I tend to agree with @schopenhauer1 here, based on my life experience. For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to @Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats.

I think we're fooled by our intelligence into believing that our purpose is to work toward self-fulfillment. The problem is that it's an ever-changing target, a never-ending ego-based striving; and once you realize that, it kind of takes some of the romanticism out of it. I still make choices that I expect will bring the highest net pleasure to my life (taking into account the trade-off of short-term suffering for long-term gain, and vice versa), but I seem to have given up on the thinking that if I achieve a certain something, my life will have been worthwhile. I feel like self-fulfillment and higher purpose have followed God into the box of things I still hope for, but can't quite believe in any more.

I'm at a point where I'm focusing on meeting life's basic needs (which I think includes maintaining important relationships with others), and taking part in different things to make life as interesting as possible, alleviating that sense of boredom that always seems to be hanging around the corner.

First, I find it ironic you are presuming an empirical approach in this particular post based on your preference for Plato who was arguably one of the best examples of non-empirical philosopher. But, that is an aside not a response.. — schopenhauer1

What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato.

I don't know this is the ultimate underlying motivation. — schopenhauer1

Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it.

This is just my attempt at a theory based on my own experience, analyzing other's experiences, and a priori conception analysis and synthesis of what it means to be a linguistically-based, self-reflective animal-being. — schopenhauer1

Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one:

A priori a goal just is a sustained effort to approach an object of desire. What makes something an object of desire?! Certainly not boredom and survival in many instances, but rather things like self-affirmation, love, pleasure and the like. I buy a rose for the woman I love not because I'm bored, but because I love her and enjoy seeing her happy due to my act. And you yourself recognise this. If my friend asks you why did Agustino buy her a rose, you won't say because he's bored! To say I buy her a gift because I want to survive or I'm bored is ridiculous! It doesn't explain why I buy HER out of everyone else a rose, nor does it explain the way I feel towards her. It's something only Camus' hero, Meursault, would say >:O — Agustino

The question is why do we seek goals in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s

We do not sit there like a rock. — schopenhauer1

Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock?

Either way, if your attention is engrossed fully or not, it is a way to alleviate that initial need to pursue something to focus your attention in a way that seems most pleasurable to you based on your personality. — schopenhauer1

No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.

That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.

Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.

Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc.

For me, the drive to pursue goals has been more akin to Bitter Crank's concept of 'impermanent meaningfulness', where we take on temporary pursuits to survive or thrive (maximize net pleasure), and to feel like we have some sort of grander purpose, compared to twiddling our thumbs, or sitting around like cats. — CasKev

For you, but I experience my purpose as given, not as chosen. I also choose to pursue it, but I experience it as given first, and chosen later.

It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. — intrapersona

What would be the point in doing anything if you lived forever? You'd eventually get around to doing it... at some point... maybe tomorrow... or the day after that.. or next week... or next year...

With a time limit, you kind of have to get on with doing stuff before you can't.

What you're saying is nothing but the popular conception of Plato. — Agustino

So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? The latest scientific research? Statistical data? No, his own conceptions or just the traditions of those who may have had ideas previously.

Okay, so we've settled that you don't know about it. — Agustino

And either do you! Or does god talk to Agustino and he speaks to the world? At least I admit that this is all speculative philosophy. In fact, much of metaphysical and ethical philosophy is speculative or simply conceptual analysis.

Fine, why should I (or anyone else) believe your theory? You're still not answering my questions. I've asked for what justifies your theory. Now, you're telling me that it's other people's experiences :s . What about those many experiences which contradict what you're saying? Here is one: — Agustino

I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says.

Why do birds sing? Because they're angsty? :s — Agustino

Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention?

Neither does a dog. What makes you think we ought to sit there like a rock? — Agustino

That's not even my point. I didn't say we ought to sit there like a rock, but simply that it is our nature to not just be, but become. In other words, we need to always be doing. Just existing isn't enough. We have to make and achieve goals- goals that are ultimately motivated from an angst.

No, that's totally false. For example. If I look at my life, everything I do is pretty much focused around one major goal, which is so large it will take my entire lifetime to try and achieve. I want to change the way society, culture and the world are organised for the better, and hopefully bring about a spiritual renovation of the world.

