Do you cling to life? What's the point in living if you eventually die?
I know I don't want to live forever because that would be a drag, but I feel instinctively deep down in my unconscious like I want to live forever. It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. Yet despite this, I know that the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence. How can such contradictory thoughts/feelings be imputed on to the mind of man?
Comments (127)
Quoting intrapersona
What do you think led you to this impasse? (And it is an impasse -- you are definitely not going to live forever).
The proper course for you is clear enough, and its the same for everyone else: whatever worthwhile, acts of kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity (and more) you are going to perform, you had better do it while you are here.
You must be living under a rock then. That question is incredibly popular. Just type into google "why live if you are going to die?" and see the immense amount of posts,articles, blogs etc. I have even seen it on this forum quite a bit.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why is kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity the prime motive of my life? Tbh all I wanna do is fuck bitches get money... forever...
How/why do you know that?
So, if it doesn't last... "forever"...why do good things versus atrocious things? Shouldn't I just do what catches my fancy? After all, eternity won't know the difference. How do you predicate this idea that I should do useful things?
Because you don't have to live forever in order for you to appreciate beauty.
Seems purely arbitrary. I actually agreed with everything you said in your OP other than this statement; the plague of posting on a philosophy forum: we focus on the negative. So, props on your OP, but...you said "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence", I asked how/why you know that: you said: "because you don't have to live forever in order for you to appreciate beauty". So, basically this sounds like...some kind of fallacy, I'm too rusty on all of them to call it out. But, the simple point I wanted to make was: You made no argument as to why "the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence."
Of course, "seeing it on this forum" is not much of a recommendation, really. Some people here go on at considerable length about the imposition on beings that don't exist yet of conceiving them and bringing them to birth. without their consent. How nonexistent beings can give consent is beyond me.
Quoting intrapersona
I suppose you could aim a bit higher, but if that's all you want to do, you still have to do it in the limited time you have here. So you had better get busy and start fucking those bitches before time runs out. Where does money figure in there?
Is your judgement as to whether it is better to do atrocious things or good things affected by whether you have 1 day or an infinity of days to do them? I wouldn't think the time remaining on the clock would make any difference.
What is the wellspring of atrocities and beneficences? Isn't it whether your mind is driven by cruelty or love? Bitterness vs. sweetness? Resentment or acceptance?
I suppose you will do whatever catches your fancy at least some of the time. So will I. We do useful things, don't we, in order to obtain the results of utility, and because we have decided (for some odd reason) that useful things are better than things without any use whatsoever?
Mostly our choices of actions are predicated on the short run--sometimes the next 15 minutes. Once in a great while we plan to act for the intermediate future (say, 25-50 years). We all find it pretty difficult to think about a longer range future, like a century. Are you making any plans for late August, 2117? Probably not.
I also think living forever would be a drag - a great big monumental fucking drag. It would be hell itself.
But... do you have so much access to your unconscious mind that you know it (your unconscious) wants to go on forever?
And even if your unconscious mind wants to live forever, who is running the show -- you or your unconscious?
Matters of fact are not fallacious unless you make them. If the appreciation of beauty does depend on eternal existence then that would be a fallacy because RIGHT NOW I am a mortal being and also RIGHT NOW I am appreciating beauty. Perhaps you were thinking of circular reasoning, begging the question, but it isn't.
This does not mean to say that appreciation of beauty can not depend on eternal existence, its just that if it does i know nothing about it because right now I am stuck in some kind of finitude called human existence.
What does this have to do with the OP, or was this a dig at my other thread on people's desires/wishes continuing on after they die? Because in the OP I didnt posit any beings that don't exist...
Oh really? So is hurting someone for one second the same as hurting someone for 302039493904005930495450694059604596 years? assuming they could live that long to feel that excruciating pain.
My point is... TIME MATTERS!
Now that you mention it, I'll have to come up with a really good dig for you.
So are you saying that love,sweetness,acceptance is useful in the sense of utility? I wouldn't disagree about that. Society functions on those sort of principles so that we all get along and don't fuck each other over. But predicating it as a reason to exist? Maaaan, that's a whole different ballgame...
Like I am sure you know, the universe isn't implicitly good or bad. Therefore it makes no difference how you act in your life,that is "objectively". It only matters in how it improves you life in the direction you want it to. For a psychopath, hurting others improves their life so don't assume that kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity are the things that I had better do before i die. Why? well attack this argument coming up in the next paragraph:
It makes no difference if I just sit in my bed for the next 20 years than if I spent it helping people, being kind, loving and creative? Why? Because everyone dies in the end and the experiences are lost forever, everything is meaningless so there is no point guiding anything in any direction. We might as well just die right now. (Obviously there is a flaw in what I just said but you should be the smart one to pick it out, because I can't).
But you don't have an eternity. Unless you are an unlimited being living, sadly, in a limited world.
Yes it does, it makes ALL the difference. Is hurting someone for one second the same as hurting someone for 302039493904005930495450694059604596 years? Absolutely not!
If this wasn't the case then people would prefer to stay in hospital for months on end with multiple broken bones than just one... The amount of time you feel the pain for is relevant to how bad the experience is... Man o man, how on earth can you not even see that lol?
You want to be part of the rat race, forever? If there is a hell, I could imagine that being it.
Right. Love, sweetness, acceptance, and all that good stuff are not a reason to exist. They are a way to exist.
Quoting intrapersona
Yes. I have often said the universe has no particular meaning, and it doesn't provide us with meaning as one of it's custom services.
Quoting intrapersona
Just because the universe can get away with not having any meaning doesn't therefore result in our having no meaning. The universe doesn't need any meaning to do its thing. We do. We are meaning makers, meaning traders, meaning dependent beings.
Hurting others does not improve the lives of psychopaths. Where did you get the idea that psychopaths live to hurt others? Psychopaths aren't demons, they are people with an inability to feel guilt and be guided by fear of punishment. What would improve their (often unhappy) lives is to have normal responsiveness to feelings.
Quoting intrapersona
Is what's good for a psychopath is good for you? Why the hell shouldn't I assume that kindness, mercy, bravery, love, generosity, creativity are the things that you should do before you die? Just guessing, but you probably do these things already, when the opportunity (like, for bravery and mercy) present themselves.
Quoting intrapersona
There is a flaw. The universe may be meaningless, but you aren't meaningless, and your human environment isn't meaningless. Yes, you could go to bed and stay there until you die, which would be an act of self-destructive meaning.
As far as your experiences (your existence) disappearing when you die, that would only be so if everyone who had every had any contact with you in any way, shape, manner or form ALSO DIED when you died. Everyone who had read your posts here, for instance, would have to die with you. The web site would have to disappear too, so nobody else could read anything you said, in the future.
IF we all go together when we go, every Hottentot and every Eskimo, THEN your experiences will disappear FOREVER, because it is the human narrative that carries forward our contributions after we die.
Of course I can see that. I am arguing against your view that if you don't live forever, then your life doesn't have any meaning. Or as you say, it would be a "waste of your time". Now there's something to snort over (lol).
