Is there anything beyond survival?

leo

I used to want to make the world a better place, to make other people happy, that was my fundamental motivation that required no justification for it justified itself, there was a strong feeling that pushed me in that direction, it felt like a calling, what I was meant to do, it gave meaning to my life, it kept me moving and doing, it made me glad to be alive.

But then I thought, what if I succeeded? What if everyone was happy, what if people didn't have to struggle to survive and could all pursue their passions and dreams? Then without the struggle, people would live more, reproduce more, there would be more and more people, and at some point there would be too many people for too little resources and the struggle for survival would reappear, people would have to fight to survive, the winners would get to live, and the losers would get to suffer and die, until the population would reduce enough, and then some people like me would come along with the desire to make the world a better place, and so on and so forth.

And then it came to me, is everything we do geared towards survival? Do we want something solely because we believe it will help us survive, or help our family survive, or our species? Did I want to make the world a better place and make people happy solely because my brain believes it would help my species survive?

Obviously we want to eat because we need it to survive, we want a house because it helps us survive, we want safety because it helps us survive, we want to be the best at something because it is a sign we are better able to survive in some way, but doesn't that also apply to everything else we want?

Some people want to take care of the environment because they believe the species needs it to survive. Some people want profit and power because they believe it will help them survive. Some people want freedom because they believe their survival would be more guaranteed. Some people want multiculturalism because they believe diversity makes the species stronger. Some people reject multiculturalism because they see other races as a threat to their survival.

Some people take drugs because it makes them feel better able to survive in some way. They become addicted when they don't want that feeling to disappear. People want what they see as beneficial to their survival to live, and what they see as a threat to their survival to die. People only kill themselves when they suffer too much and believe it won't get any better,

Are we nothing more than biological machines guided by feelings that tell them what to do to maximize their survival chances, spending their whole life attempting to maximize that function only to die in the end anyway? Is a landscape beautiful because within it we can see potential threats far before they reach us? Do we like to climb on top of mountains for that reason and to feel strong? Do we like to understand the world only so we can predict it better and increase our survival abilities? Is that what existence sums up to?

Echarmion

And then it came to me, is everything we do geared towards survival? — leo

You can certainly put everything in that context. That is, essentially, what evolutionary psychology does. Doing so will provide you with some interesting perspectives on human behavior, for example the connection between altruism and survival. But it's still all based on a context, a perspective that you intentionally set up. You can choose other perspectives.

Are we nothing more than biological machines guided by feelings that tell them what to do to maximize their survival chances, spending their whole life attempting to maximize that function only to die in the end anyway? — leo

No, that'd be saying to much, even from an evolutionary perspective. That'd be claiming we are perfect survival machines, but we are not. A lot of behaviors are simply accidental from an evolutionary perspective. Consciousness itself might be a detriment.

Possibility

↪leo

Some people also risk or sacrifice their own survival for what they describe as a ‘greater cause’ or ‘something larger than themselves’. Some people argue for multiculturalism based on reasoning such as ‘diversity makes the species stronger’, but deep down they want multiculturalism because it ‘feels right’ or because the alternative seems destructive, hateful or even fearful. Some people decide to share their life or dedicate it to others, not for procreative or even pragmatic reasons, but for ‘love’ or something similarly metaphysical.

I wonder if the reason of ‘survival’ that we give for our actions is the real motivation, or simply the reason we’ve found fits best, given what we currently understand about ourselves? But do we actually understand ourselves that well, or are we trying to simplify or paint as ‘obvious’ what is a much more complex thought process across several levels of consciousness?

I think there is something ‘beyond survival’ that motivates us in many situations, especially once we have reached an awareness beyond the mere physicality of our existence. I also think many of the actions we believe to be motivated by our drive to survive may actually be motivated by something more complex than evolutionary instinct.

Human beings are feeling, sensing, remembering and evaluating beings who also have the capacity to experience existence well beyond their own physicality in time and space. When we bring this awareness of the infinite and eternal to bear on how we interact with our environment, we can achieve more than simply survival.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not going to argue for religion here. But if we’re going to try and keep this a purely ‘rational’ discussion, then I predict we won’t get far beyond survival...

leo

No, that'd be saying to much, even from an evolutionary perspective. That'd be claiming we are perfect survival machines, but we are not. — Echarmion

I agree, what I meant to say was, it seems as if everything we do is geared towards survival in some way, even though sometimes some act that would help us survive in one situation is actually detrimental in some other.