That means I need health, wealth, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all the rest. Almost every single action I do - exercising, gym, running, shaving, studying philosophy, writing on this forum, working, making money, even things that I will probably do in the future like forming a family, getting married etc. will be directed towards my larger goal - mere steps towards that goal. For an ambitious person such as myself, your theory makes zero sense. You talk about the need to be entertained... what is that? I have no idea what entertainment is, apart from the few things I do while resting and not working or studying. Even things like listening to music or playing music - I enjoy them because of the insights they provide into myself and the world. They sharpen my skills, my sensitivity to the world, and my sensitivity to myself. I rarely experience boredom, because there's so much for me to do. Survival, I'm only concerned about it because I'm concerned about my bigger goal.

Now why do I have such a goal? I wanted to change the world ever since I was a small child. It's almost my very first memory. It's nothing else than the pure expression of my inner being, the way a bird expresses itself by singing its beautiful song in the morning. I have this utter sense of purpose, that I have a mission in the world, and it's my duty to achieve it. That God will hold me accountable for it. And my ultimate failure and success is of course not in my hands, but I have to do my best. I too am just a pawn in God's plan and nothing more. But we each have to do our duty. We also have to leave the people we encounter better off than they were before they met us. That is the minimum from everyone.

Now, not everyone experiences a sense of purpose that is given the way I experience mine. So perhaps for such people, they experience life differently. They have to seek out entertainment, etc. — Agustino

You've had a sense of purpose. That's great. You want to leave people you encounter better off.. You seem to aggravate me with what appears to be trolling. But after reading this, I perhaps see why this might cause some distress as you see your life. I don't want to go in a back-and-forth flame war with you over who is right or what justification we have for this or that. This will not produce much for anyone.

My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures).

So where did Plato come up with the tripartate soul? — schopenhauer1

No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered.

I didn't say I take what they say at face value for their underlying motivations. It takes a bit of digging. You don't have to believe anything anyone says. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, you failed to illustrate how this digging leads you to conclude to boredom and survival as the only motivators of human behavior.

Are you just trying to troll me? Does this even deserve an answer? Did I not go at lengths to explain that we are a self-reflective, linguistic animal- the only one to deal with existential questions? Or are you still not paying close attention? — schopenhauer1

Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty?

In other words, we need to always be doing. — schopenhauer1

Not 'need'. We choose to.

motivated from an angst. — schopenhauer1

You have not shown this to be the case.

I perhaps see — schopenhauer1

Yes, you perhaps see red herrings, but you don't see that your theory claims to explain human motivators, but it clearly doesn't explain my motivations at all. It fails, because it is too narrow and dogmatic.

or what justification we have — schopenhauer1

Well, what's wrong with asking you what justification you have for believing what you believe?

My theory is simply that there is a vague angst at the bottom of our motivations. We have an urge to strive. Our linguistic brains put this constant striving into some goals. This vague angst can be broadly categorized in three main categories- survival, boredom, discomfort. Now, based on these main categories we create goals based to achieve some related to these categories. Often times, goals build upon each other to the point that the underlying factors are not even seen. However, every once in a while, you may see that indeed, most goals do lie in a certain emptiness of boredom, or desire for survival needs (obtained through cultural structures). — schopenhauer1

I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine.

Again, we are born into the world and we cannot stand boredom. — schopenhauer1

Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom does not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery.

So the aim should not be to eliminate desire and will but to cultivate it until it becomes a most potent force, one that is able sustain a creatively rich and interesting life.

Contrary to Schopenhauer's assertion, boredom doesn't not ensue upon the satisfaction of desire, but exists where there simply is no desire, no interest, no sense of valuing anything enough to strive for it. — Janus

Hmmm yes, I think this is correct. Someone who cares deeply about something or someone else cannot be bored, because caring moves him to do things. The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation.

Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy, and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. At that time, and usually momentarily until I recover my strength, I become apathetic and lose interest in what I previously cared about. But it's just a defence mechanism, temporary. It enables one not to suffer from not being able to care.

The greatest pleasures consist in striving after mastery. — Janus

I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something.

The whole German tradition after Kant - Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger - have emphasised the role played by will / care / self-affirmation as a primary source of motivation. — Agustino

That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point.

Personally, I have found boredom to be attached to apathy; and apathy itself to be a move that my mind makes in self-defense when life/situations become too difficult and I lose self-confidence. — Agustino

Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. A generalized disposition of fear of life often seems to be a breeding ground for negative attitudes towards it ; pessimism, nihilism, anti-natalism and the like.