Its was a joke about how ridiculous it is that so many people think that way without a second glance. Something primitive speaks inside for us.
Psychopaths as I understand them are emotionless tyrants who just want to exploit others for their pleasure. The epitome of a serial killer.
It is the fact that there is no objective worth that makes my own construction of the value of my life seem pointless. What even is human constructed meaning? You speak of human contribution has if it has some value. What value is human life? We are just a bacteria growing on a ball with the arrogance to think our intelligence is worth something that necessitates that we ought to continue to exist because we are somehow "special" and should not be lost forever. As far as I can see human constructed meaning is just a farcical way for us to convince ourselves not kill ourselves.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You can assume I do those things with validity, I agree. But assuming that those are the things that I want to live for is not accurate. It's not why I get out of bed in the morning, In fact I am so tired with the meaninglessness of those acts... Yes they are helpful and make others feel good, but WHY even do that? Where is it going? It's as if I need a great cosmic foundation of purpose underneath life in order for those gestures (generosity, mercy) to be somehow even worth something, otherwise they are just as meaningless as the waves breaking over sand.
You have biological constraints place on you. IE if you want to leave this place you have to do something called "killing" your body somehow... and... if you want to do that you have to find a way to override the survival instinct somehow... The prime motive driving those actions would be the knowledge of how you understand life to exist and a dissatisfaction with how you perceive that knowledge. How can you know whether you can trust your own knowledge of that? Well, the same way you can trust your knowledge of whether it is worthwhile doing any other ordinary thing in life. I will give some examples to illustrate this and each example will get closer to the relevance of my argument:
So, with that being said. Reasoning is trustworthy... BUT ONLY to the truth of that which we perceive with the human mind. Suppose there is truth outside of the human mind and that the universe exists differently than to how we see it and that the constitution and value of a human life is different to how we SUBJECTIVELY perceive it... Why then, we could very wrong indeed. What arrogance we would have to assume we know the truth of such matters as death and consciousness as they pertain to objective existence, ESPECIALLY considering how complex the universe is. Nevertheless, if life's feels that bad, then just fricken leave maaaan.
Ahh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. :)
I've got to tell you, debating things on a philosophy forum is not, in my view, going to help these stated objectives. You may need a better strategy.
One of mine is to read Samuel Beckett. The novels are underrated. They are all about men enjoying pointless lives, and for me they're curiously uplifting. Ah, so *that's* why I go on. 'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.'
Another comes from my current reading of Emmanuel Levinas. The world of order, science and reasoning on his view aims for 'totality', a complete explanation. But the I-world, the I that encounters the other - that world is infinite, untotalize-able. Even without gods we are infinite subjects. When I compare my feelings to reason, there is always an I-surplus. 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom': though Blake didn't have your hedonism in mind, I don't believe.
Sigh. You are an advanced case. Quite beyond my competence, I'm afraid.
You are waves of desire breaking on the jagged rocks of meaninglessness. Find a different shore. There are shores of sand; in the sand you can build the meaning you desire. Impermanent meaningless, you will probably say. You are a difficult case. Yes, impermanent meaningfulness, but that's OK. You don't have to come up with meaning forever. Just until the waves of desire withdraw and you go out to sea with them -- hopefully contented, and a long enough time from now.
Why does context require change? Because otherwise it's not context, it's part and parcel.
From what I have read I do feel that suicide is irrational in most cases, just I'm not convinced.
I think that for me the reason why I don't want to go through it is family and friends, don't want to cause them suffering.
Just don't know how to battle my thoughts.
Any input is greatly appreciated and I know that this is probably not the place to post this, just I'm in need of help.
Such meaning comes from spirituality, a spirituality that allows for a spiritual life that transcends a single physical life. Evidence of such an extended spiritual life would be persistence of skills that learned and developed during a physical life. Evidence of such persistent memory can be found in inherited, innate skills, some of which seem quite extraordinary as in the case of child prodigies.
Explore the possibility of persistence of memory in an extended spiritual life that transcends multiple physical lives.
Other that that, there is the enjoyment of life, and there is the extreme fear of death.
I must thank you. I have just read your "sage" advice to Intrapersona (above) and the sheer comic foolishness of your "Impermanent Meaningfulness" thesis actually made me laugh out loud; something I hadn't done for a long time ! The fact that you had even underlined the word "meaningfulness" in the phrase was just too much - it totally cracked me up! ( Ha !! You ARE a card, Crank - you most definately ARE a card !)
Therefore, I hereby propose to this forum that we should officially declare the squawk "Impermanent Meaningfulness !" to be the definitive, native cry of the modern-day , common or garden variety, "Nihilist Chicken Bird" ! (NB: related to - but not to be confused with - Mr Charles Dickens' famous "High Cockalorum Bird").
All those in favour say "Aye" !
Regards
John
Of course you need a point to live. Ask anyone who you think "just does" why they haven't killed themselves, and they'll give you that point.
You don't have to be conscious of it all of the time, which might be where you've picked up this misconception, but it's there like a failsafe.
The survival instinct is too strong in most people to go through with suicide. Add to that the thought of your loved ones' suffering (even if you aren't going to be there to witness it), and it becomes an even more difficult task.
So if you can reason out that the chance of you actually committing suicide is really quite low, maybe you can shift start shifting your focus away from it a little bit at a time. The thoughts will continue to surface, but when they do, you can say to yourself 'No, that's not really going to happen, so I'm not going to spend time and energy considering the possibility'. Kind of similar to planning your life based on winning the lottery - it's very likely not going to happen, so it doesn't make sense to invest your thoughts and emotions in that possibility.
As for living, try not to focus too much on meaning and purpose, because that can just send you back down the rabbit hole if you can't find something to focus on that is 'worth living for'. Make sure your basic needs are satisfied - eat, exercise, sleep, build relationships - and make life as interesting and pleasant as possible - find hobbies, interact with people, spend time in nature, avoid excessive use of alcohol and drugs.
These things have helped me get to a place where I feel relatively stable, after having dealt with severe depression on and off for over a decade.
If you are severely depressed, you may need the help of medication and cognitive behavioral therapy to get you started on the right path. Medication can relieve the depressive symptoms and suicidal thinking temporarily, while you begin the work of restructuring your thought patterns and beliefs.
One day the universe will be cold and dead-full of the permanent meaningfulness that some people seem to crave. But not today! Thankfully we are allowed the "impermanent meaningfulness " referred to by @Bitter Crank
I think this idea of 'impermanent meaningfulness' has some value as well, especially to those who are vulnerable to experiencing depression. Reminds me of Don Miguel Ruiz Jr's book on the Five Levels of Attachment. While you can add value and meaning to your life by building attachments to people, ideas, and things, you should understand and expect that life is always changing, and that you may be forced to shift your attention to different sources of meaning throughout your life. People die, things are lost, and beliefs change. When you put all of your eggs in one basket, it is much more traumatic when unexpected change occurs. Loving one person to the exclusion of all others, believing too fervently in a religion, basing your happiness on material things, building an identity that you believe to be the 'real you', or other forms of unhealthy attachment, can all lead to negative future mental states when the basis of your attachment is removed.