You can certainly put everything in that context. That is, essentially, what evolutionary psychology does. Doing so will provide you with some interesting perspectives on human behavior, for example the connection between altruism and survival. But it's still all based on a context, a perspective that you intentionally set up. You can choose other perspectives. — Echarmion

I actually do not like that perspective, because it renders meaningless everything that had meaning to me, and I tried to get away from it, but what other perspective can we choose? Essentially all we do is spend our lives trying to survive better, we are driven by our feelings but our feelings drive us in that direction.

People dedicate their lives to things whose end result is increasing survival chances for themselves or for those they deem to be like them. Some people will dedicate their lives looking for a cure for some disease, a feeling drives them, but the end result would be that someone they know or the species would survive better. Some will dedicate their lives for their children so their survival can be the most guaranteed possible. Some will dedicate their lives to understand the world, whose end result is being able to predict better to survive better.

Surely we aren't perfect survival machines, but it seems as if everything we do goes towards becoming just that. As if every feeling we have was a tool to help us survive in some way. Many people escape depression or death by believing in a deity which gives them a meaning to keep on living, convincing themselves that they are or can be immortal.

I'm desperately looking for another perspective, but if everything we do is linked to survival, what other perspective there is?

leo

Some people also risk or sacrifice their own survival for what they describe as a ‘greater cause’ or ‘something larger than themselves’. — Possibility

Is there any example where that greater cause isn't aimed at making others survive better? Some women fight for women's rights so they can survive better. People with specific characteristics fight so other people with similar characteristics can have a better life, survive better. They sacrifice their own survival so others they deem to be like them can survive better.

People who in their lives felt helped emotionally by their dog or cat will tend to fight for animal welfare, as if they wanted to help survive what helped them survive.

Some people argue for multiculturalism based on reasoning such as ‘diversity makes the species stronger’, but deep down they want multiculturalism because it ‘feels right’ or because the alternative seems destructive, hateful or even fearful. — Possibility

But where does that 'right' feel come from? Isn't it simply that those who feel that way believe that they would survive better in a society where they wouldn't be ostracized or rejected for being different or having unconventional beliefs?

Some people decide to share their life or dedicate it to others, not for procreative or even pragmatic reasons, but for ‘love’ or something similarly metaphysical. — Possibility

It is the love of a mother for her children that allows them to survive, but what if that feeling of love exists precisely so her children can survive?

Love is seen as that powerful and mysterious thing, but don't people fall in love simply when they see in the other someone who could 'complete' them, when they subconsciously evaluate that the other has abilities or characteristics that would be a good complementary fit to survive better together, or characteristics that would make their children good at surviving?

As to the people who feel unconditional love for all other humans, don't they feel that way simply because they have realized that if we all cared for each other and helped each other we would survive better than if we fought against each other? That fighting violence with violence only creates more violence, and caring for others unconditionally is the only way to make it disappear.

I think there is something ‘beyond survival’ that motivates us in many situations, especially once we have reached an awareness beyond the mere physicality of our existence. — Possibility

I used to see feelings and imagination as proof that we are more than physical beings, than biological machines, but if all our feelings are geared towards survival then what evidence is there of the 'beyond'?

yatagarasu

↪leo

So if I actively make my life goal to make the world a worse place, that also fits under that perspective? Or people that wake up ready to kill for "fun". Certainly there are people that wake up with that goal? You're also forgetting that when people are born they have to act. Nearly anything good for me, good for my progeny, good for "society" can be shaped to look like "it's for survival". That's a really strange and unnecessary view point in my opinion.

leo

↪yatagarasu

When you look at the life of people who have done atrocities to others, there is always a story. The guy who killed a bunch of people in Christchurch felt they were a threat to the white race, to him and the people he deems to be like him. The mexican dude who cut a bunch of women into pieces saw them as monsters because of what he experienced as a kid. Hitler thought the jews were going to lead to the extinction of the species and that he was saving the world.

I don't know about people who wake up to kill for fun, I'm sure there's probably always a story behind, but even if there wasn't these people wouldn't tend to reproduce or live long and so they remain a tiny minority. Those who tend to survive and reproduce are those who spend their lives trying to be the best able to survive, and so we spend our whole lives doing just that, and then we die.

