Existential Self-Awareness
Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact?
That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way?
That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way?
Comments (169)
Hell, there are even laws written about this.
I mean, this is kind of circular. Being self-aware allows for gratitude in the first place. But also, it allows for so many other things, that to pick out gratitude alone would be a major selection bias. Certainly, self-awareness allows for one to have feelings (like gratitude) about self-awareness, but that's more accurate than the idea that the gratitude is necessary/automatic.
Well, I don't like labeling things as totalizing or brute in terms of facts, and I think you may have a point. Even with the high propensity for beings with self awareness to feel grateful sometimes changes after learning and the growth period ends.
It is perplexing that children just feel happy or not depressed most of the time; and yet such feelings subside as they grow up... Food for thought.
Funny thing is, children are usually deemed not fully "self-aware", so that might be even more of a case against the initial claim.
But I'd like to take this down a path that I think there is a case that practical reasoning leads to various conclusions if one considers the fact of self-awareness. I'm wondering if others would get there too though. I'm wondering what side-trails people would take to deviate from the conclusions that it seems to inevitably lead to. The dialectic only leads one way, but then I want to know the psychological biases that lead the dialectic in a different direction from where the current is actually flowing.
Yes, well the trodden path is usually, according to Schopenhauer, that of the nature of desire and how it causes us harm.
Other paths include life affirmations and even the vanity of existence.
:up:
Very good. But I want to actually see the deviations in action. You mentioned gratitude. There's an example. I want to see the the stones trying to divert the stream of the conclusion. Keep them coming. A compendium of stones.
There's also the Will. I think that's a pregnant topic which I haven't seen you often talking about. I made a shot in the dark about how wild nature is and how we struggle with our own inner instinct.
There's also the poor fawn in the burning forest that experienced what some might call gratuitous harm.
What does existential self-awareness actually consist of? Does a recognition of mortality accompany it? When I first came to this realisation as a child my primary reaction was, why did I have to be born? In reversing the usual cliché about such matters, I often thought to myself that it might be bad luck to be born - to have to go through the laborious process of learning, growing, belonging (to a culture you dislike), experiencing loss, decline and ultimately death. It's not easy to identify an inherent benefit attached to any of this. But there's a lot of noise called philosophy and religion which seeks to help us to manage our situation.
So using the OP's point as a starting point, there is the "fact" that some animals are "self-aware". There is an indication that this leads to a certain set of conclusion, like an inevitable stream that can only be temporarily diverted, but never really moved from its final destination.
Indeed, Will is something to consider for "self-awareness". Will is part of the inevitability of the stream. There are diversions that try to make it seem like the conclusion is not inevitable, but these diversions are more psychological biases detracting from the logic of the dialectic of the fact of self-awareness.
:up: You've identified (informally, through example), the inevitable conclusion. And you even recognized some underlying factors for the diversions:
Quoting Tom Storm
The World as Will can lead to absurdity. With so much to say one sometimes expresses life affirmations.
Yet, every act or deviation from the nature of the Will could be perceived as ignorance of a greater truth.
:up: One of the hugest stones is the pursuit of X.. (love is a big one...but insert any lofty goal). Schopenhauer identified it as variations of Will fooling the hapless manifestation. But we need not take Will literally as a metaphysic for the metaphor to be true.
But it is the nature of this fooling that we should explore for biases.
This is the kind of question that only a species of animals that has the ability to conceptually know that it exists would ask or answer. What would be the value of a response from that kind of animal?
I mean that's the point. The kind of species of animal with self-awareness of existence cannot but help but know this. And clearly I'm indicating that there is something entailed with this fact.
Yes, well this is where Schopenhauer left this aspect out of the discussion about the axiology of the World itself. I believe that this aspect left out of the discussion about the nature of the Will is important to have.
You'd have to explain more for me to respond to what you are actually saying.
According to Arthur Schopenhauer, the concept of a creator, particularly a personal God, is essentially non-existent; he viewed the driving force behind the universe as a blind, aimless "Will" which does not correspond to any conscious or intentional creator, effectively negating the idea of a traditional God figure.
So, I believe that without a driving force guiding the universe apart from the Will, which determines how things happen, then my concern is over how to find happiness in a world where the Will is all encompassing. With regard to the totalizing nature of the Will, what are your thoughts about it?
It's all about justice and balance in this best of all possible worlds.
Bambi must burn in order for the spiritual balance of the forest to be maintained. Contrary to sentimentalists, Bambi burned with equanimity because he understood the necessity of his sacrifice. His wise father, the Great Prince of the Forest, had explained it to him. Bambi's bit-part nameless mother also experienced natural sacrificial immolation after Bambi was weaned. She was bitter and resentful about the whole deal. Her last words were "Fucking patriarchy!". Bambi's father didn't have to burn because his doe and fawning son fulfilled all of his debts--a good thing because he was the bearer of the Wisdom of the Forest.
It all worked out for the existential good of all.
Ok, so you are focusing on Schopenhauer's Will, and not the idea that it can just be a metaphor, got it. I wasn't sure. As for the notion of the Will itself, I think it can simply be a metaphor as if we are "driven by an aimless "Will". As the fact of a metaphysical Will and the practicality of living as a conscious, and self-aware being is basically identical. That is to say, the reality of Will as some metaphysical entity at play, need not even have to be the case for Schopenhauer's conclusions about how life (from the perspective of a subject/lifeform) operates.
So we are a lifeform that is self-aware of its existence. Consciousness, even without self-awareness, is pulled along by some drives- hunger, boredom, mating, etc. Self-consciousness brings with it a negative element to it as well (as in "lacking" something). That is to say, we have hunger- lack satiation or the stimulation of the senses in the form of food. In a more general sense, we lack a general satiation of the mind- a profound angst or boredom. We lack social stimulation in the form of loneliness and being lovelorn.
But even all this, which we might impute as the nature of Will (even as just a metaphor), is a contributing factor for a more general notion of Suffering. Schopenhauer, agreeing with various ancient wisdoms, thought that Suffering (capital "S") is the only way that this Will can be characterized. That is to say, this "lack" is equivalent to a profound form of Suffering. Playing into Platonic notions of completeness (in the Forms), and even more profoundly in Buddhist/Hindu notions of "Moksha/Nirvana", there is a sort of incompleteness to the animal that causes unfulfilled/neverending needs. But the cruel part is the "fooling" aspect. As the human animal, unlike mere instinct or simpler forms of experience that other animals exhibit, is that we make "goals" for ourselves. And those goals often are thwarted, and we are disappointed, or when they are reached, they are but temporary, and thus "the vanity" of Ecclesiastes. And throughout all this will-thwarting-temporary satiation, we have the anxieties and physical ailments of social and physical harms. We are self-aware, we know this. Yet what biases delude us?
The ever pursuit of stability (work/home). The ever pursuit of social bonds (love, relationships, friendships, family), and all sorts of self-limiting things to focus the mind (hobbies, interests, studies, and other toys and imaginative wonderings). But if Schopenhauer is right, these are temporary, not satiating, delusionary, and often lead to more pain. But even more tragic, is it prevents someone from understanding this very nature of Will which is so ever-present in the dialectic of self-awareness of existence itself. Life itself should not be imposed.
THAT IN FACT, SELF-AWARENESS ITSELF LED TO THE ANXIETIES THAT LED TO THE IMPOSITION OF MORE SELF-AWARENESS :scream:
:lol:
The morbid justifications of the Pollyannas...
Quoting BC
Echoes of Pangloss?
An actual "personal God" may well not exist, but the CONCEPT of a creator and personal God can not be denied. How believable and/or compelling is Schopenhauer's blind and aimless "will"? It seems like one could dismiss this "blind aimless will" as easily as a personal creator. Isn't Schopenhauer just swapping out one invisible entity for another?