That sounds good advice CasKev. I'm sure depression is a misery and my sympathies lie with anyone suffering from it. (Not sure I have so much sympathy for JG's viewpoint however!)
I still think you don't need a point to live. You will provide a point or an alleged point when forced, or questioned, but that is not a "need" per se. Life is effortlessly continued. (In an existentialist sense, not that survival is automatic or even easy.) It takes a heckuva lot more effort to kill yourself than to not to kill yourself.
This is true, as long as the changes are small and manageable. For instance, the biggest change in life, that is, changing from being alive to being dead, is not so exciting, although you can't imagine a bigger change.
As far as the living knows. The dead may be experiencing even bigger changes, or permanent exciting happiness (rapture). They don't tell you that, the dead don't. If you found a free source of incredibly rich entertainment, you would keep it a secret, too.
The dead may be deaf and mute, but they are not dumb. Not necessarily, anyway. And they could be incredibly joyful and happy, for all we know. In fact, there are entire religions that focus their attention on how to attain that state.
One supporting evidence of this is that we know for sure, or see and experience for sure, when the living go into a dead state, but the dead don't go into a living state. There is a remote possibility that they do, but they are not documented, and I for one never saw an obvious case of it myself. But I saw and heard of many cases of the living becoming dead.
Perhaps you need a point to live well?
Well, yes, living is a continual process, until it ceases, and that process itself doesn't require any point. But living is like a car, and we are the drivers. As a driver, you can either hit the brakes and stop the car or you can carry on driving. People don't tend to drive around aimlessly, with no destination in mind, for no reason whatsoever. Life doesn't need a point, but [i]we[/I] need a point to our lives - those of us who are reasonable, at least.
You need a point to live at all, unless you've lost or abandoned reason, in which case it wouldn't matter whether your next act was to watch a film or blow your brains out.
I beg to differ. You don't need a point to live at all. Many things live which supposedly don't have a point to do so, including all the plants.
I don't know where you get this idea to justify your continuation to live. Perhaps to YOU it is important. I shan't engage in trying to find out why. But please believe me, you can't extrapolate from your own stance to all living things or even to all mankind.
Bears don't have a point to live. Bugs don't. Snakes don't. Sea urchins don't. Jellyfish don't. Why would humans need one? Are we that different from frogs and crocodiles and caterpillars in the very sense that we are all alive?
I don't think stopping the car is equivalent to dying. It is equivalent to a rest, because you can start after a rest, much like you can start a car.
You are right, to continue with your metaphor, you need a destination to drive; but that's akin to having to dress up, to buy groceries, to take a shower. These are needs that come up and you satisfy them. These are not points.
What do you even mean to have a point to live? What is an example to a "point"? Please give us a few, and then perhaps we can come to an agreement, because it is conceivable that I'm grossly misunderstanding you.
What would be a good a good example of a "point" that would stop you Sapientia, from giving up life? Perhaps you could supply a number of such points, so we can establish a pattern, and through that, an understanding.
I can take medication to make me feel good, to make me stop thinking about these things, then also die.
So what's the rational reason to go on living?
Like you already mentioned, though you likely wouldn't be around to witness it, your untimely death would cause a lot of suffering to those around you. That alone is reason enough for most people to avoid suicide, even when severely depressed.
Reason number two for me is the possibility of making your life worse due to a failed suicide attempt, whether from brain damage, paralysis, or simply the guilt from having tried to end your life. At this point, you may be incapable or carrying out suicide, or lose the desire to end your life, and you'll be stuck with whatever came of your failed attempt.
And while I currently believe that our existence ends with death of the human body, there is still a chance that some sort of 'soul' survives. If this 'soul' retains any sort of memory of our human existence, the guilt of hurting the people who loved me isn't something I would want to carry around for eternity. That's assuming there isn't some system of reward/punishment that follows this life (I know, highly unlikely, but still a possibility), in which case I'm thinking suicide would be viewed unfavorably.
It is ridiculous to compare humans to animals and plants in that way. I was certainly not extrapolating my stance to all living things. Did anyone here genuinely believe that I meant to include plants, frogs and sea urchins in what I was talking about?
I'm not starting from my own isolated stance and then extrapolating to all mankind. I don't believe that you are so ignorant that you are not aware of the vast number of people who share my stance. We are all human, and we have in common human psychology. It is the stance of the vast majority, as well as the default position, to have a point to one's life. Just ask around. There is, however, a small minority who would say that there's no point to their life, most likely because of denial or depression.
I don't share any of these assumptions with you. The closest we have in agreement is that we all have a somewhat similar psychology to each other's. This is only to a point; there are more differences in degrees of aspects of human psychology than not. You can say we all like to be loved, but some of us need it more than others, and some of us don't need it at all, as an example.
Your point may be shared with others, but you have not convinced me. I don't see a necessity to having a point in life to keep on living.
In fact, the nature of the point is debatable, too, not just its existence as a prerequisite to continue living.
Please, if you wouldn't mind, give us some examples, or else a categorical explanation of what you consider a "point". Maybe we are not in disagreement at all, conceptually, it's just that "point", point is undefined and not necessarily understood by me the same way as by you.
So please give a few examples or a general fully delineating definition of what you consider a point to live by or for. Thanks.
Are you being serious? Obviously you can't start living again after you've died. And if you're just nitpicking at my imperfect analogy, then, really, what's the point? Just as obviously, you can of course start a car after stopping. Did you think that I'd overlooked that? I had not. Don't stretch the analogy beyond where it was intended to go. Next you'll be telling me that life doesn't have wheels and an engine!
Quoting szardosszemagad
Without a point to it all, why would people be getting dressed, taking showers, buying groceries, and so on, rather than driving off of a cliff edge? We're talking about people, not robots.
Quoting szardosszemagad
It can be virtually anything, but typically not what you call a "need" above. There are few people who I think would answer that their preference for life over death, their reason for being here, is that they need to take a shower or buy some groceries.
I don't actually believe that you need any examples, as if you're some kind of robot or alien who is studying humanity from an outside perspective. You're one of us. I have family and friends, and there are things that I enjoy in life. So do you, most likely. That's a very common reason to continue to live rather than opt for suicide.
I think you are bluffing. You claim everyone or at least a vast number of people have a point to live. So it can't be all that hard, embarrassing or such a secret as to withhold giving me a few examples of points.
You just admitted by not giving examples that your claim is invalid, and false.
Quoting Sapientia
That's more obvious than obvious. I thought you had had a point. A point which is more profound.
This is the best you can provide as philosophy? "People don't kill themselves because they enjoy life." Well, food tastes good so you will eat it, you scratch your back when it itches because it feels good, girls look good so you will procreate, etc etc.
"You live because you enjoy life."
I can't believe what passes for philosophy around here.