Echarmion

I agree, what I meant to say was, it seems as if everything we do is geared towards survival in some way, even though sometimes some act that would help us survive in one situation is actually detrimental in some other. — leo

But there are clearly things like art that have no discernable value for the survival of the species.

I actually do not like that perspective, because it renders meaningless everything that had meaning to me, and I tried to get away from it, but what other perspective can we choose? Essentially all we do is spend our lives trying to survive better, we are driven by our feelings but our feelings drive us in that direction. — leo

You can simply choose to look at the surface goals like happiness, wealth, family etc. without linking them so some survival instinct.

People dedicate their lives to things whose end result is increasing survival chances for themselves or for those they deem to be like them. Some people will dedicate their lives looking for a cure for some disease, a feeling drives them, but the end result would be that someone they know or the species would survive better. Some will dedicate their lives for their children so their survival can be the most guaranteed possible. Some will dedicate their lives to understand the world, whose end result is being able to predict better to survive better. — leo

But those aren't their actual motivations. Those are your interpretations. Someone who studies philosophy for the love of wisdom does not do so merely to survive.

I'm desperately looking for another perspective, but if everything we do is linked to survival, what other perspective there is? — leo

You don't have to let biology or, in a broader sense, causality determine your actions or your perspective. Your inside perspective is just as valuable. You can simply choose to do things because you want to.

BC

↪leo

If 'survival' was all that was possible, then that is all that we could strive for, because all our energy and time would be taken up. People sometimes end up in exactly that situation of extremity, and they either survive or they do not.

It is the case, however, that more than mere survival has been possible for most of us most of the time. There has been enough food, shelter, water, clothing, etc. available, and it has not taken all of our time and energy. We have had time and energy left over. The surplus allows for activities beyond survival. Rich and varied culture is the result.

Survival, however, remains the fundamental problem of all species, including us. In our case, "raw survival" is usually concealed under our collective species' success, except when it isn't. Natural disaster can strip away the success story, revealing individual efforts to survive. Stepping outside the envelope of collective effort (such as by being homeless and unable to care for one's self) also reveals individual survival efforts.

Global warming, climate change, sea level rise, crop failure, etc. may strip away much of what we have taken as 'normal', given, natural, -- granite bedrock -- for a long time. I hope not, but we'll find out in this century.

BC

When you look at the life of people who have done atrocities to others, there is always a story. The guy who killed a bunch of people in Christchurch felt they were a threat to the white race, to him and the people he deems to be like him. — leo

But sometimes people are also deranged madmen, and survival isn't really the point of their behavior.

I'm not sure what all drove Brenton Tarrant to kill 50 people in Christ Church, NZ -- or what drove any other mass or serial murderer. I don't think 'survival' is an adequate explanation (any more than survival was the point in Van Gogh painting Starry Night).

yatagarasu

↪leo

I know there's a story. Just like there is a story behind Joe #52. That has nothing to do with my original point. If there are people that don't subscribe to your idea of "we do things just for survival" then what do you make of those situations and doesn't that contradict your initial point of everything being about survival?

leo

But there are clearly things like art that have no discernable value for the survival of the species. — Echarmion

Art is used to communicate things to others that can't be easily communicated through speech, things one may have noticed or understood about the world, that others can then see and reflect on.

But those aren't their actual motivations. Those are your interpretations. Someone who studies philosophy for the love of wisdom does not do so merely to survive. — Echarmion

Indeed, they aren't doing it consciously for survival, they are doing it for the feeling it brings them, what I am saying is that it seems the feeling is there in the first place because the feeling is helpful to survive. The love of wisdom is the desire to understand things, but where does that desire come from if not from the fact that the desire to understand helps us survive through its effects?

Artemis

↪leo

It's important to remember that the path is as important or more so than the goal.

leo

↪Bitter Crank

I would say going to work is done for survival, as it is done to get money which allows to then easily get food and shelter and tools helpful to survive. When we do not work for basic survival, we spend our time on other activities. Some try to become the best at something, whence that desire to become better than others? Isn't that a desire that has evolved because it helped our ancestors survive? Some spend their time trying to be attractive to the opposite sex, or trying to be admired, or trying to understand the world, which are objectives that once attained are beneficial to survival or to that of one's offspring. They may not be necessary for survival in society today, but they are helpful, and were even more so for our ancestors.