I think those pleasures emerging from self-affirmaton are up there, but they are inferior to pleasures emerging out of erotic longing for someone/something. — Agustino

Yes, I probably should have said "greatest satisfactions" not "greatest pleasures". It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though.

Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation".

That's true, but it is only Schopenhauer who advocates negation of the will. If this negation of self-will is not replaced by affirmation of a greater will, it, ironically for Schopenhauer, leads to boredom, the very state that he had postulated comes about through satisfaction of desire; that was really my point. — Janus

Hmmm... Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated.

However, I do agree with your larger point. The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed.

Yes, I think it's true that a-pathy or negation of affect may often be associated with fear. — Janus

Yes. It's a defense mechanism.

It's not clear whether you are saying that the pleasure comes from the erotic longing or its satisfaction, though. — Janus

I would say both.

Also, I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "self-affirmation" as "self-cultivation". — Janus

But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. It must be directed towards some other, selfless end. To what end are you cultivating your self? This is what I mean when I critique these "programs of self-cultivation". I agree with Plato that in the final analysis, parts of our being shouldn't be rejected (our will, for example, shouldn't be rejected) but integrated within the greater whole harmoniously.

But self-cultivation cannot act as end-in-itself. — Agustino

The way I see it, self-cultivation, provided it is not done for self-aggrandisement, is an end in itself, practiced out of love. Why do you want to be a better artist, writer, musician or whatever? One may say "for the greater glory of God", but I think this only makes sense if God if found within through creative activity.

Not under Schopenhauer's own system though. Since boredom still would count merely as a manifestation of will, so that would mean that will hasn't been completely negated — Agustino

I can't think of any coherent sense in which boredom could be considered to be a manifestation of will. Can will exist at all in the total absence of interest?

The individual's will needs to be negated and God's will needs to be affirmed. — Agustino

Yes, but on the other hand God's authentic will is only to be found in and by individuals; it is something that must be found within, not in any outward authority or institution.

The way I see it, self-cultivation, provided it is not done for self-aggrandisement, is an end in itself, practiced out of love. Why do you want to be a better artist, writer, musician or whatever? — Janus

Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better.

I can't think of any coherent sense in which boredom could be considered to be a manifestation of will. Can will exist at all in the total absence of interest? — Janus

I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system"

Yes, but on the other hand God's authentic will is only to be found in and by individuals; it is something that must be found within, not in any outward authority or institution. — Janus

I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis.

No, Plato didn't actually sit on a chair and dream up the tripartite soul. Rather he (and others) based this conception off experience and then verified it by ensuring it is applicable to all sorts of different cases encountered. — Agustino

So it is a legitimate theory if Plato uses his own experiences and conceptual analysis, but not if I do? You just contradicted yourself. You stated that my basis was not legitimate but was exactly the same one you are using (or Plato rather). You have got yourself in a little bind there. Also, it seems like since this is the case, you are not just being a hypocrite but committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, as Plato obviously is your authority on these matters.

Yes it does deserve an answer. Goal-seeking, on your own terms, is to humans what singing is to birds. Birds don't sing because they're angsty, what makes you think humans seek goals because they're angsty? — Agustino

Your analogy makes no sense in this case. Angst is part of the human experience and not part of a birds. Therefore there is no analogy here. Birds sing because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of the bird, and humans goal-seek due to their propensities that I have stated. Just because they both have innate tendencies does not mean they have to have the same innate tendencies. But that should be obvious.

I do understand what your theory states, but just look around you! There's an abundance of evidence that it is too narrow and simply fails to explain many cases, like for example mine. — Agustino

I don't think so. When you keep on questioning the root of your goals, they go back to very basic drives. A bit of survival instinct, a bit of boredom, a bit of discomfort- plopped down in a cultural setting you use as the template to make your goals related to these broad categories. Everything else is a romanticization, a post-facto rationalization.

So it is a legitimate theory if Plato uses his own experiences and conceptual analysis, but not if I do? — schopenhauer1

Where did I talk about his own experience? This isn't even about reading what I said charitably, it's simply about reading it. If you can't even do that, discussion is difficult.

You just contradicted yourself. You stated that my basis was not legitimate but was exactly the same one you are using (or Plato rather). You have got yourself in a little bind there. Also, it seems like since this is the case, you are not just being a hypocrite but committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, as Plato obviously is your authority on these matters. — schopenhauer1

Gibberish.

Your analogy makes no sense in this case. Angst is part of the human experience and not part of a birds. Therefore there is no analogy here. — schopenhauer1

I'm pretty sure birds can feel emotions - like fear or angst - too. But regardless, this isn't even relevant. The analogy was between goal-seeking and singing. Had nothing to do with angst.

Birds sing because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of the bird, and humans goal-seek due to their propensities that I have stated. — schopenhauer1

So why don't humans seek goals because of the instinct/mimicking attributes of humans? This is in fact a thesis that has some evidence to support it (René Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World).

Just because they both have innate tendencies does not mean they have to have the same innate tendencies. But that should be obvious. — schopenhauer1

Yep. Still don't see the link between angst and goal-seeking.

When you keep on questioning the root of your goals, they go back to very basic drives. — schopenhauer1

Show me.

Everything else is a romanticization, a post-facto rationalization. — schopenhauer1

Again, take the example of the girl and the rose that I gave you. If it's just a post-facto rationalization it would be perfectly acceptable for you to say I give her the rose because I'm bored. But it's not. And saying that does nothing to explain my actions - using your framework you cannot even make sense of what I do.

So it is clear to me you cannot see the contradictions in your own arguments, especially the ones you just made about Plato when compared to what I said. Based on this, and your poor analogy to the bird having angst and comparing it to humans having angst (when angst, of course, does not become a motivator until self-reflective beings arrive on the scene), I cannot continue this discussion with you. The human condition of being an existential being does not translate to other animals without linguistic self-reflection. Certainly we share many other traits, but most likely, not this one. You accuse me of being uncharitable, but it is clear you came in here meant to throw grenades and I've seen no charitable reading from your part- just complete opposition and trolling at all costs. Frankly, your arguments are mere assertions and simply shows you have a particular animus to this view for personal reasons probably related to cherished theological views. I would almost think you are trying to simply piss me off than have a real discussion, but of course, that's just conjecture.

So it is clear to me you cannot see the contradictions in your own arguments, especially the ones you just made about Plato when compared to what I said. — schopenhauer1

No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. Plato didn't have cases like myself who cannot be accounted by his theory. YOU, on the other hand, do. Your theory takes into account only your personal experience, and fails to take into account the experience of other people. And I'm not talking here about the idiotic masses who live their life without knowing what they're doing, but the more cultured, educated and intelligent people around.

You accuse me of being uncharitable — schopenhauer1

No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that.

This isn't even about reading what I said charitably — Agustino

Frankly, your arguments are mere assertions and simply shows you have a particular animus to this view for personal reasons probably related to cherished theological views. — schopenhauer1

You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't.

Perhaps this perspective is helpful - your dilemma implies "you" exist in some sense as a discreet individual. If you relax that assumption, the question kind of answers itself.

The question is what exactly are "you" and I would suggest that you are the sum of the information held in your genetic history, your and humanity's memory. Our perception of consciousness allows us to take action for a period of time during which we may alter that information. When "you" "die" as such, the information you previously considered your life continues. You just no longer have the opportunity to influence it.

Take for example your question of good and bad actions. Regardless of your choice, your action is information and may well survive long after your "death". Unfortunately there are many examples in history of bad actions that survive as information long after a conscious information holder has ceased. There are of course many good ones too.

Another way of understanding it is to witness how your information: your values, behaviours and beliefs is pasted from parent to child, together with both your and you partners genetic information.

In essence, "you" do not necessarily cease to exist at the point of biological death unless all your information (your genes, your legacy, the memory and data held by others about you) ceases to exist at the same time.

The question really is: Are "you" simply the organisation of cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses we'd refer to as a human body, or are "you" the sum of your actions and their impact on you as an information set.

No, it's laughable that you compare yourself with Plato. — Agustino

Plato wrote some stuff- some thought-providing stuff, but he is not god or a prophet, man. He is was a brilliant intellect for sure, and we can all study his work and draw from it, but his thinking, like any other thinker, is still prone to many criticisms and flaws, like anyone else.

No, I haven't accused you of being uncharitable. I've accused you of failing to read what I write, and here's another instance of just that. — Agustino

Well, I'll grant you that, I skim your posts because I am bored with them. I still say you read pretty uncharitably though. I have long drawn out arguments with posters here that are frustrating and highly contentious but I still somewhat enjoy them. For whatever reason, I do not like your style and thus put minimal effort in these discussions. I'm also as of recent very busy but still feel compelled to answer posts (to my unhappiness).

You haven't provided any justification for why I should believe you, it's no surprise that I don't. — Agustino

So you bring up Plato's tripartite theory of soul which perplexes me of all things he said you would try to defend. Of course humans have a plurality of faculties (not just three distinct categories). If I was to be CHARITABLE I would say you can just skip the whole tripartite thing and go straight the fact that humans can choose to follow some goals over other goals. So if I am thirsty and I'm really compelled to want to drink the lake water, but another understanding based on the water being contaminated overrides my initial feeling to drink the water, and I really don't want to possibly get sick, what should I do? So we use information about the outcomes of our actions to achieve desired ends. In other words we weigh our desires against each other to achieve a particular goal. This has little to do with my argument though. This goal-weighing is in the realm of practical goal-seeking. It is intermediary goal-seeking stuff, not what makes goals in the first place. For this do some more digging. Here's a thought experiment- for every goal you do question the reason for why you did it.

I am printing off this paper. Why? I need to get it to a client who needs this information. Why? That information is important to the client to get their financials figured out. Why? If I don't do this then he won't get his financials figured out and his business might suffer and I might lose my job. why? This is part of the job. This job requires it. Why do I need to do this job? I need to make money and in this type of economy, I give up my time and effort for pay. I use this pay to pay for goods so I can survive in this particular economic setting. Why do I consume goods in this particular economic setting? Survival.

I painted a landscape. Why? It absorbs my attention, and I enjoy the pleasure of being absorbed in something where I can create something of beauty that I and others can enjoy. The process of combining colors and using fine-motor skills is also enjoyable. It is also a way to think of something creatively. Why do I like being absorbed, use fine motor skills, and be creative? The option is available and I know it is satisfying. Why follow any option that you think is satisfying? I would get bored.

Of course, the questions can be much more convoluted so it may take many many more questions to get you to the base answers, but generally speaking, survival and boredom are the two great motivators.

Plato wrote some stuff- some thought-providing stuff, but he is not god or a prophet, man. He is was a brilliant intellect for sure, and we can all study his work and draw from it, but his thinking, like any other thinker, is still prone to many criticisms and flaws, like anyone else. — schopenhauer1

Okay, sure.

Here's a thought experiment- for every goal you do question the reason for why you did it. — schopenhauer1

If I do that, I end up many times with the answer that it's an expression of my being to pursue that goal. There's no further reason. It's not to avoid boredom or to survive.

@Agustino

When I consider things like this, I sometimes think of what a child raised by monkeys on an island would do. We have basic instincts that drive us to gather food, create shelter, and socialize (play with the monkeys). But what would the child do if it was left behind when all the other monkeys were out gathering food? It's hard to imagine that it would sit like a cat, just passively taking in the surroundings until the monkeys returned - that would get boring pretty fast for such an intelligent mammal. So does it get up and take a walk around, start picking up rocks and throwing them in the water to express itself, or simply to relieve the discomfort of doing nothing? Looking at it this way, I think @schopenhauer1 has the better argument. The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing - although they may be done within the context of the ego and the social norms that have developed over time, like always needing to be improving, needing to be different, and the need for purpose.

When I consider things like this, I sometimes think of what a child raised by monkeys on an island would do. — CasKev

Why is a child raised by monkeys anymore normal or natural than a child raised by human beings? I would think that quite the contrary, that child would not represent the natural condition of man, but quite the contrary - the unnatural one. For example, he may not be able to speak - that isn't the natural condition of man.

We have basic instincts that drive us to gather food, create shelter, and socialize (play with the monkeys). — CasKev

This is a hypothetical, quite frankly, I personally would like not to adventure there, since I'm not quite sure what such a child would feel. I think "gathering food" is learned in a community, as is socializing.

It's hard to imagine that it would sit like a cat, just passively taking in the surroundings until the monkeys returned - that would get boring pretty fast for such an intelligent mammal. — CasKev

Well, baby animals don't sit around doing nothing either. Exploration is one of the primary ways infants (not only human infants) learn. Even baby cats play around a lot more than adult cats. Why so? Because playing and exploring their environment is how they learn, both about their own powers and about how their environment works. And of course, the baby wouldn't be always doing something when the monkeys left. Sometimes he would be just resting and dozing off. I can bet that in less industrialised civilisations than ours, people rest a LOT more than we do.

