are retained and built upon. Isolated from culture, we would be less adapt than almost all animals. In fact, without our technological meddling with global environment, we might be one of the most vulnerable of all species.
Psychologically, we are not superior to other higher mammals in emotional capability nor in the suffering from the effects of psychological damage. To experience this, it is enough to pay a lengthy visit to a local animal shelter. Just look at the animals as they come in before triage. On the happier side, house cats are extremely aware of human emotions and use that superiority to manipulate their owners to reach 'balance'.
Talking of balance, what do you mean by balance? Is this along some hidden scale that we are all to grant you, or can you be more specific? This could be a static or dynamic balance, like the bottom or the extreme top of possible motion of a playground swing. Heraclitean opposites are always in motion and are always in balance. A Hegelian balance one might be the static center support of a seesaw. I assume you have something better in mind?
While I agree, you make it seem as if other animals have the capacity for this kind of exponential cultural expansion. They don't. As you state, we have linguistic brains that are also highly deliberative. In other words, where other animals rely on more instinctual programs, much of our decision making is volitional. We chose to do this, then do that. This doesn't mean that I am not denying that other animals can have preferences (shade over sun, this food over that), nor does it mean that humans don't have certain instincts (reflexes, tendencies, etc.). Nor am I denying many animals are capable of emotions like joy and sadness. The fact that you might think I am denying any of those things are more a reflection of your reflexive response and not looking at what I am trying to say.. However, due to our brains, we are highly deliberative and have self-reflection (not the same as the "self" test). Thus, due to our particular evolutionary path, we also have the problems I stated in the OP.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And as Schopenhauer stated, I am not downplaying animals and their being. Rather, like Schopenhauer I am admiring that they are more tranquil, more "at home". Yes, we are from nature, but we seem not at home in it. And no, thoughts of beautiful natural landscapes, and living in the woods is not what I mean here. I am not talking some Romantic Rousseauan/Thoreauean "return to nature". Rather, I am saying our very minds, how they operate, make it an impossibility. We sort of try to get at "it" with the idea of meditation, restfulness, sleep, etc. But it's not quite the same. It's not that we work-to-survive, we "know" we work-to-survive. We could do otherwise at any time, though we may not like the consequences. The very need to improve is the dissatisfaction we are feeling at the present. Time is pressing upon us and we know it, moving us forward, dissatisfied. You can give me all the optimistic bullshit you want, and that doesn't change what is the case. As Schopenhauer stated:
I think this addresses @180 Proof and @Book273
Darling, let's watch an episode of a reality show (I have in mind one that starts with K, but pretty much any one will do), and you will be proven wrong on the spot.
Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.
Quoting baker
You think there's a reason behind that or that it's just brute fact?
• Schopenhauer A Biography, David E. Cartwright
• Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, Rudiger Safranski
to help better contextualize his smugly contented later years of "sudden" fame and acclaim for which Schopenhauer had curmudgeonly waited (yearned) almost forty years.
Yes, Schop by most accounts, was more content with the fame he was receiving towards the end of his life, almost a vindication after being cast aside. He seemed to be mainly characterized as an odd Kantian sidetrack from Hegel, which of course he bristled at. Not that one can really psychologize, but he may have had a kind of OCPD
https://www.healthline.com/health/obsessive-compulsive-personality-disorder
Despite his peculiarities, his insights into the striving-after nature of existence were sublime, succinct (in terms of communication style compared to his contemporaries and others before and after), and got to the heart of the big issue(s).
Why do you care what the crowd thinks? Their misery is not your problem. Let them do whatever they want and you can try to focus on the well-being of yourself and the people you care about. Is it therapeutic for you to express these thoughts?
Yes, this can be a form of self-torture. But in a way, I am practicing what I preach. Consolation regarding our lot/condition, catharsis through dialogue.
If God exists, then nothing happens without God's will. Ergo, God must approve that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night.
If God does not exist, then it's just a brute fact that some are born to sweet delight, while others to endless night, and this is simply how the Universe works.
Everything else is just people seeking power over other people, such as through "spiritual guidance".
Too bad the effects of this purge bring only short-lived satisfaction!