Or in our free time we may read a book or watch a movie, which might make us reflect on the world or on ourselves, or make us imagine ourselves as the hero of some adventure where in the end we get to be admired or get to kill what was a threat to survival. We find it entertaining when we grow, when we overcome a challenge, when we become better, when we gain the confidence that we are better able to face whatever threat may appear.

It feels good to have friends, but why does it feel good? Isn't that simply because we know we can count on them if we need help? Then sometimes faced with a difficulty we find out that most of those people don't come to our rescue when we are in need, but the few who do come we call 'real' friends, and we end up caring less about maintaining relationships with those who aren't there for us when we need them.

As to Brenton Tarrant, it seems clear from his manifesto that he is one of those people who see immigrants as a threat to the white race, which he is a part of.

As to Van Gogh's Starry Night, it is said that Van Gogh associated the night sky with the afterlife. He said, "It would be so simple and would account so much for the terrible things in life, which now amaze and wound us so, if life had yet another hemisphere, invisible it is true, but where one lands when one dies. Hope is in the stars".

Joshs

↪leo

The goal of life and human being is becoming. The notion of survival is borrowed from 19th century physics. It implies a static equilibrium as the end state of beings.
IF instead self-organization and self-reflexivity is assumed as the basis and impetus of living systems, then , as Bergson said, creative evolution is primary, not static self-preservation.
The fact you're asking the question you do in your post is a refection of the anticipatory, inquiring , exploratory nature of human striving.

My perspective is not just personal. If you are interested in reading similar thinking coming from contemporary biology itself, take a look at writers like Francisco Varela and Evan Thompson.

Or you could read Nietzsche. He wrote

" Physiologists should think twice before positioning the drive for self-preservation as the cardinal drive of an organic being. Above all, a living thing wants to discharge its strength – life itself is will to power –: self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of this. – In short, here as elsewhere, watch out for superfluous teleological principles! – such as the drive for preservation (which we owe to Spinoza’s inconsistency )."

What Nietzsche meant by Will to Power and discharge of strength is a kind of continual self-overcoming, a creative moving into the unknown.

BC

work is done for survival — leo

tools helpful to survive — leo

When we do not work for basic survival — leo

because it helped our ancestors survive — leo

but why does it feel good? Isn't that simply because we know we can count on them if we need help? — leo

And so on.

The animals from which we evolved (as yet another animal) all had various survival behaviors and strategies. Those ancient mechanisms are part of us. We have, however, evolved a surplus of cognitive resources which, given a successful hunt or food gathering foray, could be allowed free play. Over a long time, we developed language, technology, and so forth. Some of our inventions are applied directly to survival, and some are not.

We can describe any and every behavior as survival-enhancing if we want to do that. But we still have lots of surplus cognitive resources that tend to engage in free play, as soon as survival requirements are met. Calling for help is a survival use of language. Writing an Ode To A Grecian Urn, however, doesn't seem to have anything to do with survival. Keats had some extra time and surplus mental capacity on his hands after his survival needs had been met.

The Philosophy Forum exists because there seems to be a lot of otherwise under-utilized surplus cognitive resources out there. People whose survival is secure for a few minutes can afford to speculate about all sorts of irrelevant and quite peripheral topics here. In the event that somebody would die if they were unable to express themselves here, I suppose we could call TPF a survival tool, but that would be stretching the term past the breaking point.

We need to eat, but nobody has to eat pate foie gras--fancy force-fed chopped goose liver--(except the French who require pate foie gras). Americans prefer braunschweiger, which is smoked pork liver and bacon sausage -- much better. But braunschweiger isn't a necessity either. Some people require kale (which was winter cattle fodder until vegans made a fetish out of it). There is evidence that nobody actually likes to eat kale, and I for one believe that life is better without it.

Echarmion

Indeed, they aren't doing it consciously for survival, they are doing it for the feeling it brings them, what I am saying is that it seems the feeling is there in the first place because the feeling is helpful to survive. The love of wisdom is the desire to understand things, but where does that desire come from if not from the fact that the desire to understand helps us survive through its effects? — leo

I have two objections to this. First, evolution doesn't quite work that way. Not every behavior or feeling an evolved creature has is or has been helpful for survival. It's sufficient for it not to prevent survival. Plenty of behaviours, even complex physical and psychological traits, can be accidental. Arguably, consciousness itself is.