The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing — CasKev

But again, this may be true for yourself and schopenhauer1, all that I'm arguing is that it's not true for everyone. I gave myself as a counter example, you're free to indicate how I am motivated by boredom.

I think schopenhauer1 has the better argument. The things we do today that aren't aimed at survival or procreation, are simply to alleviate the discomfort of doing nothing — CasKev

There are two sides to schopenhauer1's coin of stasis: the side he likes to polish is the "doomed to the horror of boredom and generally unsatisfactory experiences`"; the other side is "seeking engagement with the environment" (whatever that happens to be).

I would agree, however, that much of what we do has nothing to do with survival or procreation. For one thing, most of the time the options available involve neither. Indeed, I don't think our genes are worried about survival either. We are organized to seek positive experiences (sex, eating, warmth, the better BBC Masterpiece Theater production, etc.). Survival happens by accident--at least most of the time. Once in a rare while (we hope) survival is at stake -- you find yourself tiring as you try to overcome the riptide that seems intent on drowning you, some thug is pointing a gun at you -- but most of the time it is just a question of whether or not we are going to be very bored.

And not only that, you also tell us that that underlying cause is boredom, and not, for example, pleasure, self-affirmation, or love. — Agustino

When you think of things you do for mental pleasure, where does the sense of satisfaction come from? You paint something you think looks nice. So what? We already have lots of things that look nice. What did you add to your real self-worth? What real motivation do you have to paint, other than to alleviate boredom?

What real value is there in self-affirmation? What does it add to the world? I'm the greatest painter that ever lived! So what? Society taught you that being good at painting somehow makes your life more worthwhile, that you have more value as an individual.

I think love falls into the survival and procreation category. Being part of a larger group that cares about your existence increases your chance of survival, and courtship and intimacy can be linked to procreation.

Survival happens by accident--at least most of the time. Once in a rare while (we hope) survival is at stake -- you find yourself tiring as you try to overcome the riptide that seems intent on drowning you, some thug is pointing a gun at you -- but most of the time it is just a question of whether or not we are going to be very bored. — Bitter Crank

When I use survival as a term here, I do not mean the immediate dealing with a life or death situation (gun to head, falling off a cliff, riptides, etc.). By this I mean, how we go about in our historical-cultural milieu to obtain the resources necessary for sustaining our bodily functions (food, proper body temperature, etc.). Due to cultural contingencies, the bar for what "comfortable" survival looks like, may be different for everyone. Since we tend to obtain survival through cultural means (economics, society, learning, etc.), it is more complicated than just immediate food-in-mouth, as you already understand.

As for survival (the very broad sense not the immediate one, as explained above) being one main contributor to our motives for goal-seeking, I will point back to the though experiment I gave earlier (I'll copy and paste it):

I am printing off this paper. Why? I need to get it to a client who needs this information. Why? That information is important to the client to get their financials figured out. Why? If I don't do this then he won't get his financials figured out and his business might suffer and I might lose my job. why? This is part of the job. This job requires it. Why do I need to do this job? I need to make money and in this type of economy, I give up my time and effort for pay. I use this pay to pay for goods so I can survive in this particular economic setting. Why do I consume goods in this particular economic setting? Survival.

So I am just claiming at the root of our intermediary goal-seeking (printing the paper, getting financials, walking that paper over to the person, etc. etc.) is the need to survive in a historical-cultural environment.

The same question-asking will lead to boredom for our other pursuits. Again, I'll copy and paste the example:

I painted a landscape. Why? It absorbs my attention, and I enjoy the pleasure of being absorbed in something where I can create something of beauty that I and others can enjoy. The process of combining colors and using fine-motor skills is also enjoyable. It is also a way to think of something creatively. Why do I like being absorbed, use fine motor skills, and be creative? The option is available and I know it is satisfying. Why follow any option that you think is satisfying? I would get bored.

Now, the third broad category that I don't mention much is discomfort. Why do I want to do the laundry? My clothes smell, this bothers me. Well, that is something clearly not related to boredom or survival. Again, it is always in the context of a culture (some cultures don't care about washing clothes, or even have much clothes to be washed), but the deep-rooted discomfort motivation is still there.

So in general the angsty-drive of humans generally lands in the spectrum of survival, boredom, and/or discomfort and all taking place in the environment the individual finds themselves in.

As you also know, this is in the Schopenhauer tradition that desires are bad because they are something negative. It's a dissatisfaction with just "being" and always needing to "become" (to do to do to do). Looking at it in a much broader sense- life is a repetitious event, even with novelty. This repetitious surviving (in cultural system) and fleeing boredom and discomfort (in a cultural system) just repeats and repeats and repeats.. Some people see this as if from a transcendental position- this is called the "absurd".

So in general the angsty-drive of humans generally lands in the spectrum of survival, boredom, and/or discomfort and all taking place in the environment the individual finds themselves in. — schopenhauer1

I would add that this underlying drive becomes more evident to people who have suffered from depression, where there is little motivation to do anything other than survive, and somehow pass the time with as little effort as possible.

People who are quite happy with the life experiences and socially constructed norms they have encountered thus far would be more likely to deny these as motivating factors, in favor of self-affirmation and other such ego-based desires.

I would add that this underlying drive becomes more evident to people who have suffered from depression, where there is little motivation to do anything other than survive, and somehow pass the time with as little effort as possible. — CasKev

Yes, this would be a concept akin to depressive realism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism . But beyond that rather loaded term, one usually sees this in one of two ways- the absurdity hits the individual full-on in a flash (i.e. watching a person screaming into the phone behind a closed door brings up the absurdity of any human endeavor), or the cool, detached self-reflection of looking at life as a whole rather than caught in the moment of this or that particular goal.

People who are quite happy with the life experiences and socially constructed norms they have encountered thus far would be more likely to deny these as motivating factors, in favor of self-affirmation and other such ego-based desires. — CasKev

Yes, the question of pleasure presents an interesting argument. Don't people just do what's most pleasurable/desirable to their sensibilities rather than avoid dissatisfaction (boredom/survival)? I would say that the fact hat we want pleasure in the first place is where to start, not the pleasure itself. That is the Schopenhauer approach at least. Ultimately, pleasure/satisfaction is most likely the tool to decide which is the best goal to maximize one's preferences, but the preference-seeking system is still a thing. Hence, we are always becoming (need preferences satisfied, goals met, to do something to do something to do something) and we can never be (no desires, no preferences, no goals being met). The impulses to flee boredom, and pursue survival-related goals, and avoid discomfort are always there giving form to the angst.

When you think of things you do for mental pleasure, where does the sense of satisfaction come from? — CasKev

It's an interesting thing. For me, I don't do things for mental pleasure. Rather mental pleasure sometimes is a result of it. I do things, at a proximate level of motivation, to better myself and my understanding of the world. So that's where my sense of satisfaction comes from. Being successful at that.

You paint something you think looks nice. So what? — CasKev

It means I understand my own perception better. It means my skills have improved. It means I've learned more about the world. It means I'm capable to communicate more about the world.

I'm the greatest painter that ever lived! So what? — CasKev

So you have a lot to teach the world through your paintings.

I think love falls into the survival and procreation category. Being part of a larger group that cares about your existence increases your chance of survival, and courtship and intimacy can be linked to procreation. — CasKev

Love can be conducive to procreation, but that's not the driving force. It's more like a possible result.

If all the reasons to end life are emotional and subjective, than what gives them prior over the emotional and subjective reasons to continue living?

Personally? To gain greater insight into myself and the world. Why do I want that? To change the world for the better. — Agustino

OK, but isn't it also just for the love of it?

I would agree with you, that's why I prefaced my statement by "under Schopenhauer's own system" — Agustino

I misunderstood then; it had seemed you were defending Schopenhauer's thinking about the relation between desire and boredom.

I would agree, however outward authority and institutions may be good at guiding individuals towards this. Take the Christian sacraments for example. There's the outward ritual which is governed by the authority of the Church, but also the inward meaning of theosis — Agustino

We agree on this. Religious institutions are essential to preserve, if not the scriptures, at least religious rituals. It is also arguable that they focus interest on (remind people about) scriptures which otherwise might fail to be noticed nearly as much. And they give rise to collective movements of theological thought. So, I am certainly not here to denigrate the Churches or traditions.

OK, but isn't it also just for the love of it? — Janus

What does "it" refer to? If you're referring to the love of self-cultivation, then probably not. If you're referring to the love of God and the world, then probably yes.

@jamalrob ban