If something is proposed as a solution to a problem, but you have to apply or enact that solution over and over again (with no end in sight), then it's not a solution to the problem at all. It's merely a distraction from the problem and a postponing of a solution.
Mwhaha!
The description/analysis of your topic is too long for me, I am sorry about this, but please let me comment on the first paragraph.
At first reading I found that an interesting view, holding some truth in it. But only for a few seconds. Because I then thought, "Indeed humans tend to suffer much more than animals, on both the biological and emotional level (although we can't say exactly how much animals suffer). Yet, how can one bring up this "overdeveloped skill" --in fact, skills-- as a factor of lack of fitting in the nature? It's an incredibly narrow view! It disregards how these skills make him not only survive and fit better than animals but also extending their control of their environment to an extent that is not even comparable to that of the animals.
It is true that man often abuses his abilities and skills and can create more harm than good. And it also true that he often tries to explain the unexplainable and exceed himself, becomes vain and so on, mainly because of these "overdeveloped" (actually superior) skills and abilities. But these things certainly cannot be used as arguments to support this guy's (Zapfie) theory.
Another total exaggeration: "all their time" ??
From false premises/assumptions/hypothesis he draws a false conclusion: a paradox. Well, I can't see any paradox in all that. (Except maybe this one: how these "overdeveloped" skills can make somemone have such narrow views and draw such false conclusions! :) )
The solution is to not start the suffering.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Zapffe's point was a little bit different than mine, but related. You have to read him in the full context. His was more about our general awareness of our own existence in general and our own understanding of our own suffering. Thus he thinks we use psychological mechanisms to prevent us from constantly hitting these "dead ends" in a way by sublimation (get involved in an engrossing activity), distraction, anchoring (like using ideas of "hard work", "society man", "good parent", "good citizen"), and isolation (narrowly focus on a particular thing).
However, tying it to my OP, what I'm saying is that we are (one of if not the) only animal that really understands our own suffering as we are living through it. It doesn't just passively happen to us, but we know what is going on.. We must do X, even though we don't like X, and all the while, knowing we are doing X and not liking it as we are doing it... We at almost all waking times can do something else, but have justifications with ourselves (often leaving it to one of the psychological mechanisms like anchoring in a value or other justification). We have an extra burden that other animals don't who have inbuilt mechanisms like instinctual behaviors that we don't have. I am not saying that our way of life doesn't bring about survival conditions, because obviously it does lead to that.
More or less, yeah (Jimbo/Blake). :up:
I don't know exactly how "long" is this "full context", but if I had to sit down and read entire pages on what one philosopher or another say, that would consume more than 24hr a day, w/o considering breaks, sleep and eating! :) But even if I did, I could not discuss a whole book or work of a philosopher in this communication medium. So, I can only respond to statements that have been selected by the poster of the topic, who knows best about the philosopher, statements that are supposed to be characteristic and/or representative of his theory and views. And in this case, I have responded not to just one statement but to a whole paragraph. Isn't that fair?
Now, the details you are presenting may or may not change the message sent by the first paragraph. So, if that whole paragraph is not representative of this guy's theory or views or it is insufficient, then you should select one that is. Fair enough, too?
No it was to the extent I explained it. That is to say, we evolved capacities that make us suffer more than other animals. Those capacities that helped us survived also gave us that greater awareness of suffering.
I think I have already mentioned that humans seem to suffer more (i.e. are more aware of suffering than animals, although we can't know how much). But, godssake, this does not make humans less fit! Suffering is only a part of both the human and the animal life. Again, this is "too narrow a view".
So, after all this, I admit that I was unable to pass this message to you.
But how does it help you with _your_ suffering?
You were born, the damage is already done.
Your suffering on account of having been born cannot be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born.
Antinatalism isn't the solution to the problem of _your_ suffering.
It also isn't the solution to the problem of mankind's suffering either, because if there's nobody there, there's also no suffering, and thus, no problem to solve.
If your suffering on account of having been born could be diminished vicariously by taking solace in other people not being born, then don't you think this would have happened already by you (and some other people) not having children?
Yet here you are, suffering.