I'd find Schopenhauer's cold wind of will sweeping across the cosmos more convincing if the wind was God. God doesn't have to be warm, fuzzy, loving, up close and personal or personable. God could be distant, cold, hard edged, indifferent, not lovable and still be God and creator. Just between you, me, and the fencepost I rather think God is closer to being a cold wind than a god keeping watch over sparrows and dandelions,
In my humble self-aware opinion, I'm more happy, more grateful, and more content now than I have been in many decades. Perhaps that's because the game is just about over for me (but not quite yet) and there's now little to lose?
Which is why I said this in reply to Shawn:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting BC
If the ancient Israelites were correct, and we are reflection of God, then God is also a reflection of us. That gives me a cold shiver indeed! I think things were muddled when medieval philosophizing tried to misconstrue God as all-powerful/all-loving/all-good, etc. Rather, the one from the Bible is capricious YET oddly goal-driven, needs things to happen to be satisfied. This God is rather not necessarily all-X, but rather a SUPER version of the human. The human traits MAGNIFIED into (monstrously) awe-filled forms.
No, I don't think this is the best of all possible worlds -- we live in one of the rest of all possible worlds. Best? Not so much,
I felt compelled to scribble a little nonsense about fawns burning in the forest. It's an example of the Will to Nonsense.
That's not entirely true in the animal that is SELF-AWARE OF EXISTENCE. Is there not something in this understanding that is quite clear and leads to conclusions, and not simply a fact? The fact that we know Bambi can burn means something?
This is said in regards to "a blind aimless will", I assume?
Well, if Bambi is incapable of being self-aware, and we really go down this path of how humans are so much more self-aware, then isn't there at some point a need to invoke morality about how, if not nature itself, then human nature affects our self-awareness and deeds and acts we do?
Clearly my memory has been manipulated by unknown agents!
The 1942 movie is based on a 1922 novel, Bambi: A Life in the Woods by the Austrian Felix Salten. (He often hunted deer.) The book is grimmer still, I hear.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. But.
I was being silly and didn't intend to subject Bambi to the further suffering of existential analysis. I also don't want to suffer by being forced to think more deeply about Bambi. In the last five minutes I've tripled the size of the Bambi case file, and most of the New Yorker article remains to be read.
I know you were being ironic and silly. But even this can be instructive to my point. Please do add more, maybe not about the plight of Bambi, but the question at hand:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Isn't there a button that just stops this Bambi discussion?
It's important to note that axiology is a branch of ethics regarding the degree of good or evil.
I'm going by this definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory
That is to say, I see ethics as a type of value, not the other way around. Axiology > Ethics.
Aesthetics, economic value, love, and ethics are axiological in nature.
@Wayfarer
My guess is you will bring some Buddhist concepts to this. Suppose you were to formulate an answer without that- let's say it had to use common everyday language, and/or standard philosophical jargon. What would you say? In a Buddhist sense, you might agree with Schopenhauer that Buddhist practice is what the self-aware animal must look to. I just wondered what else you might say. Is there a definite conclusion that is often biased away, for creatures that have self-awareness of existence? Is there a definite course of a stream from this fact that we are self-aware that is trying to be diverted by the stones of biases?
Only that it is possible either to be or not to be 'existentially self-aware' ...
I suppose that such a species would value immortality-projects (i.e. fetishes / technologies) higher than any other probably as the basis of all other values.
Well, look at the mythological description of the origin of Siddhartha's quest. He comes of age sorrounded by luxury and shielded from misfortune and suffering. But then he undertakes excursions outside the palace walls with his trusty charioteer, and sees the 'four sights'. Which four sights? An old man, bent over and walking very slowly with a stick. A sick man, in a state of distress. A corpse being escorted to the burning ghats. And finally a renunciate (sramana) with a serene countenance. This set the curriculum, so to speak, for Siddharta's quest, culminating in his realisation as the Buddha, by which he was forever liberated from the round of sa?s?ra - sickness, old age and death.
As to the relationship of humans and animals - as is well-known Buddhism is generally a humane religion, never having practiced animal sacrifice (unlike Vedic brahmanism.) Nevertheless Buddhists do not agree that humans are on the same plane of existence as animals, as humans have sufficient intelligence to hear the teaching and follow it. (See David Loy, Are Humans Special?, discussing Buddhist views on the significance of human life. Although I'm well aware that regarding human life as somehow different or 'special' is nowadays a very politically-incorrect stance, which I'm reminded of anytime I post about it.)
But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence?
So, in the case of Buddhism, the basis of value - the fundamental axiology, if you like - is the ubiquitity and unavoidable nature of suffering, old age and death. Its formulaic exposition is always given in those terms - you will loose what you love, be beset by things you don't like, suffer, and die. Those are given facts of existence. Liberation from that (nibbana, Nirv??a) is the extinction of the factors that drive continued existence in the mode of existence subject to these conditions.
Ok, so not quite following this request:
Quoting schopenhauer1 :razz: But I think the way that was phrased it was unclear that I didn't want any mention of Buddhism, just everyday or normal philosophical jargon (not translate Buddhist terms into everyday language). But that's okay, I can work with that, but veering away from the strictly Buddhist bent, just its implications...
So existence is basically a "suffering", in terms of this definition being the temporariness of satisfied states, and the initial lack that we feel, an incompleteness that is basically never-ending.
As I stated here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944343
Quoting schopenhauer1
Added a bigger part of the quote from the linked post above.
I wonder, with the profusion of media, that comedy and the overuse of irony adds to the diversions from the stream. More stones. As long as you can add a light-hearted quip, you are saved for now... Go about your day. Anxiety (not really) thwarted. Face saved.
Right. As you say, similar to Schopenhauer, where he converges with Buddhist and Hindu ideas.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But isn't it an inevitable consequence of being human, in a way that it is not for animals? Hereunder an excerpt from a powerful essay by another contemporary Buddhist, Zoketsu Norman Fischer, which was written as a reflection on 9/11 and the religious rationale for terrorism (although that particular aspect is not relevant at this point). I quote it, because I think it's a plausible, existential account of the source of the angst for self-aware beings such as ourselves.
Of course, much more need be said, and this is only an excerpt, but I think it frames the issue well.
Damn that comes close to a lot of themes I've explored on here. That's a good one.
I like...
Yes, great point.
Quoting Wayfarer
Good point.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes it does, and corresponds very much to what I've been saying. Human being and (other) animal being has a difference in kind, that is a gulf, and it creates problems for us. But in this particular thread, I am also teasing out that there seems to be entailments with this "self-knowledge".
Edit: One of them is the self-recognition of the process described here.. but are there others? This is clearly not immediate, but indeed is a conclusion one makes from self-recognition. Is there something more immediate with knowing about this existence?
More edit: An inevitable conclusion that gets diverted with Pollyannas?
By definition it implies everything else? So, yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What does this mean? To guess at what you are asking, all existential beings operate under a system of values - in some form or another.
Being aware of one's own inevitable death sometime in the future.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Desiring to be morally Good.
What are we aware of by being self-aware of existence? What is the content of our/everyone's existence?
What do you think?
Read some of the previous posts to understand what I'm getting at. The gist is a pessimistic understanding. Self-awareness of existence entails an understanding of suffering. The quote from Wayfarer describes the process:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944435
This is more-or-less the conclusion:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944343
With the self-awareness, we divert the attention of the immediate conclusion. It is the biases of Pollyannaisms and "but what fors".. As I have described throughout the thread. So I would say read the thread as a whole to see what I mean, then reply.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149797920?source=queue&autoPlay=false
The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking".
I enjoyed the essay on boredom, thanks.