If we need a reason to live, we might as well need a reason to die. I'm neutral on this issue, really. Is it always better to live than to sleep? I don't think so. If life becomes sufficiently unpleasant (think chronic or terminal disease that threatens the personality itself), then it seems "rational" to end it. But hope springs eternal for most of us. We're curious. We live people. They love us. Might as well play the game for another day. If we are one of the lucky ones, we want another day and will face great temporary suffering for the stretch of time that follows. One thing I'm sure of is that many people live without any "metaphysical" reason or justification for slogging around in this beautiful/terrible absurdity. "Nihilism" or whatever nice name you want for it is perhaps more common than you suspect. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the happier people in your orbit are discretely "nihilists." Just listen to the popular comedians. Maybe it's even the "secret truth" of our lifestyle these days. That's why we laugh with real pleasure at Louis C. K.
Latest theory of happiness is "having success beyond expectations."
And please cross this with "A pessimist can never be unpleasantly disappointed."
The lower the expectations of life, the higher the probability that you will find happiness.
Nihilism, by definition, means "no expectations whatsoever". Therefore anything that happens to a nihilist, which is not nothing, and not negative like pain, is a very joyful event and source of happiness for the nihilist.
But wait! If you buy this now, there is more!!
We can say if your expectations are BELOW the base line, or below no expectations whatsoever, then you are really in the "zone".
For instance, you could expect every day that you will be hanged, or strung up by your tongue or toe; severely burned; hot lead would be poured into your ear canal; at work every day starts with a three-hour calculus exam; your daughter will sue you (and win) for sexual abuse; police will raid your apartment and confiscate all pieces of porn and a judge will issue an order for you never to look on the Internet; god may turn you o'ernight into a pedophile; your wife will give aids, Hep C and a left hook. etc. You may even turn instantaneously into a (ghasp!!) evangelist.
The people who wake up with deep and unsettling, let's say torturous paranoid fears or phobias then are the happiest people of the entire lot.
hehe I thought you had Sapientia on the rails but he pulled a draw out of the bag when he said that people's point in living is to enjoy their lives. Such a "purpose" is not very high fallutin' of course, but you never asked for that.
It's nice when one becomes distraught at losing one's keys/purse etc because of the joy of finding it again. Not sure how quickly it is a repeatable experience though ...
Interesting post. I'd define happiness differently. I'd say it's generally feeling good or at least OK. Let's say 1 is great pleasure, 0 is neutrality, and -1 is great pain. Then I'd say happiness is the needle spending about 80+% percent hopping between 0 and 1. Of course we want the needle far away from -1, except for brief traumatic moments that are more or less to be expected in the long run.
I strongly associate wisdom and happiness. If the wise man isn't happy, what's so great about wisdom? So the wise man (or woman) builds a life (which is largely the construction of a perspective on life) in which the needle behaves as described above on the pleasure-pain-o-meter.
He might realize that many others aren't happy...
Respectfully, that doesn't answer my question.
If I am not justified in doing that, then consciousness is a disease that clearly bears no identical representation on ultimate truth (which isn't the case because consciousness has built us great bridges,buildings, particle accelerators, plant gene alterations.) So if we can do all those things then we must have some bearing on ultimate truth (apriori, mathematical etc.) in order to work with concepts that allow us to change nature in such ways, if that wernt so then it wouldnt be possible for us to do those things... So then we must be somewhat justified in asking for a purpose to all of this, if we have come this far with our minds.
Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom. We survive and get bored- our two great motivations. This wells up in the form of goal-seeking activities of all kinds. It's that simple. Life is just "there" but we cannot be just "there". We must move around, entertain ourselves, make goals, and essentially find ways to use our time and keep ourselves from discomfort. The result is a mostly repetitious existence of doing but for the sake of doing.
I am so sick of people saying "You choose your owning meaning". What a crock of shit, that doesn't even make sense. Everything anyone ever does is always meaningless, and always will be. Sure, things have value to people (liked loved ones) but to say they are the meaning of your life is absurd. If i told you my toothbrush was the meaning of my life, would that make sense? If not then how is it different from a person? Because they have extra properties like communication or the capacity to elicit hormones in states of intimacy? Nay! To call a meaningless process meaningful is to put the cart before the horse.
Fantastic post, 10/10 agree. This is why I find buddhist views on boredom and attachment so vanguard. I have had moments in meditation where I completely happy with just existing and what a present that is to have. Not having to rush around every second of the day, only to come home and ask philosophy forums "y r we here bro?".
Freud said we only ever do things to seek bodily pleasure. And much like the ID,Ego,Super EGO there was Plato's tripartite conception of ourselves. 1 to produce and seek pleasure. 2 to gently rule through the love of learning. 3 to obey the directions of 2 while ferociously defending the whole from external invasion and internal disorder. With all of this considered though, it still doesn't intrude on whether or not our reasoning has any iota of resemblance on ultimate truth or meaning if such a thing exists (but i feel it is somewhat self-evident).
Of course, you're omitting and forgetting about eros. Eros draws us out of ourselves. The object of our love acts - at a distance as it were - and draws us to it. It is by far a truly motivating factor - so motivating that many have even died for it. And the object of Eros can be God, another person, and so on.
Survival and boredom aren't very good motivators in the first place. It's not very difficult to survive in society. So that problem, for most of the time at least, isn't a problem for the majority of us in the West.
Boredom is not strong enough to motivate one to withstand pain. And all great achievement entails great pain. Boredom may motivate someone to hit the club for example. But it won't motivate them to write Bethoveen's 5th Symphony.
Self-affirmation is another source of motivation that is generally stronger than survival and boredom but weaker than eros.
Quoting intrapersona
But you can't stay "in meditation" your whole life, just existing. You have to do things. So that apathetic state, as far as I'm concerned, is not good. It's like taking drugs. If meditation, on the other hand, is a limited practice that you undertake in order to better exist in the world, that is a different story.
Quoting intrapersona
That's not Plato's conception.
You misunderstand what it is like. It carries over into real world much like the relief from sex carries over. It doesn't breed apathy, it's the exact opposite.
apathetic:
showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.
Meditation renews your interest, enthusiasm and concern for the most mundane things you took for granted before.
The issue is that it is like going for a run, its an effort and hard to sustain unless you have "that" kind of personality. It's far too easy to just fall into what is easy and not give any effort (even if you know it will bring you contentment).
Then argue it with wikipedia, its the first paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_tripartite_theory_of_soul
wouldnt self affirmation be weaker than survival?
Quoting Agustino
It seems like you fall under this latter category that I was describing.
Quoting intrapersona
I don't follow this. It hasn't been my experience that 'relief' from sex carries over.
Quoting intrapersona
When I do it (meditation), it often does because I feel I should be spending my time doing something different. I always have so much to do...
Quoting intrapersona
Well I often go running, so I do enjoy effort that is productive. But by running you get results in terms of better fitness, better vitality, and just feeling stronger in your will and your body. It teaches you not to give up - it's an essential training for the will.