Secondly, even if we were to assume all our feelings were forged out of necessity to survive, that wouldn't invalidate them as feelings. The actual feelings and motivations of people are still real experiences. There is no justification to treat this as mere charade or illusion.

Valentinus

↪leo

Wanting to make this a better place doesn't mean that the motivation must come at the expense of the instrument that could help.
That you can do what you can is tied to many scales of time and circumstance. Being "merely" alive is not something to be regarded in a snow globe.
If you can hold it in your hands, then the problem is elsewhere, waiting in faint hope of your arrival.

Possibility

Love is seen as that powerful and mysterious thing, but don't people fall in love simply when they see in the other someone who could 'complete' them, when they subconsciously evaluate that the other has abilities or characteristics that would be a good complementary fit to survive better together, or characteristics that would make their children good at surviving?

As to the people who feel unconditional love for all other humans, don't they feel that way simply because they have realized that if we all cared for each other and helped each other we would survive better than if we fought against each other? That fighting violence with violence only creates more violence, and caring for others unconditionally is the only way to make it disappear. — leo

I used to see feelings and imagination as proof that we are more than physical beings, than biological machines, but if all our feelings are geared towards survival then what evidence is there of the 'beyond'? — leo

It seems there is a tendency to reach the point of recognising feelings and imagination as ‘proof’ of motivation beyond biology, and then find ourselves circling back through logic and science to survival in our search for concrete ‘evidence’. It is how we process and make sense of feelings in a scientific world that lead us into this vicious cycle. For anything to exist, there must be ‘objective’ evidence of that existence - something in the physical world that points to it. When we search for evidence of feelings, we find thought processes, articulated ‘reasons’ and physiological responses, and then we look for the source of those, and find ourselves back at survival instincts. So feelings then become these thought processes, reasons and physiological responses, much like energy becomes electricity or heat or movement. Deep down we understand that they’re not the same, but in order to talk about it in a rational way, we end up discussing the material level as the base level, forgetting that there is a metaphysical level of experience that is closer to reality than physiological sense data, rational thought and language.

So when I mention ‘love’, you cycle back to survival instinct as the source of that love. And so every other feeling you may experience inevitably cycles back to our drive to survive.

If, perhaps, we reject physical survival as our overarching motivation and explore the possible existence of an underlying metaphysical drive that keeps returning us to the physical realm as a focus, how would we describe it? What if beyond physical survival was a much stronger metaphysical fear of insubstantiality?

Joshs

↪Possibility

Nietzschean Will to Power and Heideggerian Being are two ways of thinking about a primordial movement of thought and intention underlying materiel discourse.

leo

↪Bitter Crank

I agree that our basic survival requirements are usually met, but it seems that once they are met we engage in activities to guarantee our future survival as much as we can. We look for cures to diseases. We try to amass resources. We compete to be better than others. We build tools that make what we do easier. We look for immortality through worshipping a deity and believing in an afterlife. There is very little we do that doesn't seem related to survival or guaranteeing our future survival as best we can, including convincing ourselves of life after death.

There are a lot of references to the themes of immortality and eternity in Keats' poem, eternal love, truth. What is truth if not something that we deem to be eternal and cling on amidst the chaos and unpredictability of existence?

For as far as I remember I've had the drive to understand the world. I used to think that there was some great answer I would find, something greater than us all. Did I have the intuition that there was something, or was it simply an instinctive drive that kept me living and doing? But I found nothing, it was a mirage. There is no truth to be found in fundamental science, only ways to predict the future to some extent, and use that ability to build technology which is nothing more than manipulating our environment in a predictable way.

I've had the drive to help people, to change the world, but is that anything more than another instinct that was driving me? I kept myself going by telling myself that in the unknown anything is possible, but if what drives us is nothing more than survival instincts then where is the unknown? If all I'm doing here is desperately trying to find a reason to keep on living, is that anything more than my survival instincts trying to keep me alive, with no greater meaning other than the fact that if my ancestors didn't have that instinct I wouldn't be here today, and that those who don't have that instinct don't get to live long and reproduce?