Quoting I like sushi
Will is Schopenhauer's label for the restlessness. The boredom essay sort of captures it. Boredom was very important to Schopenhauer, as it showed Will's negative (lacking that is) nature. That even just existing carries with it a sort of lack. Hence my quote here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not sure about 'enlightenment', but a sound moral education can do much to alleviate the harms inherent in human nature. It isn't that we are 'evil', it's that we have natural 'animal' urges powered by an unusual level of intelligence. Ethics and morality help us manage ourselves better.
Life is not so bleak in a decent and orderly society. When we descend to indecent disorder, such as prevails in Sudan at this point, it becomes very bleak. Life is bleak in Gaza and getting bleaker in Ukraine, Lebanon, Venezuela, et al. Everybody has periods of indecent disorder, at one point or another, usually collectively but sometimes individually.
Self-awareness is key in moral education. We have to know what dangers lurk in our personal natures, and then do something about it. No guarantees of goodness in that, but sometimes we try.
Schopenhauer in a nutshell. The process is something like described here from Wayfarer's post:
Quoting Wayfarer
That is to say, the irrevocable breach of our existence into the framework of conceptual objectification of the world. The self-and-other, the self that needs goals, the self that suffers, is felt in the immediacy of self-awareness.
[quote=DhP 153-4;https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.11.than.html#dhp-153]Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.
House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving.[/quote]
Yes, but as you know, I don't believe in the soteriology that Buddhist peddles. It's my suspicion that often spiritual terms get mixed with everyday psychological terms. We have an ego because there is an enculturation process, not any metaphysical other trappings. We have an ego because we are born (in the physical sense). We have an ego because we have language. Things like this.
I'm sure the Buddhas understand that. Escaping enculturation is the reason Buddhism started as a renunciate movement (one of many in that culture).
The Middle Path, already shows defeat. Mama and papa.. Buddhist societies go on. Crying at birth won't do no good. It happened.
I won't take your word for it ;-)
And yet, you deny the basic fundamentals of cause and effect. Suffering is caused by being born. It's that simple. No more.
Quoting DhP 153-4
Suffering is not simply caused by being born but by the demand that your life should be other than it is.
Its caused when you are conscious, and amplified and a difference even in kind of suffering through self-awareness of existence.. In that regard, Schopenhauers Will is apt. Desire, needs, goals, lack in general. But whatever gotcha contrary opinion you want to answer here, I advise to read the dialectic of this thread as I think its helpful to see the development.
Suffering is not caused merely by being conscious or being self-aware. You could be conscious and self-aware and not suffer, if by suffering you mean a general condition and not chronic pain or the suffering caused by illness.
It is laughable that you consider any counterargument but not your own taken to be self-evident assertions to be a "gotcha".
I'm only interested in reading (more than once) good arguments and not in being advised to go read this or that. If you have a decent argument you can set it out in your own words.
Nah, I mean the concept of suffering is entailed in being self-aware of existence. If you are not self-aware (of existence), you probably don't understand about suffering as a concept, even though you may suffer.
Suffering is not inevitable merely on account of being aware or self-aware. Awareness may be a necessary, bit not a sufficient, condition for suffering.
Quoting Tom Storm
This kind of stuff. There are a lot of structural elements to knowing about existence, many of them negative.
Indeed, and this is an important insight, yet its often put aside.
Right and it would be equally absurd to claim that existence is completely free from pleasure.
Suffering as Schopenhauer defined it, is structural and contingent, pleasure is only contingent. As a more straightforward point, suffering is all that matters in axiological estimations.
I'm not sure what you mean. I would say that absence of pleasure brings suffering and that absence of pain brings pleasure. Life is inherently pleasurable when I am not experiencing some kind of pain and inherently painful when I am not experiencing some kind of pleasure.
Whether experiences are painful or pleasurable can have much to do with the attitude we hold towards those experiences.
Are you saying that our instinctual drives - as conscious existential beings - drive us away from boredom? You are talking about 'boredom' as a lack of 'satiation,' is this in your view taken from Schopenhauer's view or your own?
I understand that Schopenhauer has a somewhat contrary approach to boredom, saying that we should condition ourselves to it, yet also saying things like:
It is amusing to see he assumes this last point. Clearly he has not felt this or he would be 'intoxicated'. Maybe he was not 'intoxicated' by boredom enough? Maybe he did not heed his own advice for long enough?
I don't think it works like that. First off, we know we die and that there is a demise. Then there is the fact that we are lacking and strive for satiation. These are just built into the framework. They are not situational, though situational harms add to it.
Quoting Janus
This contradicts what I believe to be true from Schopenhauer's observation:
Huh? Boredom is a feeling important to Schopenhauer as to him, it is the emotional state of existence laying itself bare to a highly self-aware mind. Hence the quote about boredom being proof of life's "emptiness". Indeed, striving and lacking, is what is "positive" in the sense that it is what is primary and constant. Pleasure is "negative" in that it is temporary, and only works to temporarily fill the underlying "lack" (Wills principle of striving).
Note, we must also be careful as Schopenhauer can vaccinates using "negative" in the "bad" sense, and then "negative" in that which removes the initial condition (or a negation of the initial condition rather).
I'm not sure where you are getting that he "promotes" boredom, as the quote you have above clearly states that it represents a part of the suffering. The quote I'm referring to is here:
He is saying here that boredom is very much showing that after all the goals and strivings, we go back to the initial empty state that was there all along as a sort of background noise.
This alongside strengthening oneself against 'boredom'. The 'vermin' are trying to avoid 'boredom'.
I'd have to look at the context again, but the quote as is looks like it is saying that the "mob of humanity" try to get rid of boredom. Part of their ignorance is this attempt since boredom is not removable, or at least in the ways that they think.
Ok, so this speaks to what I'm saying when I said, "at least in ways they think". It relates to my other thread about finding comfort in ones solitude. One must learn to work through boredom, as the strivings against boredom aren't going to get rid of the underlying striving Will at work.
Sure we know we die. That fact may cause some to suffer and not others. As I said earlier its a matter of attitude and disposition. I don't know what you mean when you say "we are lacking". Lacking what? For example say I am hungry. If I have food then no problem. If I don't have food then I will possibly suffer as per what I said previouslythat suffering comes from wanting the circumstances of my life to be different than they are. Even then I may only suffer if I have no means of changing those circumstances to a
more congenial situation or changing my attitude such that I no longer wish my life to be different than it is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Please lay out the point you want to make. I am not inclined to read that passage and have to try to figure out what the counterpoint to what I said is.
All of what you said is pretty much the opposite of Schopenhauer's claim. Figure it out.
So Schopenhauer claims there is no diversity in the ways people respond to their conditions? In that case he would obviously be mistaken.
:roll:
Edit: I suspect you won't answer this because to do so would be damning for your boy's position (and I imagine, yours).
Quoting schopenhauer1
This could be interpreted as 'will against boredom' yet you use 'striving'. I hope you see the problem here as if we are 'willfully' working against boredom we cannot also 'willfully' embrace boredom.
So ...
One must learn to work through boredom, as the will against boredom isn't going to get rid of the underlying will.
Work through meaning willfully? Can we work through something without willing it?
I guess it works more like in this post..note, language is tricky here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Would your next step be to listen to the music teacher and resort to Aristotle's ethics in passive pursuit of some golden mean?
I gave you language more adept at conveying non-willing, as you noted action words driven by goals. As far as the ineffable, it isnt hard to articulate the problem- being born/existence itself. The solutions Ive presented over and over. Tell someone on here who recently fell in love that existence is suffering. The hormones alone will lead them to (internally) violently resist. They just won and you are going to question that? Skip a few years and babies, and more pay from work, and a bit of status in society. You end up with grandkids and half the old timer posters on here giving you their quite middlebrow-everyday mans workaday morals of something equivalent to Aristotles Golden Mean. At the most, they can give you balance in some Tao inspired koan. But its all to preserve that lifestyle. They cling to it, because if that was lost, a whole despair from a loss and attachment to a lifestyle and stability has gone away. Of course these posters oppose the kind of radical pessimism and antinatalism I speak of.