I guess meditation would be similar with regards to boredom?
Quoting intrapersona
I see. Have you read Plato? Plato's theory is quite different from what I understand it from the Republic. Wikipedia and secondary sources give misleading information, generally, not just about Plato. I can't remember for how many philosophers I've read Wikipedia, and then read their works and was like :-O 'what was that summary even about?! This is totally different'. Plato's tripartite conception is introduced to show how different drives of the psyche can be brought into harmony with each other. And for example, Plato does address this, which you claim he doesn't:
Quoting intrapersona
It's right towards the beginning of the Republic when Socrates proves that the God does not lie or deceive. He calls the real lie - the lie in the soul which affects our reasoning and prevents us from seeing reality as it is - as the true falsehood. And since our faculty of reason - in-so-far as it is reason - is from the God and shares with the divine - then it cannot induce us into error in and of itself.
Quoting intrapersona
No. You don't self-affirm in order to survive, rather you survive in order to self-affirm. Self-affirmation, the top of the pyramid, is much stronger than the bottom in terms of motivating factors. The higher your rise in the pyramid, the stronger the motivating factors become. I would even invert the pyramid upside down actually, just rotate it 180 degrees. Because having the top done, enables you to more easily take care of the bottom.
I wrote an essay about this actually. People who are at the lowest stages aren't very motivated at all. They're merely getting by, but they live in a kind of "depressed" state, where they don't have much energy in life. The kind of energy they have at that stage, disappears once they get to the food.
You can even see this from suicide. Suicide, as Schopenhauer says, is an attempt at self-affirmation, and definitely not at survival. If survival was stronger, then suicide would be impossible. But it's not. So when other means of self-affirmation become impossible, most non-religious people at least will look towards suicide. For example, if they become paralysed for their whole life, I'm sure many people will choose euthanasia over living that way. Clearly survival at any costs is not their goal - something matters more than survival.
Maslow's hierarchy is anyway just another relic of modernity. You should read my post here. This reconception of the human being that subordinates eros - erotic longing - to thymos - the will and self-affirmation - is a modern reconception of the human. Eros and thymos are, by the way, part of the Platonic tripartite conception of the soul.
Quoting intrapersona
This is thymos. But it's not described very well...
Nope, this is all romanticization. It's layers upon layers of obfuscation. It obfuscates the Real. The Real is the survival and boredom. All desires are essentially to run from one of the other. I usually add discomfort too, so that's in there as well.. No one like's discomfort either, hence suicide.
Quoting Agustino
No, producing works of intricate art is one of the most engrossing activities you can do. Engrossing means absorbing all one's attention and interest. Why wouldn't one want to find the best way to alleviate boredom? This sounds like a great way to me.
I mean don't get me wrong Agustino- your view SOUNDS better. You mention self-affirmation, eros, productivity, all buzz words that will please a certain audience in a rhetorical way. No one wants to hear survival and boredom. That just depresses people, so you can go on with your rhetorical romanticizations and throw more pleasant sounding buzz words, I just don't buy it.
You can also discuss Nietzsche and is idea of ubermensch and overcoming oneself and living as if your life is a work of art, or using pain to overcome oneself, but this is also just more romanticizations and obfuscation. It covers up the pretty simple idea that we are not content just existing, but we must flit about in our pursuits of goals due to desires stemming from pursuing survival and fleeing boredom. It's what animals with self-reflective minds do.
True.
Nope, you're merely asserting this now. That doesn't hold water with me. There's no argumentation at all. Nor have you shown how eros can be reduced to survival and boredom.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Does the person who creates great art do it to "alleviate boredom"? Ask them - I think you'll be surprised by what they tell you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's not about what you want or don't want to hear. It's about the truth.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Being content just to exist (doing nothing) sounds like some form of mental illness to me. That's not eudaimonia.
So, we are goal-seeking creatures. Goals come from our ability to use language to construct meaning in the world. The underlying angst of boredom manifests in our linguistic brains as the myriad of intricate goals we can pursue to alleviate this angsty dissatisfaction of just being. We can't just "be" in the world like a rock, we must "do". So what does doing require? Well, it requires goals of all sorts- goals that come from one's own personality shaped by experience/genetics/contingent circumstances of events in ones life. So one is exposed to certain people, experiences which provide a framework for building on interests and goals, etc.. Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. All together it is a general angst of just "being". If we were content in and of itself, we would not need to pursue any goals. You buy into the end product of some of the goals (beautiful works of art, etc.) but not the underlying causes.
[quote=Schopenhauer]"This emptiness finds its expression in the whole form of existence, in the infiniteness of Time and Space as opposed to the finiteness of the individual in both; in the flitting present as the only manner of real existence; in the dependence and relativity of all things; in constantly Becoming without Being; in continually wishing without being satisfied; in an incessant thwarting of one’s efforts, which go to make up life, until victory is won.[/quote]
Again, the problem with this is that it doesn't reflect reality.
Beethoven doesn't write the 5th Symphony because in the absence of writing it he would get bored. Rather, he takes positive pleasure in doing it. I don't get out of bed in the morning because I'd get bored if I stayed there. I get out of bed because I take positive pleasure in doing some of the things at least that I have to do every day. Desire plays a positive role, not just a negative role motivated by boredom. I don't desire just because I'd be bored otherwise.
Quoting Agustino
But again, this doesn't reflect the underlying reality, just the intermediate causes. I already stated, and you ignored: Reasons my be secondary or tertiary, but the ultimate underlying motivation behind the linguistically-based, goal-driven pursuits, is the survival, boredom, discomfort factor. So please pay attention closely. The intermediary goal-seeking that we find pleasure in from our own personalities that create these linguistically based goals, has an underlying cause. You jumped from the intermediary right to the root. We are barely conscious of the root underlying cause, because the goal-seeking is usually the most present in our minds as we go through the day. It takes a bit more digging to get to the root of the goals themselves.
How do you know this is the ultimate underlying motivation? By what criteria have you established that? Why do you discount the answers people generally give? What reasons do you have to doubt those answers?
Quoting schopenhauer1
You do realize that this presupposes its own anthropological conception of man, which is the one given by materialistic evolutionary biology of the 60s-80s right? Things have moved on from back then.
You create the concept of "intermediary goal-seeking", "linguistic goals", etc. and then attribute to them an underlying cause. And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. What reasons does anyone have to believe you? :s
Oh boy.. you've put your little pragmatic hat on. It's a nice change from the high-falutin Plato, aesthetic stuff I've been seeing. I'll answer these in a bit.
Quoting Agustino
Hold on, I have to do some intermediate goals now (for survival's sake) so I'll let you know in a bit ;)!
Why do you bother to survive? ;) ;) ;)
First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response..
I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation. This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being. Existential-based questions get existential-based answers.. that is to say, existential problems are in the realm of subjective/inner experience not, for example the neural cortex or hypothalamus, or neural connections. In other words, it is squarely in the frame of everyday, socially-constructed, linguistic-based immediate life that we inhabit. If we were discussing the evolution or causation of these experiences, that would be a different realm that would very much involve those types of concepts. (Even then, the hard problem of consciousness would be a bit thornier than just causative answers..gets deep with metaphysical stuff).
Anyways, part of existentially-based questions is what motivates us (this self-reflective, linguistically-based animal). We are an animal that deliberates. That is to say, we can make conscious decisions on what to pursue, and we do this much of the time. We choose a goal and seek out ways to achieve that goal, creating smaller goals along the way. The natural question is causes us to seek goals? Well, this is a different question than what causes us to prefer one goal over another. This is not to be confused. For example, we usually prefer what is most pleasurable. So, creating works of art may be more pleasurable than watching tv, thus goals are taken to pursue this goal over the other. Anyways, that is not the question though. The question is why do we seek goals in the first place? That is not why we choose some goals over others, or why we should choose some goals over others (for some longer term pleasure or sense of satisfaction). Well, we are angsty creature. We do not sit there like a rock. We are linguistic-based, self-reflective creatures that must survive in a certain contingent world of a historical-cultural setting. In this cultural setting, we must make goals related to survival and goals related to entertaining ourselves as to not get bored..
That is the real short answer.. Again, I have some intermediate goals of survival based on my cultural setting's set-up that I must now pursue.. I will be back to explain further..
Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality.
I think we're fooled by our intelligence into believing that our purpose is to work toward self-fulfillment. The problem is that it's an ever-changing target, a never-ending ego-based striving; and once you realize that, it kind of takes some of the romanticism out of it. I still make choices that I expect will bring the highest net pleasure to my life (taking into account the trade-off of short-term suffering for long-term gain, and vice versa), but I seem to have given up on the thinking that if I achieve a certain something, my life will have been worthwhile. I feel like self-fulfillment and higher purpose have followed God into the box of things I still hope for, but can't quite believe in any more.
I'm at a point where I'm focusing on meeting life's basic needs (which I think includes maintaining important relationships with others), and taking part in different things to make life as interesting as possible, alleviating that sense of boredom that always seems to be hanging around the corner.
What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s
Quoting schopenhauer1
Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.
That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.
Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.
Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc.
Quoting CasKev
For you, but I experience my purpose as given, not as chosen. I also choose to pursue it, but I experience it as given first, and chosen later.
What would be the point in doing anything if you lived forever? You'd eventually get around to doing it... at some point... maybe tomorrow... or the day after that.. or next week... or next year...
With a time limit, you kind of have to get on with doing stuff before you can't.
So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? The latest scientific research? Statistical data? No, his own conceptions or just the traditions of those who may have had ideas previously.
Quoting Agustino
And either do you! Or does god talk to Agustino and he speaks to the world? At least I admit that this is all speculative philosophy. In fact, much of metaphysical and ethical philosophy is speculative or simply conceptual analysis.
Quoting Agustino
I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says.
Quoting Agustino
Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention?
Quoting Agustino
That's not even my point. I didn't say we ought to sit there like a rock, but simply that it is our nature to not just be, but become. In other words, we need to always be doing. Just existing isn't enough. We have to make and achieve goals- goals that are ultimately motivated from an angst.
Quoting Agustino
You've had a sense of purpose. That's great. You want to leave people you encounter better off.. You seem to aggravate me with what appears to be trolling. But after reading this, I perhaps see why this might cause some distress as you see your life. I don't want to go in a back-and-forth flame war with you over who is right or what justification we have for this or that. This will not produce much for anyone.
My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures).
No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, you failed to illustrate how this digging leads you to conclude to boredom and survival as the only motivators of human behavior.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not 'need'. We choose to.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You have not shown this to be the case.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, you perhaps see red herrings, but you don't see that your theory claims to explain human motivators, but it clearly doesn't explain my motivations at all. It fails, because it is too narrow and dogmatic.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, what's wrong with asking you what justification you have for believing what you believe?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine.
Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom does not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery.
So the aim should not be to eliminate desire and will but to cultivate it until it becomes a most potent force, one that is able sustain a creatively rich and interesting life.
Hmmm yes, I think this is correct. Someone who cares deeply about something or someone else cannot be bored, because caring moves him to do things. The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.
Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy, and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. At that time, and usually momentarily until I recover my strength, I become apathetic and lose interest in what I previously cared about. But it's just a defence mechanism, temporary. It enables one not to suffer from not being able to care.
Quoting Janus
I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.
That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. A generalized disposition of fear of life often seems to be a breeding ground for negative attitudes towards it ; pessimism, nihilism, anti-natalism and the like.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I probably should have said "greatest satisfactions" not "greatest pleasures". It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though.
Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation".
Hmmm... Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated.
However, I do agree with your larger point. The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed.
Quoting Janus
Yes. It's a defense mechanism.
Quoting Janus
I would say both.
Quoting Janus
But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. It must be directed towards some other, selfless end. To what end are you cultivating your self? This is what I mean when I critique these "programs of self-cultivation". I agree with Plato that in the final analysis, parts of our being shouldn't be rejected (our will, for example, shouldn't be rejected) but integrated within the greater whole harmoniously.
The way I see it, self-cultivation, provided it is not done for self-aggrandisement, is an end in itself, practiced out of love. Why do you want to be a better artist, writer, musician or whatever? One may say "for the greater glory of God", but I think this only makes sense if God if found within through creative activity.
Quoting Agustino
I can't think of any coherent sense in which boredom could be considered to be a manifestation of will. Can will exist at all in the total absence of interest?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but on the other hand God's authentic will is only to be found in and by individuals; it is something that must be found within, not in any outward authority or institution.
Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better.
Quoting Janus
I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system"
Quoting Janus
I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis.
So it is a legitimate theory if Plato uses his own experiences and conceptual analysis, but not if I do? You just contradicted yourself. You stated that my basis was not legitimate but was exactly the same one you are using (or Plato rather). You have got yourself in a little bind there. Also, it seems like since this is the case, you are not just being a hypocrite but committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, as Plato obviously is your authority on these matters.
Quoting Agustino
Your analogy makes no sense in this case. Angst is part of the human experience and not part of a birds. Therefore there is no analogy here. Birds sing because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of the bird, and humans goal-seek due to their propensities that I have stated. Just because they both have innate tendencies does not mean they have to have the same innate tendencies. But that should be obvious.
Quoting Agustino
I don't think so. When you keep on questioning the root of your goals, they go back to very basic drives. A bit of survival instinct, a bit of boredom, a bit of discomfort- plopped down in a cultural setting you use as the template to make your goals related to these broad categories. Everything else is a romanticization, a post-facto rationalization.
Where did I talk about his own experience? This isn't even about reading what I said charitably, it's simply about reading it. If you can't even do that, discussion is difficult.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Gibberish.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm pretty sure birds can feel emotions - like fear or angst - too. But regardless, this isn't even relevant. The analogy was between goal-seeking and singing. Had nothing to do with angst.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So why don't humans seek goals because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of humans? This is in fact a thesis that has some evidence to support it (René Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yep. Still don't see the link between angst and goal-seeking.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Show me.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, take the example of the girl and the rose that I gave you. If it's just a post-facto rationalization it would be perfectly acceptable for you to say I give her the rose because I'm bored. But it's not. And saying that does nothing to explain my actions - using your framework you cannot even make sense of what I do.
No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. Plato didn't have cases like myself who cannot be accounted by his theory. YOU, on the other hand, do. Your theory takes into account only your personal experience, and fails to take into account the experience of other people. And I'm not talking here about the idiotic masses who live their life without knowing what they're doing, but the more cultured, educated and intelligent people around.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting schopenhauer1
You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't.
The question is what exactly are "you" and I would suggest that you are the sum of the information held in your genetic history, your and humanity's memory. Our perception of consciousness allows us to take action for a period of time during which we may alter that information. When "you" "die" as such, the information you previously considered your life continues. You just no longer have the opportunity to influence it.
Take for example your question of good and bad actions. Regardless of your choice, your action is information and may well survive long after your "death". Unfortunately there are many examples in history of bad actions that survive as information long after a conscious information holder has ceased. There are of course many good ones too.
Another way of understanding it is to witness how your information: your values, behaviours and beliefs is pasted from parent to child, together with both your and you partners genetic information.
In essence, "you" do not necessarily cease to exist at the point of biological death unless all your information (your genes, your legacy, the memory and data held by others about you) ceases to exist at the same time.
The question really is: Are "you" simply the organisation of cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses we'd refer to as a human body, or are "you" the sum of your actions and their impact on you as an information set.
Plato wrote some stuff- some thought-providing stuff, but he is not god or a prophet, man. He is was a brilliant intellect for sure, and we can all study his work and draw from it, but his thinking, like any other thinker, is still prone to many criticisms and flaws, like anyone else.
Quoting Agustino
Well, I'll grant you that, I skim your posts because I am bored with them. I still say you read pretty uncharitably though. I have long drawn out arguments with posters here that are frustrating and highly contentious but I still somewhat enjoy them. For whatever reason, I do not like your style and thus put minimal effort in these discussions. I'm also as of recent very busy but still feel compelled to answer posts (to my unhappiness).
Quoting Agustino
So you bring up Plato's tripartite theory of soul which perplexes me of all things he said you would try to defend. Of course humans have a plurality of faculties (not just three distinct categories). If I was to be CHARITABLE I would say you can just skip the whole tripartite thing and go straight the fact that humans can choose to follow some goals over other goals. So if I am thirsty and I'm really compelled to want to drink the lake water, but another understanding based on the water being contaminated overrides my initial feeling to drink the water, and I really don't want to possibly get sick, what should I do? So we use information about the outcomes of our actions to achieve desired ends. In other words we weigh our desires against each other to achieve a particular goal. This has little to do with my argument though. This goal-weighing is in the realm of practical goal-seeking. It is intermediary goal-seeking stuff, not what makes goals in the first place. For this do some more digging. Here's a thought experiment- for every goal you do question the reason for why you did it.
I am printing off this paper. Why? I need to get it to a client who needs this information. Why? That information is important to the client to get their financials figured out. Why? If I don't do this then he won't get his financials figured out and his business might suffer and I might lose my job. why? This is part of the job. This job requires it. Why do I need to do this job? I need to make money and in this type of economy, I give up my time and effort for pay. I use this pay to pay for goods so I can survive in this particular economic setting. Why do I consume goods in this particular economic setting? Survival.
I painted a landscape. Why? It absorbs my attention, and I enjoy the pleasure of being absorbed in something where I can create something of beauty that I and others can enjoy. The process of combining colors and using fine-motor skills is also enjoyable. It is also a way to think of something creatively. Why do I like being absorbed, use fine motor skills, and be creative? The option is available and I know it is satisfying. Why follow any option that you think is satisfying? I would get bored.
Of course, the questions can be much more convoluted so it may take many many more questions to get you to the base answers, but generally speaking, survival and boredom are the two great motivators.
Okay, sure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If I do that, I end up many times with the answer that it's an expression of my being to pursue that goal. There's no further reason. It's not to avoid boredom or to survive.
When I consider things like this, I sometimes think of what a child raised by monkeys on an island would do. We have basic instincts that drive us to gather food, create shelter, and socialize (play with the monkeys). But what would the child do if it was left behind when all the other monkeys were out gathering food? It's hard to imagine that it would sit like a cat, just passively taking in the surroundings until the monkeys returned - that would get boring pretty fast for such an intelligent mammal. So does it get up and take a walk around, start picking up rocks and throwing them in the water to express itself, or simply to relieve the discomfort of doing nothing? Looking at it this way, I think @schopenhauer1 has the better argument. The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing - although they may be done within the context of the ego and the social norms that have developed over time, like always needing to be improving, needing to be different, and the need for purpose.
Why is a child raised by monkeys anymore normal or natural than a child raised by human beings? I would think that quite the contrary, that child would not represent the natural condition of man, but quite the contrary - the unnatural one. For example, he may not be able to speak - that isn't the natural condition of man.
Quoting CasKev
This is a hypothetical, quite frankly, I personally would like not to adventure there, since I'm not quite sure what such a child would feel. I think "gathering food" is learned in a community, as is socializing.
Quoting CasKev
Well, baby animals don't sit around doing nothing either. Exploration is one of the primary ways infants (not only human infants) learn. Even baby cats play around a lot more than adult cats. Why so? Because playing and exploring their environment is how they learn, both about their own powers and about how their environment works. And of course, the baby wouldn't be always doing something when the monkeys left. Sometimes he would be just resting and dozing off. I can bet that in less industrialised civilisations than ours, people rest a LOT more than we do.
Quoting CasKev
But again, this may be true for yourself and schopenhauer1, all that I'm arguing is that it's not true for everyone. I gave myself as a counter example, you're free to indicate how I am motivated by boredom.
There are two sides to schopenhauer1's coin of stasis: the side he likes to polish is the "doomed to the horror of boredom and generally unsatisfactory experiences`"; the other side is "seeking engagement with the environment" (whatever that happens to be).
I would agree, however, that much of what we do has nothing to do with survival or procreation. For one thing, most of the time the options available involve neither. Indeed, I don't think our genes are worried about survival either. We are organized to seek positive experiences (sex, eating, warmth, the better BBC Masterpiece Theater production, etc.). Survival happens by accident--at least most of the time. Once in a rare while (we hope) survival is at stake -- you find yourself tiring as you try to overcome the riptide that seems intent on drowning you, some thug is pointing a gun at you -- but most of the time it is just a question of whether or not we are going to be very bored.
When you think of things you do for mental pleasure, where does the sense of satisfaction come from? You paint something you think looks nice. So what? We already have lots of things that look nice. What did you add to your real self-worth? What real motivation do you have to paint, other than to alleviate boredom?
What real value is there in self-affirmation? What does it add to the world? I'm the greatest painter that ever lived! So what? Society taught you that being good at painting somehow makes your life more worthwhile, that you have more value as an individual.
I think love falls into the survival and procreation category. Being part of a larger group that cares about your existence increases your chance of survival, and courtship and intimacy can be linked to procreation.
When I use survival as a term here, I do not mean the immediate dealing with a life or death situation (gun to head, falling off a cliff, riptides, etc.). By this I mean, how we go about in our historical-cultural milieu to obtain the resources necessary for sustaining our bodily functions (food, proper body temperature, etc.). Due to cultural contingencies, the bar for what "comfortable" survival looks like, may be different for everyone. Since we tend to obtain survival through cultural means (economics, society, learning, etc.), it is more complicated than just immediate food-in-mouth, as you already understand.
As for survival (the very broad sense not the immediate one, as explained above) being one main contributor to our motives for goal-seeking, I will point back to the though experiment I gave earlier (I'll copy and paste it):
I am printing off this paper. Why? I need to get it to a client who needs this information. Why? That information is important to the client to get their financials figured out. Why? If I don't do this then he won't get his financials figured out and his business might suffer and I might lose my job. why? This is part of the job. This job requires it. Why do I need to do this job? I need to make money and in this type of economy, I give up my time and effort for pay. I use this pay to pay for goods so I can survive in this particular economic setting. Why do I consume goods in this particular economic setting? Survival.
So I am just claiming at the root of our intermediary goal-seeking (printing the paper, getting financials, walking that paper over to the person, etc. etc.) is the need to survive in a historical-cultural environment.
The same question-asking will lead to boredom for our other pursuits. Again, I'll copy and paste the example:
I painted a landscape. Why? It absorbs my attention, and I enjoy the pleasure of being absorbed in something where I can create something of beauty that I and others can enjoy. The process of combining colors and using fine-motor skills is also enjoyable. It is also a way to think of something creatively. Why do I like being absorbed, use fine motor skills, and be creative? The option is available and I know it is satisfying. Why follow any option that you think is satisfying? I would get bored.
Now, the third broad category that I don't mention much is discomfort. Why do I want to do the laundry? My clothes smell, this bothers me. Well, that is something clearly not related to boredom or survival. Again, it is always in the context of a culture (some cultures don't care about washing clothes, or even have much clothes to be washed), but the deep-rooted discomfort motivation is still there.
So in general the angsty-drive of humans generally lands in the spectrum of survival, boredom, and/or discomfort and all taking place in the environment the individual finds themselves in.
As you also know, this is in the Schopenhauer tradition that desires are bad because they are something negative. It's a dissatisfaction with just "being" and always needing to "become" (to do to do to do). Looking at it in a much broader sense- life is a repetitious event, even with novelty. This repetitious surviving (in cultural system) and fleeing boredom and discomfort (in a cultural system) just repeats and repeats and repeats.. Some people see this as if from a transcendental position- this is called the "absurd".
I would add that this underlying drive becomes more evident to people who have suffered from depression, where there is little motivation to do anything other than survive, and somehow pass the time with as little effort as possible.
People who are quite happy with the life experiences and socially constructed norms they have encountered thus far would be more likely to deny these as motivating factors, in favor of self-affirmation and other such ego-based desires.
Yes, this would be a concept akin to depressive realism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism. But beyond that rather loaded term, one usually sees this in one of two ways- the absurdity hits the individual full-on in a flash (i.e. watching a person screaming into the phone behind a closed door brings up the absurdity of any human endeavor), or the cool, detached self-reflection of looking at life as a whole rather than caught in the moment of this or that particular goal.
Quoting CasKev
Yes, the question of pleasure presents an interesting argument. Don't people just do what's most pleasurable/desirable to their sensibilities rather than avoid dissatisfaction (boredom/survival)? I would say that the fact hat we want pleasure in the first place is where to start, not the pleasure itself. That is the Schopenhauer approach at least. Ultimately, pleasure/satisfaction is most likely the tool to decide which is the best goal to maximize one's preferences, but the preference-seeking system is still a thing. Hence, we are always becoming (need preferences satisfied, goals met, to do something to do something to do something) and we can never be (no desires, no preferences, no goals being met). The impulses to flee boredom, and pursue survival-related goals, and avoid discomfort are always there giving form to the angst.
It's an interesting thing. For me, I don't do things for mental pleasure. Rather mental pleasure sometimes is a result of it. I do things, at a proximate level of motivation, to better myself and my understanding of the world. So that's where my sense of satisfaction comes from. Being successful at that.
Quoting CasKev
It means I understand my own perception better. It means my skills have improved. It means I've learned more about the world. It means I'm capable to communicate more about the world.
Quoting CasKev
So you have a lot to teach the world through your paintings.
Quoting CasKev
Love can be conducive to procreation, but that's not the driving force. It's more like a possible result.
OK, but isn't it also just for the love of it?
Quoting Agustino
I misunderstood then; it had seemed you were defending Schopenhauer's thinking about the relation between desire and boredom.
Quoting Agustino
We agree on this. Religious institutions are essential to preserve, if not the scriptures, at least religious rituals. It is also arguable that they focus interest on (remind people about) scriptures which otherwise might fail to be noticed nearly as much. And they give rise to collective movements of theological thought. So, I am certainly not here to denigrate the Churches or traditions.
What does "it" refer to? If you're referring to the love of self-cultivation, then probably not. If you're referring to the love of God and the world, then probably yes.
I think life is more meaningful and important and beautiful because it is impermanent. Eternity would rob life of all of these things for me. Also, eternity sounds kind of boring to me. I cling to life for now - I am not ready to die yet. But I hope if I make it to 80 or so, I shall be ready when the time comes.
OK, well, I guess we differ here, I love self-cultivation for its own sake: I haven't progressed to the stage of loving God and the world in the kind of sense I think you mean it.
I see. For me, I love self-cultivation too, but I can't say it I do it as end-in-itself. I do it because I know it will be useful on my path. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it. I wasn't always into self-cultivation, it's only when I realised that it's necessary in order to be of any real help in the world that I got very interested in it.
I pursue music, philosophy, painting, and writing in order to understand myself; nothing else, other than intimate human relationship, and generally trying to do no harm, is of much interest. I also value these activities for their transformative power, and I think of transformation in terms of the ultimate renunciation of self-oriented will, but I also see that as being some way off in my case.
I don't worry too much about whether I will ever receive that grace. I think that those who are great in any of the above fields (and other fields of course) will probably be of real help in the world, even if that is not their primary directly-felt motivation.
Have you always been this way, ever since you were young?
I think this matter is largely one of personality. For example, I always remember myself having similar aspirations, ever since I was a child. The only way to understand them is to say that they are an expression of my being. And probably the same would be true for you.
Quoting Janus
Well yes, I think for the most part I agree.
Probably. I have always tended not to stick with things, so pursuing things in a consistent, disciplined way has always been a struggle. I believe I'm beginning to get there now, after all these years.