It is as if there was no meaning to everything we feel other than the fact it has been helpful for us to survive, as if feelings and beliefs were just another traits selected through competitive evolution, with only those who have feelings and beliefs useful for survival who get to live and reproduce, and all the others who get to die. I guess there is a reason most people don't think too much, because when they do it doesn't tend to end well for them.

leo

Secondly, even if we were to assume all our feelings were forged out of necessity to survive, that wouldn't invalidate them as feelings. The actual feelings and motivations of people are still real experiences. There is no justification to treat this as mere charade or illusion. — Echarmion

I agree, but if we are biological machines driven by feelings whose sole reason for being there is that they were shaped through evolution so we can survive, then existence is nothing more than a constant struggle against death only to die at the end anyway, which seems to go against one of our survival instincts that tells us not to pursue pointless endeavors. And when this latter instinct is stronger than the other ones people who have it remove themselves from the gene pool, ensuring that over time there mostly remain people who don't mind much pursuing pointless endeavors, or who are able to convince themselves that they are immortal and that death is a new beginning, or who simply don't think about it all.

Wayfarer

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook.

C.G. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul[/u[.

schopenhauer1

It is as if there was no meaning to everything we feel other than the fact it has been helpful for us to survive, as if feelings and beliefs were just another traits selected through competitive evolution, with only those who have feelings and beliefs useful for survival who get to live and reproduce, and all the others who get to die. I guess there is a reason most people don't think too much, because when they do it doesn't tend to end well for them. — leo

You seem to hitting upon the well-trodden concept of absurdity :smile: . I sometimes call this concept "instrumentality". That is to say, we do to do to do to do. There is nothing beyond the repetitive motivations of survival-seeking, comfort-seeking, and entertainment-seeking (stemming from our baseline feelings of boredom). We fetishize the idea of COMPLETION. Completion in nirvana, completion in a godhead/religious ends, completion in self-actualization, completion in knowledge, completion in consumption, completion in pleasure, completion in social roles. However, life doesn't care about your completion, it simply continues, and the vicious circle keeps churning. These ends take place in a socio-cultural setting, where social institutions have been set up so that your vicious churning circle of instrumentality can pull "levers and switches" to ensure that it interacts with other churning circles of instrumentality to keep it all going, reproducing and maintaining more and more churning circles of instrumentality/absurdity.

Helping people is an apt example. Let us say that we believed helping people is the highest good we can do. To that end, everyone in the world decided to maximize as much time helping other people as possible. Life itself would be absurd for the individual. Helping people for simply the sake of helping people, in itself makes no sense as it NEGATES the very reason for helping people. The very reason for helping people is not so they can then help other people at all times, and those people help other people at all times, etc. but rather so that the people being helped can then enjoy their individual pursuits and goals (whatever that may be). Simply helping people is not the full story of the ethical value of helping people, rather it is helping people, so that they can pursue other stuff, otherwise it is an absurdity of simply helping, so others help, so others help, etc.

However, circling back to the completion idea, the other goals and desires and pursuits (other than helping people.. the individual ends and goals people have of all varieties) are also absurd. There is a constant repetitive nature of human reality. We are self-aware of it. We set various goals in order to ballast the ship- to appease our nature to survive in a social context. pursue comfort in a social setting, and to seek entertainment in a social milieu. It all goes back to that pendulum swing which can be characterized as the vicious churning circle of the absurd.

RegularGuy

↪schopenhauer1

How are you not suicidal? I can see why you like Schopenhauer. Do you also value oblivion as he did? If so, I wonder why anyone who does value oblivion is still around. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t recommend suicide by an means.

schopenhauer1

↪Noah Te Stroete

Funny you mention suicide, I just wrote a bit about why actually committing suicide is a problem. It is rather living with the ideation of suicide that is more to the pessimist's point. I'll copy and paste what I wrote below:

Yes, a suffering conundrum in itself. The very thing that is going to give "relief" (death), also deprives you of the experience of the "relief" itself that is trying to be obtained. As E.M. Cioran put it: It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.