So is this like Corvus in the other thread? Am I supposed to refer to the Hollywood movie where the curmudgeon main character learns that human connection is the most important thing?
Well, it entails a life. Any living organism is aware of its environment, which includes the organism. It is causally self-reflexive in the sense that it responds to its environment, and the fact that there is an environment causes its response.
That is what most animals do. But I am talking about self-awareness of existence (pretty just us).
I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk.
Im on a philosophy forum. Debating ideas.
Theres a germ of truth in that but amoeba arent aware that theyre aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms.
The same type of reasoning has been used to justify discrimination against women, children, the poor, the sick, those of the wrong skin color, those "with too much dust in their eyes", those of the wrong religion, and then some.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It seems to me obvious that self-awareness is the platform supporting the entire edifice of morality. Since it concerns proper behavior in society, morality assumes a basic structure of self and other.
The social contract organizes the relationship between the individual and society considered as one thing, a collective.
Without self-awareness, I don't see how moral principles and codes of professional ethics can even be developed, let alone practiced. Any kind of organized thinking about correct behavior going forward assumes the enduring point of view of an individual. Well, in the absence of self-awareness, individuals disappear.
Values fostered by morals anchor the sense of identity essential to individuality.
You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms.
I thought this was an excellent insight here. Humans have to value something, hold it as a reason for pursuing before the pursuit. Before one ounce of ink is spilled over A -> B, or 1 + 1 = 2, one has to care. As one philosopher noted (and has become almost a mantra), there is an "aboutness" to consciousness, an "intentional stance". This takes the forms in different creatures, but in humans, the value seems primary. Yes there are reflexes and physical responses to stimuli or lack thereof, but most of everything takes on value-drives. But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended?
Quoting schopenhauer1
As I'm thinking about it, the values are the conclusions. Consider drinking water and eating food. Of course, the sentient periodically experiences thirst and hunger. In the old days, carnivorous humans had to hunt game before they could eat. Hunting game is hard work. Individuals don't undertake hunting game unless they're sold on eating game to survive as holding status as a necessary value.
Perhaps there's an argument claiming instinct is separate from value. Okay. I'm guessing, however, that instincts light the way to core values. An example of this might be holding family as a core value based on the sexual instinct. Nature entices otherwise itinerant males into becoming family men through their sexual urges.
Or do both ideas come to a species at the same time, one impossible without the other?
Quoting Tom StormThis seems like a mental or emotional health issue. There are people who aren't concerned with dying, but apparently because they simply never think about it.
For others, the knowledge of their own mortality drives them to artistic creativity. Expressing what they feel. I remember an episode of Highlander where a brilliant composer found out she was immortal. As a result, she lost her brilliance. She hadn't been composing specifically with her mortality in mind. The idea is that mortality is a part of everything we do, and when she lost her mortality, and it was no longer part of her life's expression, her music was laughing. Wolverine said much the same thing to the Beyonder in an X-Men comic.
Some make something that will make others think of them after they are gone. I'm sure some art is created for this reason. But also things like buildings, which can be artistic, but might not always be what the builder is intending. Just a big physical thing to remember me by.
Other people do not ever deal well with the knowledge of their own mortality. Some deal with it very badly.
What I wonder is, is it possible for a species to gain existential self-awareness, and the awareness of their own mortality, but NOT be able to deal with it emotionally? I don't think I would expect the ... maturity? ... to ALSO be part of the package. It seems to be asking a lot for awareness of self, awareness of mortality, and the ability to deal with it, to all arrive together.
I assume these things begin with one individual. Thinking of basic evolution. An individual is born with a new trait, passes it on to offspring, and it spreads throughout the population. So, if awareness of both self and mortality are a package deal, I don't think it would have been passed on if the individual reacted very negatively. If the individual hated it, and suffered depression because of it, it wouldn't have been selected for, and wouldn't have been passed on for its own sake. So either the ability to deal with it came with it as a three-part package, or there were other still MORE things that came with the package, maybe not as obviously related to it, but which were great advantages, and overshadowed the (pretty serious) negative.
Yes, that seems to be the question. From an early age I always saw death as its own reward. Assuming death means non-existance. I have heard no convincing reason to think otherwise. I think not existing seems pretty cool and overall desirable. But such a view is likely to be dispositional and subject to contingent factors like culture and experience. And this does not imply a death wish on my part.
Quoting Patterner
People seem to have a range of reactions to death. Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. But the experince of being, even in a privileged country, with every benefit and good fortune (health/wealth/stability) can be a bit of a drag, I find. I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? And seeing the misery and suffering of others, takes the sheen out of most things. But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own.
Quoting Patterner
I think so. But maybe less prevalent in Western cultures, where Christianity has seeped into most of our cultural and psychological cracks. My father didn't appear to be moved by death - he made it to 98. I find I think more about the death of others than my own death. When I do think about mine I am mainly curious as to where will it happen. Is the place where I will die already known to me? Do I walk past it every day. Is it my bed? Is it a familiar street corner? A hospital ward. A cave in the wilderness? The clock is ticking...
And some societies have less regard for time measuring than others. Herein lies the issue of mortality. We are only concerned with mortality if we are concerned with time.
I've thought about this. Obviously something I suffer from, as do many. But I think from a Buddhist perspective, it is an aspect of Kle?a, 'defiled cognition'. It is a form of delusion, and possibly also craving, namely, craving for things to be other than what they are. Of course, realising such a state of inner poise such that one is not subject to boredom seems remote, but I thought I'd mention it. (I suppose in my own case, that being the one I'm most intimately familiar with, it manifests as restleness, general low-level cravings to eat or watch something, and a bodily feeing of slight unease.)
Maybe. I'm not sure. Say some more. For me people also seem to have a fear of oblivion or a fear of the unknown. Some even fear judgement and suffering after death. I've met many in this camp.
Quoting Wayfarer
So self-awareness of existence, is beyond simply "self-awareness". Other animals display forms of "self-knowing" including apes, elephants, dolphins/whales, crows, parrots, etc. Clearly, a being equipped with language/conceptual framing of reality (pretty much just us), can form a "self-awareness of existence". So what is entailed with self-awareness of existence? Here is a somewhat more comprehensive list, and isn't only about "death" and our eventual demise but LIFE, and what that means to exist as we do:
Existentialism themes:
Individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a universe that offers no inherent purpose. Existence precedes essence (Sartre), the absurd (Camus), and authenticity (Heidegger).
Philosophical Pessimism: Emphasizes life's inherent suffering and futility.
Schopenhauer (life as "will to life" leads to endless striving and pain) and Zapffe (consciousness as a tragic evolutionary anomaly). Suffering (capital "S") as a universal category encompassing all negatives of existence: physical pain, emotional turmoil, existential dread, angst, and the dissatisfaction central to Buddhist dukkha.
Our Disconnection from Nature:
Alienation from the natural world, contrasting with other animals' instinctual harmony within their environments. Inspired by the Wayfarer quote: "Other animals are water in water. We are on the outside, trying to look in." The human condition as estranged from the seamless unity of natural existence due to our self-awareness and artificial constructs.
Suffering as a Metaphysical Category:
Suffering (capital "S") transcends individual pain, symbolizing the universal burden of existence itself.
Includes physical/emotional harm, existential dread (existence as imposed without consent), and pervasive dissatisfaction (dukkha) found in Eastern thought.
Existential Angst and Alienation:
Angst as the emotional manifestation of recognizing one's freedom and the weight of responsibility.
Alienation not just from nature but also from each other, ourselves, and any presumed divine order.
The Contrast of Being and Becoming:
Life as endless becoming (change, flux) versus the unattainable longing for static being (peace, fulfillment). Pessimism emphasizes this tension as a source of Suffering.
Human Exceptionalism and Its Costs:
Our cognitive detachment grants us creativity but also burdens us with existential uncertainty.
The price of consciousness is perpetual alienation and the magnification of Suffering.
Eastern Parallels:
Buddhist and Hindu traditions describe dukkha and maya, aligning with pessimistic views of life as dissatisfaction and illusion. Suffering viewed not only as personal but systemic and universal.
Hope as a Trap:
Camus' recognition of hope as part of the absurd; Nietzsche's critique of hope as prolonging suffering.
In pessimistic thought, even hope can be a mechanism of delusion, binding us to the cycle of becoming.
Communities of Catharsis:
A potential response to Suffering: forming compassionate communities grounded in mutual recognition of the impositions of existence. Not solutions but spaces for shared understanding and solidarity.
Antinatalism:
A moral stance against bringing new life into existence, grounded in the recognition that existence is imposed without consent. Life entails Suffering as an inescapable fact, and the act of procreation forces another being to endure it.
Schopenhauer:
Procreation perpetuates the "will to life" and endless striving.
Benatars Asymmetry Argument: the absence of harm for the non-existent is preferable to the inevitable harm of existence.
Existential Self-Awareness and Antinatalism:
Human consciousness uniquely grasps the futility and inherent Suffering of life.
This awareness implies a responsibility not to impose existence on others, given the universal negatives it entails.
Zapffe: Humanity copes with existential horror through denial, distraction, or sublimation, but these are inadequate foundations for justifying new life.
Was that list from ChatGPT?
I put in the input but yes. It turned it into a list based on that. Saved me time but I can recreate it if you want using my own idioms.
Quoting Tom StormI doubt it evolved. That would mean the desire once wasn't part of living things. Things that don't act to keep living don't live long enough to reproduce.
Quoting Tom Storm There are obviously people who pretend everything we can name. But there are also people who are naturally like that. Again, it's how they feel. I assume it has a lot to do with bio-chemistry.
Quoting Tom StormWhat more could we want?!
Quoting Tom StormAnything is possible. But you'll probably have to put some effort into that one.
Hence the association of celibacy with renunciate philosophies.
:up: To focus on the most important points above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Our capacity for self-awareness of existence, has enormous capacity to open up the Suffering entailed in existence. We are not like the other animals in how we Suffer. It is not just immediate; it is bound in our past, present, and future. It possesses subtle nuances of physical, emotional, and existential negative valence. Once one has looked at the situation long enough- it would be madness/callous/misguided to put more people into the situation. Thus Zapffe's emphasis on some psychological defense mechanisms we have developed:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quote from wiki entry on Zappfe: "I am not a pessimist. I am a nihilist. Namely, not a pessimist in the sense that I have upsetting apprehensions, but a nihilist in a sense that is not moral".
Why bother with it? How is it philosophy? Nihilism is the negation of philosophy. Not interested in discussing him.
That description could well apply to me, now a grandparent and effectively retired from the workforce. It's not that I'm 'opposed' to pessimism and nihilism, but that it is pointless, even by its own admission.
Oh come now, this seems ideological bias. First off, I don't care what label people use, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. And Zapffe is basically pessimism. Pessimisms have various aspects, but they simply need to have at their core a negative evaluation of existence. Thus, even Buddhism can be considered "pessimistic". I suppose "nihilistic" in your sense of the word, is being used as a label for philosophies that have no soteriology, contra what Buddhism/Hinduism/religions propose. That is to say, life might have some aspect of suffering inherent, but there is a "Way" to follow. Usually it's difficult, hardly attained for most, and provides some aspect of hope for the currently living. Even the great pessimist, Schopenhauer had some view of a soteriology- aesthetic contemplation, compassion, and asceticism were available to the degree to which certain characters had the capacity to tap into these forms of "denial of the Will". Certainly, Buddhism has the Eightfold Path, and Hinduism has various yogic schools leading to some form of "moksha" or freedom from dharmic cycles. Apostolic forms of Christianity have the Pauline doctrines of salvation "through Christ", Gnostic Christianity had salvation through various stages of Gnosis. Even a "this-worldly" based religion such as Judaism has a hope for a future Messianic Age, and World to Come and some form of repentance of the world through good deeds.
Why do you suppose it is important for you that there be a salvation of some sort? Why does this so-called "nihilist" (your version of this idiom) upset your sensibilities?
Quoting Wayfarer
I think you are playing with words here. "Nihilism" again, is a shifty label that itself is pointless. Rather, how is it being used? What is being conveyed? It's not "useless" unless you feel there needs to be a "use", and that presupposes "something" about what you think philosophy must conclude, no?
In Religion and Nothingness, Nishida critiques Nietzsche's nihilism as incomplete because it fails to fully realise the meaning of "absolute nothingness." Nishida appreciates Nietzsche's effort to reject metaphysical absolutes, such as God or the Platonic realm, and sees his proclamation of the "death of God" as a profound acknowledgment of the collapse of traditional values in Western culture. However, Nishida finds Nietzsche's response to this nihilismembodied in the ideas of the Übermensch and the will to powerinsufficient because it does not go beyond the duality of self-assertion and negation (or self-and-other).
For Nishida, Nietzsches nihilism remains trapped within the Western metaphysical framework of oppositional thinking, which understands nothingness as mere absence. In contrast, Nishida, drawing on Zen, sees "absolute nothingness" not as mere absence but as the ground of reality itself, 'the nothing which is everything'. This nothingness is dynamic and relational, allowing for the dissolution of dualities such as self and other, being and non-being. But realisation of emptiness involves a kind of death - 'dying to the known', as one teacher puts it - and the abandonment of self-concern.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not useful in a utilitarian sense, but more in the sense of virtue being its own reward. Philosophy is love-wisdom - not the love of books about philosophy, although that's surely a part, but a state of love-wisdom, which I think is incompatible with the pessimism we're discussing. As you note, Schopenhauer himself was not ultimately pessimistic, although this seems to have escaped many of those who comment on him.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Very flattering that you think I've invented the history of world religions.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But that is Zappfe's self-description, and you brought him up. Nihilism is variously the view that nothing matters, nothing is real, reality is empty appearance with nothing behind it, etc. In the Buddhist world, nihilism is the view that at death, the body returns to the elements and there are no consequences for actions taken in life.
Just happened upon this. In its English format, is this supposed to in fact be "absolute nothingness" or "absolute no thingness". The two are by no means equivalent.
Quoting javra
And so, I suppose something like Nirvana/Moksha, no? So this is why I also brought in notions earlier of romantic love, and the family-unit that follows for many people from this. The person pursuing love/in love would fight you tooth-and-nail if you were to say that this was just an attachment. The surge of hormonal response to someone who has won at love, would rebel to such a degree, that your nothingness would be thrown aside for the sweet embrace of eros-turned-philia that a stable long-term relationship might take. You speak of another world, yet no one wants to really go there. Hence we get watered down things- those for the working man. Self-help guides, basically. The man who joins the monks for a bit and returns.
My strong hunch is that there is equivocations galore in how the term "being" is applied by different philosophers of different cultures and at different times in history. From a Western philosophy vantage, being is not equivalent to existing - as you yourself are aware of. Some examples: The Good, The One, or else Eastern notions of Brahman and Nirvana (this without remainder). None of these exist but all are within their own frameworks taken to in fact be, this in manners that can be said to transcend existence and, thereby, existents - and, therefore, to hold being.
In which sense (from what framework) can there be a non-duality between being and non-being?
In Eastern frameworks, for example, the illusion/magic trick of Maya - wherein things occur and thereby are - is construed as separate from either the Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) which as ultimate reality is. The first is possible to create and destroy, for example; the second is not. And, tmbk, only in complete absence of the first can one obtain the absolute pure nature of the second - as atman in Hinduism and as anatman in Buddhism. If this is so, then how can Brahman or Nirvana (without remainder) be considered to not be - this as would be implied by neither being nor not-being?
Yea, as ascetic as I might have unwillingly become at certain points in my life, this is antithetical to me and my outlook. Experience is for experiencing, just as life is for living. Philosophy - with all its philosophical problems and analysis - is worthless outside of a means of theoretically appraising how one might best experience and live (this being something that I find applicable to even pessimists/nihilists such as yourself). The latter not being theory but praxis.
I mean, the rebuttal would just be that you either have an accurate appraisal or not. It would not be philosophy then, but merely coping. If I'm reading a book on improving work habits, I don't see that as pursuing "what is the truth." Pragmatism may address various functional outcomes, but it doesn't engage with the fundamental understanding of the human condition. It is indeed, as Zapffe would explain, be an example of "distracting or ignoring" as a mechanism to deny the reality.
Philosophy (the love of wisdom) is about coping. Be it the "highest" form of coping or the "deepest" form of coping, it's coping with suffering all the same.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You certainly come across as believing yourself to be endowed with the "accurate appraisal" you've made mention of. To be precise: A distraction from, or an ignoring of, what reality? It certainly can't be the ultimate reality of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana - for you take these notions to be a farce.
The reality of nothingness? But then what on earth is stopping one from obtaining this envision "reality" - nothing except one's own self.
The issues become a bit more challenging when addressing an obtainment of the The Good / The One / etc. ... which in certain circles do in fact sometimes get expressed in terms of "absolute love". All the "boo to love" in the world notwithstanding.
Consider early Buddhism - Gautama said to be of noble birth, who renounces home and family life in pursuit of liberation. (The meaning of the name of his son, R?hula, who joined the sangha and was also considered arahant, was 'fetter'.) This is axial-age philosophy - similar in some respects to the contemporaneous Gnostic sects in the Middle East who likewise depict wisdom and liberation as being entirely other to wordly life.
But with the advent of Mah?y?na Buddhism, the meaning of liberation is altogether re-envisioned. One of the Mah?y?na texts is the Vimalak?rti Nirde?a, the subject of which is a wealthy silk-trader who's insight into ??nyat? is so profound that the other disciples are afraid to debate him! One of the revolutionary insights of Mah?y?na was the non-difference of Nirv??a and Sa?s?ra, whereas for the earlier tradition these were utterly separate realms. (There is an aphorism associated with early Mah?y?na, 'Sa?s?ra is Nirv??a grasped, Nirv??a is Sa?s?ra released', although it is of course true that these are the kinds of teachings that Theravada Buddhists don't accept.)
Accordingly, the Bodhisattva ideal introduces a profoundly different dynamic:
Quoting H H The Dalai Lama
* That description loosely approximates Schopenhauer's diagnosis of 'world as will'.
I'm not quoting this to evangalise belief but as an illustration of the way that Mah?y?na Buddhism reconciled the reality of life in the world with the higher truths of their religion. But for me, personally, it provides a satisfactory philosophical framework within which to accept the vicissitudes of existence.
I can actually get on board with this, IF it was more the existential kind. I have proposed Communities of Catharsis to cope with the existential dilemma. Sans any actual soteriology, all we can do is bear witness to the Suffering.
Quoting javra
Simply the Suffering of life, our separation from the kind of being that other animals have, and the fact that we can prevent suffering for future people. There isn't much more realization I am talking about here. We can go a little further, like the (metaphorical) understanding of Will (the need for need/our lack/dissatisfaction) traced by Schopenhauer, but it would just be the details at that point.
Quoting javra
This part is tricky. I am not sure how to view "absolute nothingness". I surely know only the kind that is in regards to "what is not". For example, a person not existing, doesn't suffering. By way of this knowledge, I know some conclusions to make from this.
Quoting javra
Ha, yes, I don't really see that as anything but metaphorically interesting poetry at this point. Neoplatonism, and even Schopenhauer's construction of Will, mediated by the subject/object illusion into individuation, is interesting, but ultimately, I am not sure what to make of that metaphysics. This I suppose is what @Wayfarer means by my "nihilism". I'm not sure if I take that "higher reality" as seriously, though I am partial to understanding it further as a study.
I'm sure this debate has been played out between Mahayana and Theravada schools, but wouldn't one just say that this is trying to reconcile one's desires with doctrine? I have no dog in this fight really, being I don't believe in the soteriology framework of either schools.
I find that suffering, much like understanding, comes in nonquantitative magnitudes - rather than in a binary of on/off. An animal will understand friend from foe, and an animal will suffer when its understanding is found to be erroneous. Humans have the capacity to understand far more than any other lifeform, yes, and this opportunity comes attached to the cost of potentially far greater magnitudes of suffering. One can affix to this the proposition of, the more I know, the less I understand, and like expressions.
Otherwise, Im in general agreement with this quoted statement.
Where we so far greatly differ is in the resolution to the suffering addressed: everything from the stance that ignorance is thereby bliss to the stance that, since existential being is entwined with the capacity to suffer, the resolution is then the obtainment of (or the eternally perpetuating state of) non-being - this so as the fix the problem.
But I think I get it: short of an otherwise termed mystical account of reality that is not only rationally justified but rationally justified so as to disallow for any other justifiable alternative, those such as yourself will refuse to entertain the possibility of The Good / The One / Brahman / Nirvana as soteriological end in any serious way.
As for me, Im doing my best to present what I hope to eventually be, fingers crossed, a roughly equivalent thesis to the one just described. But guess what: it aint easy the time constraints and such of living ones life here placed aside. And if its a fools errand, then I acknowledge being such a fool.
Nevertheless, I look at the alternative of non-being as soteriological end else soteriological reality - such that one deems all suffering to not be in this metaphysically possible state of non-being. And I become existentially appalled at the consequent results: if we all obtain this end of non-being upon our corporeal death, why not lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) as much as we can while living so as to maximize our profits till our inevitable non-being results? Due to others suffering? Just like us, the quicker they die, the quicker they too obtain their absolute salvation from any and all suffering. Besides, the more unempathetic we ourselves become, the less we ourselves suffer on account of what occurs to others. Yay. That these human behaviors are directly causing the Holocene extinction worldwide as we speak? All life benefits by its cessation to live via the resultant obtainment of non-being - this being its sole means of being free from suffering - and so the global destruction of life and its myriad species is in fact doing all life a big favor. Nuclear weapons detonated? Even better. And if we manage to obliterate all life in the cosmos - here assuming all life in the cosmos is located on our planet Earth - then we will obtain the very cessation of life ever being birthed to begin with. Never mind then evolving over time into forms of life with greater capacity for understanding and suffering than that currently held.
All this is a bit villainous. Evil incarnate some might express. With a good pinch of materialism, in the colloquial sense, thrown in for flavor.
I was responding to the point of yours that I quoted, about how to reconcile the apparent unworldliness of the desire for transcendence, with the actuality of life as living individuals with attachments to significant others.
This is the classic theist trope about why atheists wouldn't just wantonly kill and murder and do bad things because of not believing in a god. It assumes that moral behavior is contingent on divine oversight, ignoring the fact that many atheists and secular philosophies advocate for ethical conduct based on various ethical frameworks or sensibilities such as rights, empathy, or even rational self-interest, rather than fear of punishment or promise of reward.
Quoting javra
Strawmanning is not a great way to argue. Violating various ethical principles to uphold another ethical principle negates it. But anyways, not believing in an idea of "non-being" doesn't lead to the desire to see nuclear destruction. Sorry, not following that logic.
I could ask a series of personal questions to get to a point, but you can take these instead of "you" as more of "why would one", to depersonalize it:
1) Why would you pursue romantic love and familial life in the first place and not just enlightenment?
2) What would happen if the partner (or current/final partner) you have ended up with had broken up with you before you procreated or got married? If your life had two versions, and one path was a version that was not successful at finding love, and the other one that did, is the first one as well-off as the second?
2a) If the first one is not as well-off, what are the implications?
And so again, my quote from above, the CONTINGENT circumstances glaringly more apparent:
Hesse's Siddhartha, discussed this in a way.. Existential themes related to exactly these kind of attachments. Detachment after attachments are made seem cruel. Successful X may also be contingent. Yet instead of never pursuing or abandoning the pursuit as vanity, if one is successful, one rarely lets go. No reason to lose love for no reason other than a silly philosophy, right?
Yeah, well, life doesn't come at you pre-divided into neat paths. Usually it's a mix of conscious motivations, circumstances, accident and planning. But to get back to the main point, the consequence of the kind of self-awareness that humans possess, doesn't necessarily entail endless suffering, although it can.
I dont have the time to fully unpack this. But it is sheer emotion/sentimentality devoid of any rational exposition. As though atheists dont operate by rewards and punishments. Or as the The Good is some godly oversight. But Ill cut this short.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree, so why are you doing it?
Quoting schopenhauer1
As is readily apparent, this in rebuttals such as the following:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok, then.
Frankly, I wouldnt mind your believing that a possible state of non-being is better than being and should thereby be prescribed - but for your trying to convince all others of this suicidally unethical absurdity. Greatly comforting to your own state of being though their agreement would be.
WTF are you talking about? You are strolling into troll territory. You accuse my argument of emotional sentimentality. This is just a provoking sentimental provocation right there.
Why is it unethical absurdity to your sensibilities? What kind of philosophy are you advocating then that this is making you clutch your pearls that I dont believe in Nirvana. Ive never seen this reaction outside Abrahamic beliefs. Even Wayfarer, a long time eastern practitioner doesnt peddle in this kind of pearl clutching or trolling, even if he believes that it is nihilism.
You might not follow the logic but .
Suicide rates increased 37% between 2000-2018 in the US and is one of the leading causes of death.
If life is bad and non-being is good, this as antinatalism advocates and disseminates, then there is no surprise that many out there will come to infer that the only logical conclusion to the unpleasantries of life is to commit suicide. Even though an antinatalist will not advocate for suicide per se, the message they send via their tenuous reasoning directly works toward this effect, most especially for those who believe death to equate to non-being.
Theres more to it than this, but you already expressed that you dont follow the logic to it, so why bother to further address it.
All the same, last I checked, disseminating views that end up encouraging others out there to ponder, if not commit, self-murder is unethical. Hence the absurdity of positing such views to be in lifes best interest and hence ethical. I figure ones existential self-awareness ought to make this amply clear, but apparently not.
This to me is a load of bullshit. So yeah I don't follow the reasoning. If you asked the suicidal person if they killed themselves because they heard the views of antinatalism, most will have not. In fact, if anything it speaks to other things that pessimists and antinatalists discuss, but not caused by antinatalism, a crucial difference.
Quoting javra
Because you have none. This is all veiled ad hominem.
Quoting javra
Yeah, this is a major fallacy. If someone is a free speech advocate, yet some of it is hate speech that encourages X bad action, the free speech advocate isn't directly causing or encouraging the negative consequences of "free speech", or its misuse rather. A person who is "pro gun rights" isn't for school shootings. A person who is pro-choice isn't for killing babies. These are all examples of straw mans.
So I propose you move away from this ridiculous line of reasoning and if you want to discuss the existential issues, be my guest. If you want to advocate for a Buddhist approach, or be critical of pessimism without making a strawman caricature of it by trying to conflate bad motives, edge cases, and extremes, or general cultural trends (that may be part of the same substrate but not caused by it), go ahead.
I also agree that antinatalism is an obviously nihilistic attitude. Its basically it would have been much better never to have been born. The fact is, we have! We have discussed many times the sense in which soteriological paths seek to transcend the inevitable suffering of existence, but antinatalism and nihilist philosophers seem have no belief in or interest in it. It seems to me they turn their back on the prospect of any genuine remediation.
Ive been listening the last two years to John Vervaekes Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Vervaeke is professor of Cognitive Science at University of Toronto. Its a series of 50 lectures on the basis of the sense of meaninglessness that afflicts many humans in todays world, tracing it right back through the history of culture and civilisation, whilst still trying to stay within the bounds of natural science. I recommend a listen.
He isn't really. You are improving upon it though, to make it a better one. One actually that I also agree with to an extent.
Quoting Wayfarer
Not basically, it is that.
Quoting Wayfarer
Obviously the antinatalist part is advocating for prevention of the suffering of existence in the first place, without need to justify it for some abstract outcome that might be hoped for.
Let me ask you this- do you see ways of practically handling the situation that is not based on ideas of a spiritual nature (karma, dharma, etc.)? If we've had conversations before, do you have an inkling of what I might say?
wouldn't call Buddhism spiritual. We can't help view it in those terms, or map it against them, because of our own cultural background and the pervasive use of that word. I do it myself! My experience with Buddhist meditation brought up a lot of 'samskaras' (mental tendencies) from my own Christian cultural background, but 'spiritual' carries connotations which aren't necessarily accurate to Buddhism.
The question at issue is 'existential anxiety' and the predicament implicit in the human condition, which divergent religions and philosophies claim to or attempt to ameliorate. So does 'handling the situation' mean - ameliorating that deep sense of anxiety?
Communities of catharsis, mutual understanding of our situation without flinching. If there is no escape to X metaphysical better state, then we can only help and advocate for each other in various communal ways, or, as my other thread suggested, drop out completely- withdraw and become content alone, perhaps using various known techniques to help withdraw.
However, to simply propose a higher metaphysical entity/order/reality/non-reality/no-thing-ness in order to provide the hope, is not unflinching. It's yet another bad faith. The problem with these ancient religions is that they are employed to give a de facto answer, and are "baked into" the culture so that you are always forced in affirming or denying things which are opposed to the traditions, as if they are just something that we should take seriously in the first place. Rather, we should understand the situation as if on a political committee.. Committees for existential condition. The problem is everything devolves into survival and beyond that, "What's the fckn point?". The situation as it is now, would have it such that technological consumption, and making a living is the point. It's the de facto thing we fall into as it is our mechanism of survival since the industrial revolution.. So then,
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I have watched most of that series. I noticed he discusses Hegel but does not have one on Schopenhauer. I think that's something revealing. False hope? Bad faith? Reinterpreting a Platonic existence or some such, what does this do, but another philosopher's coping device?
What would ameliorating anxiety be such that we aren't looking to ancient truths, but instead, hard realities of what we know (not what we is "revealed" if we just follow this ancient/sacred path).
Certainly people (modern Westerners mainly) will say relationships, experiences (usually this involves, nature, travel, "adventures"), learning, and love are the things we must focus on- as if these are ends in themselves (see my thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15378/a-review-and-critical-response-to-the-shortcomings-of-popular-secularist-philosophies/p1.
Rather, all these "goods" are not necessarily only "factual" or objective but rather normative. There is an agenda, at the cost of much suffering. But we must look at this and see what it is we are trying to do here and why we are insisting on doing it. That's why I suggested we should treat existence as a political committee would, putting a moratorium on it until we understand why we trudge forth, but do this analysis unflinchingly, without the poetic cliches.
The problem of "existential anxiety" only ever exists precisely in reference to religions and spiritualities, old and more recent.
It's inconceivable otherwise.
One cannot even suffer unless one has some beliefs about "how life and the world should be", and those beliefs are informed by religions and spiritualities, however vaguely and however (im)precisely delivered to an individual person via acculturation.
So for a modern mainstream psychologist, there is no such thing as "existential anxiety", only "chemical imbalances in the brain" and other "disorders" and "mental illnesses". For such psychologists, the solution is primarily medication, and then talk therapy, aimed toward basically seeing oneself as a biomechanical robot.
In order to solve the problem of suffering and existential anxiety, one first needs to figure out where one got the very concepts of "suffering" and "existential anxiety" to begin with and why one is taking them for granted.
It's just that people usually die before they figure this out. The moratorium you speak of is indefinite.
The fact that we exist is something over which we have no control, it precedes us. As such, we have no say over its meaning. To try to figure out why we exist or why life is worth living and to make this a matter of decision is like trying to choose one's parents. That is, it's irrational, it cannot be done.
Suffering (with a capital "S") is simply the label I give all this negative understanding (self-awareness). Bed bugs, diseases, emotional trauma, and cancer are often situational and contingent. That is to say, they happen under certain conditions, in certain spaces and times at certain probabilities. The likelihood of any situational negative experience is high on a daily basis. The ability to combine this into a category and label it "Suffering", is something our species is able to do. Negativity/Suffering is simply a universal for a diverse set of instances. The name or label, or even manner in which it is spoken (metaphorical, allegorical, mythological) is less relevant.
However, there is another form that you can put into the bucket- the "existential" kind. This one is felt most with the emotional feeling of boredom. It's the engine running but no clearly interesting goals. It's the baseline. It's the Pascal's "cannot sit still in an empty room" scenario. Most cultures, at least to any degree of writing, has written about it- chasing after "vanity", Buddhist notions of dissatisfaction- Dukkha, Gnostic and Platonic notions of a corrupted reality and ideal reality. It all revolves around these themes of a general existential dissatisfaction.
Other animals do indeed feel pains and are harmed, but don't have the contingent-thinking to know that "something could be different". Things happen to most other animals. They don't opine that it could have been something else. They don't have the ability to see the picture of the category of Suffering in general.
So here we are, animals that can see the big picture of Suffering. That can know that things could be different, but are currently not the ideal.
Hence the need for antinatalism as an ethic.
Quoting baker
I didn't say this. That's something you asserted here for some reason, kind of an aside maybe. When I said this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I mean in general, the human project. What are we wanting people to "do" here? Why procreate more people here? When someone begins to answer this, the agenda reveals itself. Suffering considerations take a back seat.
I'm gonna be the devil's advocate here and side with you.
To me, the psychological crisis that people have talked about -- and I think all philosophers had gone through it -- is the realization of our mortality: life will end soon and we question whether life could have been better. Although it is only a temporary phase in life, it is one of the 'sufferings' that we would have to experience, as any normal human being would have. If we are being honest to ourselves, we would pass this information on to our children -- someday, they, too, would have to experience the same thing.
That aside, all studies point to the idea that 'population control' is the best thing to solve a lot of human problems. But as long as we believe that procreation is a fundamental right, population control is sometimes successful and sometimes not. We just cannot get a grip of it because of the "fundamental right".
Why do you call these "negative"? Based on what standards? Why those standards?
These comparisons with animals seem to be very important to you. It's not yet clear, why, though. Some form of envy or nostalgia?
Do you think animals are better off than humans?
To fight, to be strong, to rule. People love to fight, to rule.
Negative is as it implies: If you are at a more positive state (happy, neutral), and you experience something that brings you to a less positive state, it is negative. Not that hard.
Quoting baker
If you read some of my posts, I think you can get what I am saying. I explain the dilemma of human consciousness as compared to other animals.
That is an interesting answer, but I doubt that would consciously be the reason people procreate. The worst offenses are continuation of bloodline, to add a laborer, or to continue society. The medium, to play role as parent. The least (yet still misguided), to give the "opportunity" for the new being to experience X, Y, Z positive experiences.
Obviously, the reasons are multivarious and multicausal. An answer one day might change the next. It's hard to pin down any specific desire to a reason, but many are proffered.
He talks about him in Episode 22, immediately prior to the episode on Hegel. He says Schopenhauer was the godfather of nihilism which I dont necessarily agree with. But that and the preceding two episodes are riveting,
What are the reasons for you don't agree with the claim?
But if you read his original essays called "On the Suffering of the World", it seems to be unmistakably nihilism writing. Isn't Buddhism after all based on the nihilism?
He was very much a disciple of Kant, although one who dared to correct his teacher, but his main Eastern source was a translation of one of the Upani?ads, not Buddhism. Buddhism was not well known in Schopenhauer's day, although he does mention it.
Quoting Corvus
Nihilism is rejected as a false view in Buddhism. It is one of the 'two extremes', the other extreme being eternalism, although that is a difficult concept to explain in few words.
Although that essay you quote is indeed pessimistic, perhaps I have been too easily impressed by the idealist aspects of his philosophy. His dour pessimism is alienating at times.
The way I compare Schopenhauer's philosophy to Buddhism is that he has an acute sense of the 'first noble truth' of Buddhism, that existence is dukkha, suffering or sorrowful or unsatisfying. But not so much of the remaining three 'noble truths' - that suffering has a cause, that it has an end, and that there is a way to that end. So it's not unreservedly pessmistic, although it is not very compatible with what modern culture regards as normality.
Buddha was a royal dude in his country where he was born. He had everything i.e. money, power, luxury of life and thousands around him to do things for him. But he knew all that good things in life won't last. He will get old, and eventually die giving up everything he had just like any other ordinary folks.
So after much thought about it, he decided to abandon everything he had, and went up to the mountain penniless and hungry. He sat down under the tree, and meditated for the knowledge and meaning of life until his death.
That is a typical scenario of nihilism. All the good things and luxury of life one has at present will not last, because everything changes, and his life too. Getting old and dying is the fate of man. Therefore everything in life is meaningless. But if life is meaningless, then dying is also meaningless. Because whether one likes it or not, it will come to him anyway. Isn't it nihilism?
Schopenhauer says in his essays, because all above and more, life is bad, and not worth living. After reading his pessimistic essays, many German young folks killed themselves at the time when Schopenhauer was living. One of the famous philosophers who followed the path was Mainlander, I believe. But ironically Schopenhauer didn't kill himself. He lived a long life, and had a natural death.
Quoting Wayfarer
Suffering will only end after one's death. That's not a good ending. Death is unknown and eternal, forcing life to give up even the minimum existence and freedom of thinking. Life is a pinnacle of tragedy from Schopenhauer's view in his essays.
A "self" is needed to value.
This seems massively too easy a question to answer so tell me what you are getting at please.
Meaning: What point are you driving at, or what underlying question/s are you looking to address/reveal?
Since I've now got some spare time, I'll try again:
In the sense of what Shakespeare asked by the question "to be or not to be?", do you or do you not uphold that being (to be) is bad and non-being (not to be) is good?
If you do not uphold this underlined part, how would your held onto position not contradict all moral arguments if favor of antinatalism?
If you do uphold this underlined part, how then does this upheld position not rationality endorse the obtaining a state of non-being via any action one can accomplish toward this very end? And if corporeal death is taken to equate to eternal non-being, how would suicide not be just such an action?
Somewhat belated, but thank you.
Because I antinatalism does NOT entail suicide. You can perhaps force an argument that way, but it wouldn't be mine. I don't see there being an equivalence with preventing life and ending it, and I am sure you can think of scenarios where you would not start something but once it happens, it perhaps is not always best to end it either. But not ending it doesn't negate the former.
Existence entails suffering.