Also, much of suicide is about the suicide ideation- the projection of the suicide, and the meaning of it for the person. It is a cathartic act for many. A long while back, I posted a little thought experiment:

What if a person was just fed up with life, and ready to jump in front of a train as a way to kill himself. Everything up to that moment was about how much life sucked, and how much he was going to rebel against the very thing was causing him this pain (life) by killing himself. He stands on the tracks, but right before the train hits him, someone shoots him dead instead. The same result of death occurred, but there is something different about it. In a way, the suicidal person was robbed of the act itself, which was symbolic. It was a cathartic act of rebellion. It was what it symbolized. It was that the person was taking the situation in his own hands, and giving the finger to life. It wasn't just that he was going to live no more, and have no more conscious experience. Rather, it was about him taking his life in his hands, rebellion, catharsis, and the meaning and context of his suicide as a final act to himself. So suicide is more catharsis for most. Unless precipitated by extreme torture, cultural practices (e.g. samurai), or terminal illness, most suicides due to depression/melancholy/life events not going right, etc. are about catharsis and the symbolic act itself. However, the outcome takes away the pleasure of the catharsis. So, most suicidal people are stuck in a loop of ideation rather than really committing to it, though that does happen from time-to-time as well.

RegularGuy

↪schopenhauer1

Interesting viewpoint. Myself, I tried to commit suicide several times through overdosing on my medications. I just wanted the emotional pain to end, and I actually did value oblivion at the time. Now I’m finally happy that I’m alive, so it is a good thing I wasn’t successful in my attempts.

OpinionsMatter

↪leo

Your topic makes sense and is over all, very interesting. Yes and no, is my answer. Yes because we have instincts, same as animals. No, because we sometimes focus on pleasure instead of survival. Is riding on that roller coaster good for you? No, it decreases you chances of survival or yes, it feels amazing and I want to go on it again. Get the drift?

Possibility

Is there any example where that greater cause isn't aimed at making others survive better? — leo

What do you think it means to ‘survive better’?

To live is not only to survive, yet it seems that you equate the two, as if there were nothing else to the act of living except not dying.

When you think about it, a human being in complete isolation is unable to survive - it cannot fend for itself, and is possibly the most fragile organism on the planet.

Yet if human beings are also the most highly evolved and complex organisms, then surely our purpose cannot be simply to survive? There must be a more essential aim to life than survival.

The human organism was never designed to survive on its own. It has instead evolved to make maximum utility of awareness/interaction/relationship with everything in the universe - including itself, its history and its future - as a fundamental requirement of its survival, let alone its ability to achieve anything beyond that.

Just because you can make associations between success, achievement or development and the notion of ‘survival’, doesn’t mean it must be our fundamental motivation.

Possibility

↪Joshs

Thanks Joshs.
Nietzsche’s use of the term ‘power’ appears to have been frequently misunderstood in a negative sense. I like your description of it, by the way - ‘a creative moving into the unknown’. In my view, will to power or self-overcoming is the underlying motivation sought here - what I tend to refer to as potentiality: the capacity to develop, achieve or succeed. This is what drives Being, and at a much more fundamental or primordial level than physical survival.

leo

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. — Wayfarer

I can see how that would be true, but isn't the reason essentially that those people are faced with the conflict between their will to live (that underlies everything they do) and the inevitability of death, and that their way out of this conflict is to convince themselves that they will keep on living after death?

I am willing to entertain the idea that death is not the end of the road, but I need a sign to believe it, and I can't when all the signs point to the contrary, when everything is as if we were biological machines driven by feelings and beliefs whose sole reason for existing is that they allow us to survive, while those who have feelings and beliefs detrimental to their survival die early and don't reproduce.

Yes and no, is my answer. Yes because we have instincts, same as animals. No, because we sometimes focus on pleasure instead of survival. Is riding on that roller coaster good for you? No, it decreases you chances of survival or yes, it feels amazing and I want to go on it again. Get the drift? — OpinionsMatter

I would argue that looking for thrill is another example of a feeling that has helped the species survive. While taking risks seems detrimental to survival on the surface, it allows to obtain things that couldn't be obtained without taking risks, which could have been a matter of life and death for our ancestors when they had to choose between chasing a dangerous wild animal to eat or die of hunger, or traveling across dangerous places to find resources. Without the excitment of facing danger and pushing one's limits and the thrill of triumph, those ancestors would have been less able to survive.

I can't point to one single feeling shared by most people that is only detrimental to survival. Is that a cosmic coincidence, or is it simply that we have the feelings we have because they helped our ancestors survive? Why do we want to avoid pain? Because those who enjoyed it didn't last long.

Is there anything beyond survival?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions