Fortunately, life goes on because you don't need to make choices at all these junctures of various bodily functions. You are a body, and your body won't put up with your decision to lay there in a pile of shit, wet cold mattress, while your are chilled, stinking, a-hungering, a-thirsting, and a-rotting from infection--unless you in your body is afflicted with terminal dementia. — Bitter Crank

Well there we go..So we do desire not to lay in shit, and we make a choice (however habitual), not to lay in shit. But, whether out of long habit, or more deliberate decision-making, we indeed choose, and life always presents us with those choices. Now, underlying and "manipulating" these choices are desires based on conscious and unconscious preferences, cultural programming, or what have you; but indeed, there are desires that underly the choice, however free or however influenced by society and/or historical contigency it may originate from.

So, did Freddie choose to become a repulsive pariah, the village idiot, in a small down, or did he fail at being a human being, ending up as a miserable wretch not by his own doing? — Bitter Crank

He was presented with choices, as life will always do, and based on nature/nurture and preferences he desired a certain route for better or worse that led to (what we would perceive as) undesirable health/hygienic conditions and lower status in society.

So, I don't know if desire is the name of it, but certainly, we are in a way "slaves" in the sense that, as Sartre said, we are "condemned to be free". There is a burden of being of sorts.. Let's use an everyday example..

You wake up from your slumber. You are laying in bed. You are bleary-eyed but you are FORCED with a familiar decision- get out of bed or lay there... I supposed you COULD lay there until you get bed sores, shit your bed, and die of starvation, dehydration, and infection, but most likely you CHOOSE the decision to get up. Now you feel the urge to take a shit.. You COULD shit your pants, but you decide that you want to do it in the toilet. Now you are on the toilet.. You COULD wipe your ass or just leave it.. Now you are just sitting there on the toilet.. You COULD stay there for days on end until you die of dehydration, starvation, and infection, but you decide to get up and wash your hands. Now you could decide to go without brushing your teeth, taking a shower, putting on deodorant, changing your clothes, and decide to stay in the same clothes day in and day out.. You COULD decide to make breakfast or go without food and starve. You COULD just sit on your couch until you starve, dehydrate, stare at the wall, be intensely bored just sitting there, or you could get up and find something to do, go to work, visit people, make plans, visit places, find entertainment, give to charities...

The need for need does not go away.

Does a desire have some sort of independent existence in my brain in such a way that a desire can manipulate me? It seems like desires are the wishes of the individual. The individual motivates, drives, tortures, whips himself by devising desires whose satisfaction is not in easy reach, or in reach at all. — Bitter Crank

But desires are always there. There are brief moments of contentedness but then you must get up, eat some food, take a shit, and generally, ya know, we don't like just talking to ourselves and staring at walls.. we get up and do stuff. Even the desire to be a monk in a monastery with other monks doing stuff to not do stuff...

Why are we discontented? Why do we desire more than we have, or different than we have? We can learn to cool off our discontents, lessen our desires. We can learn to be content. I'm not suggesting that we should, just that we can. — Bitter Crank

We can change certain desires but not our need for need.

That we know we can do these things (lessen desire) ought to take the sting out of our auto-manufactured desires. I don't know precisely what the beginning of desire is. Perhaps it is rooted in hunger (not literal hunger for food). Perhaps it is rooted in fear -- a fear of insufficiency. Perhaps it is rooted in the capacity to imagine -- whether the imagined thing is worth having or not. There are other possibilities. — Bitter Crank

You cannot get out of the possibility for desire. Every motivation that is volitional is based on a desire.

At any rate, desires aren't manipulating us. It's the self working on itself. Maybe it all comes from not enough love. And by the time we grasp that, we've gone a long way chasing our tails down the highway. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps manipulation is not the right word, but certainly the discontentedness of being is rooted in the need for something which is not present now (hobbies, philosophy, other people, food, water, etc.).

This is what makes desires manipulative, then: they instill a sense of dissatisfaction that a person did not previously have, and force the person to extend effort to relieve this dissatisfaction. — darthbarracuda

Indeed. The human condition in a nutshell.

Pleasure, an apparent good, is something that must be earned - but why do we need to earn anything to begin with? Why do we need to be part of the rat-race, always chasing a cheese, like a mannequin controlled by otherworldly manipulators? — darthbarracuda

Indeed. Instrumentality. Why bring in more people in order to need in the first place? How do you think absurdity fits into the picture? Specifically, the idea that we must endure each day finding ways to fulfill desires, day in and day out.

It is my argument, then, that sentient creatures have the N-property of being beings of desire. It is in the very nature of sentient beings that they desire, woven into their very being, in the same way living organisms are Beings-towards-Death, sentient organisms are also Beings-towards-Desire. — darthbarracuda

Nice distinction and provides a good framework to see the whole inherent desire thing.

As such, a concept of freedom which denies desire is literally a super-human concept. It may in some sense be coherent and even make sense for super-human beings. But not human beings. (and, I'd hazard, that we posit it as we, as human beings, often have the desire to be more than what we are) — Moliere

Indeed. I think the point was that we cannot escape it, but we can prevent future beings-that-desire and are dissatisfied.

That would seem an ideal these days. We are a colony though, so there's no escaping it. — Punshhh

I have my own definition that I've used on this forum for that concept. We suffer from many things, including people, environment, circumstances, our own bodies.. We go through every day for no reason except we are alive and need to survive and be comfortable in our cultural/envirionmental setting and entertain ourselves. It really is not worth going through in the first place. There is no reason to force people into one day then the next then the next until death. Better never to have been.

I don't know.
Presumably some greater (cosmic) purpose would emerge at some point. Unless there is no purpose, but only happenstance(because cosmic purpose is speculation)

Do you/we require a purpose? — Punshhh

Instrumentality.

Yes, I am happy to leave religion behind here and focus on agency and our limitations in terms of insight and analytical thought. I agree with your summary here, although in the light of my ideas about Eden, it might add a twist in its use as an analogy. However I do think that some people do seek a vision of a grander purpose, even sense it, or realise it on ocassion. Also there is the farsighted pragmatic vision which I pointed out in the other thread. One in which humanity secures peace, its long term survival and acts as custodian to the ecosystem. — Punshhh

And what then?

Secondly I would point out a naivety in your reasoning, you criticise the anthropomorphism while then resorting to it to make your case. It is quite reasonable and philosophically astute to recognise our limited intellectual understanding of our predicament in finding ourselves in this world. This would entail a realisation that we cannot make any presumptions in terms of purpose about any purposes that we may be subject to. Indeed it strikes me that an apophatic analysis of what we don't know and can't say would be an appropriate starting point, so as to avoid those very anthropomorphic assumptions. — Punshhh

I'm not sure you are making a valid point based on what I said. A God that has a purpose and design we can never know is a relatively moot one. As I said above, "God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human."

And I already told you that it is convenient how we know just enough from these ancient prophets that had this magical ability to tell us some partial truth of it. It is convenient that it is in ancient times, it is convenient that when we ask for justification, we can never know the whole truth, but just enough to keep the carrot and stick of following this or that.

So BOTH points are at a loss here.. If it is as you say, beyond human comprehension, it loses any matter for the living breathing human who must endure life as the mortal human. We become but pawns in a greater scheme that is beyond our control for something is never for us. At the same time, most of what religion does IS anthropmorophize the deity, and this is certainly true in how MUCH it cares about humans in the actual religions that we see. So both fronts have flaws in them.. The first one may be true, but we would never know it.. Just like we can be a brain in a vat or something.. The second objection we know to be true because it is not hard to see how being humans, our deity seems to care a lot about our human affairs and has characteristics like humans and resembles a lot of ideas that were floating around in the region that the concept of the Judeo-Christian god was conceived. By logic, if we humans can think of a concept ("moksha"..union with a godhead..worlds beyond our mere mortal world) it is not in fact beyond our comprehension... If it is beyond our comprehension.. then we can never know it anyways.. The cop out argument is to say... prophets in the past were given a glimpse that was comprehensible to us but we don't know the bigger picture.. and this I said just sounded a bit too convenient. That was my argument.

As far as your objection to my restless point.. That isn't really an objection. I agree about evolutionary pressures perhaps, but the Garden of Eden story, if taken literally is about two people who wanted more than what paradise had to offer.. Which seems like we were pretty bored, even in paradise. This does not provide much hope as nothing offers true satisfaction according to this story. If everything was redeemed, would we just get bored again in paradise? Anyways, even these ideas of paradise, or a more pristine time.. or a better time.. this is all so human, going back to the anthropomorphizing point.. It can even be an analogy for early hunting-gathering societies. The longing of early civilizations for an even earlier time when things were less complicated.

Looking beyond the religious discussion here, my theory is that we are essentially striving at nothing.. we survive and then get bored and these two sides of the pendulum motivate us to make goals. We are put into the stress of living life and then must contend with the energy to deal with surviving and then keeping ourselves entertained. The Garden of Eden story as an analogy for this fits nicely in that framework.

Well the answer goes that God being mighty has a mighty purpose and us mere mortals can't understand such mighty matters. But we can be privy in some way through revelation. — Punshhh

Yes, a typical answer provided by the major religions. It cannot even be knowable except through past prophetic figures who actually talked with the big guy. Odd how that works.

Well this is covered by the fall. We weren't living difficult lives initially, but we fell from grace, by partaking of the tree of knowledge. Thus we learnt how to be evil and it's been downhill from there. However if we can make the path of return we can be reinstated in paradise in the knowledge of evil, while not practicing it. — Punshhh

Right, so the fall is a great metaphor for humans not even being happy in paradise. That's my point. We are restless beings striving for nothing. Even God was bored it seems, otherwise why not be content in his own existence? He needs to create or experience evil/misfortune in order to feel complete or feel satisfied? Sounds like a bored God to me.. but I guess since God's reasons are ultimately beyond human comprehension, I can't call it bored because that would be too human, it would be something like "blored" because, you know, it is an experience beyond human comprehension..

But really, the most important thing if this is true, is that God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human.

This I see as fallacious, all things, beings etc are pawns regardless, even gods. — Punshhh

How is this "fallacious"? If God set up a little cosmic scheme that the lower worlds must be purified by humans- that is indeed a little scheme, a game, and indeed we being but a small but important part, are pawns to ensure the scheme's success. Thus, we are pawns in God's game... Again, he seemed bored (I mean "blored") with just, you know, being God.. existing.. better to exist in a physical world with individuated beings with consciousness I guess that has some sort of mission.

Again this is a bit fallacious, because our philosophy could not be anything else, due to us not having higher beings telling us the bigger picture. Also we can see the bigger picture to a certain degree, we can see the same issues playing out in the animal and plant kingdom and so see that it is not just us, but life in general who are acting out this charade. — Punshhh

No, my point was that this cosmic struggle is oh so human.. light vs. dark, "Good deeds", wishing for a better life elsewhere, and of course the very important part the WE humans play. Also, God seems concerned with pretty minute human affairs.. he also seems vindictive- a very human trait.. You don't follow him, it is no good for you.. Also, the point was that it smacks of simply cultural contingencies of place/time- these ideas were ones from various cultures (Platonic/Greek and Zoroastrian/Persian). It cannot help being what it is based on its time/place and then of course the human tendency for myth-making in general.

Also I would point out that we can't presume that God(or whoever it is) is infallible. This was wishful thinking by the early Roman Christians. — Punshhh

I never said he was.. If God gets bored, like I've said earlier, that seems pretty fallible. If this is an experiment gone wrong, that's pretty fallible. If Mainlander's just as fantastical a version is right, instead of humans being pawns that must correct the evil of the physical world by redeeming it, we are in fact pawns here to die out so God can commit suicide from an ultra-complete/pure being to an ultra-vacuum/nothing being then there we go. I don't know which is worse- we are pawns either way. So yeah, the all-knowing, caring god (at least in terms of human versions of this) doesn't seem so if looked at in this perspective. Also, I am suspicious if anything where you get just enough reason to do something (God said it via prophets in an ancient time period when the magical ability of prophecy conveniently existed but no longer does), but no real justification (don't ask why the prophets revealed what they did, that is beyond us). That is oh so convenient a combination.. just a bit too convenient.

What do you say; do we exist to redeem the universe, or do we exist to make plastic? Or do we just exist? — John

If the futility of putting more people into the world who must survive, make and pursue goals, and deal with contingent harms is not readily apparent, nothing I say will make the situation more relevant. It is the instrumentality of things.. We exist to exist to exist.

What do you say; do we exist to redeem the universe, or do we exist to make plastic? Or do we just exist? — John

Deleted

Whaaaa? The most common motivation for antinatalism is that life isn't worth it due to an unreasonable amount of suffering. The goal of antinatalism is to minimize this suffering, because suffering is bad and what is bad is what ought to be removed, eliminated, or prevented, like a cancerous tumor.

Other motivations for antinatalism are far too poetic and reserved to be taken seriously in light of what suffering is actually like. — darthbarracuda

Well, my point was that the outcome of antinatalism is not going to be realized anytime soon, but the questioning process itself can spark people to ask themselves why they are putting more people into existence in the first place, especially noting all the harm-whether Buddhist version or classical view of negative experiences. It makes people question the point of the human project- what are we trying to achieve other than simply continuing to continue, striving to strive, making more people with experiences to experience. The absurdity of any X reason becomes apparent with the circular logic.

From the perspective of religion, we are God's children in kindergarten, so need to be nappy trained and this is as good a way as any to do it. From the perspective of spirituality we are fulfilling a role within an eternal cosmos of being. That role is not necessarily something we can know, but will have some relevance to the development of being, or the enterprise we find ourselves involved in.

In both cases as I expect you were expecting the greater purposes are known to God/god, or whoever is in that role. — Punshhh

So this is of course subjected to the same absurd conclusions- why does this whole training have to occur in the first place? If it is because God wills it, then he must have also been bored to set up this little game. But, if we are here in order to raise the lower worlds to the higher worlds, I don't see how this should make us feel much better. Now we are just pawns in this cosmic game. Of course, this is all based on a fantasy that somehow is more believable than other fantasies due to historical contingencies of conversion.. Odd, how this cosmic game is something that is oddly anthropological. Of course it centers around humans, of course it is some sort of struggle, of course it has aspects of Platonic and Zoroastrian cultural elements. All beliefs picked up by various philosophers from various regions, reified into a nice little fantasy package.

If God is somehow incomplete or must go through a process of raising his lower parts to his higher parts by our actions and deeds (what constitutes as legitimately a "good" action or belief versus just an action or belief..must have some sort of magical metaphysical quality of course), then it means that something happened to God. He was complete and now he is not. We need to fix Humpty Dumpty back together again.. Mainlander has a similar story reversed though. Instead of God bursting himself into the physical world in order to get fixed again, he was really bored and wanted us to exhaust ourselves in entropic nothingness so that he could commit suicide. It seems either way, God is a bored fella.. He either is bored to death (Mainlander) or bored with being a complete being and so needs pawns in a game (Judeo-Christian mystical traditions for purpose).

I'm indicating that I don't think there's any explanation, of the kind you appear to be after, either available or needed. — John

It's the needed part I'm perplexed at. I asked why we need to exist to redeem the universe, and we do not need an answer to that seems to be like me saying "We need to exist to make plastic.. don't ask me why, an answer is not needed".

Because that's just the way things work out??? :s — John

I'm not sure what that means, or you are indicating that you aren't sure either.

While there is life in man, he can perfect himself and serve the Universe. But he can serve the Universe only by perfecting himself, and perfect himself only by serving the Universe. — John

Why we need to exist to perfect the universe he does not say. The exact question begging I bring up in other threads. There is no need for redemption if there are no humans who need redeeming. Why do we need to exist just to redeem things?

Why actually care about the hypothetical suffering of non-existent babies? Would your life actually improve in any way if you convinced people not to breed? — dukkha

The actual outcome of antinatalism really has no great significance. It is rather the symbolic implication of what procreation stands for. Procreation stands for purpose. Putting forth more humans is the very reason why one exists in the first place. Here's the thing, questioning why people are put forth in the first place, gets to the heart of the matter more than anything else, as to why we ourselves, the already existing are here. What we are doing here, what we need to be doing here, what's the point, what's the end, why the striving, why the surviving, why are we going through all the obstacles, harms, angst, boredom, and the like? Procreation is not about procreation necessarily, but about us and our reason for doing anything.

I'm not sure man. What I do know is that there are people who either happen to have a pretty lucky life and they see themselves as having their needs and wants satisfied. Their outlooks are optimistic, life should be lived. This is the majority. On the other side is the pessimist. Reviled for their inability to get aboard and voicing their view about it. They perpetually question underlying conditions, whether satisfaction is lasting, what is it we are trying to perpetuate. These questions of existential level are usually rejected for not just getting on with things.

The nice thing about it is that, if anyone here can easily shoot down everything I'm saying, I've gained some constructive feedback and that would aid in what I would consider "meaningful development". Personal engagement can make the difference between doing an intellectual exercise and intellectually exploring the environment, they can both be meaningful but if it's not clear which of the two we're engaging in there can be some unnecessary confusion. — Gooseone

I'm trying to get a clear understanding of your views and I'm having a hard time piecing it together. It sounds like you are resenting the fact that your environment (i.e. society?) does not give you proper avenues for exploring the environment and constructive feedback. I am not sure what that might mean. The one thing you proposed that seemed to be something of an argument was that learning things on a "deeper level" is what truly matters and thus, the absurdity of an overarching X purpose is a constraint that forces us to simply look at life more deeply simply because, well we exist, and have the investigative abilities to do so, so why not? So are you saying we are here to investigate, and when you are disconnected from investigating, you feel a sense of despair?

So we don't desire to continue to live. Rather, we have a series of separate individual desires/ends/purposes (such as, to eat, to drink, wear clothes, etc), with the by-product of these individual ends being that we continue to live. The point being that at no point do we do something in service of an over-reaching something.

Essentially what we are, what we exist as, is nothing over and above this present experience(ing). — dukkha

Yes, this is similar to Schopenhauer's idea of Will. We are desiring beings. Why do we desire to procreate more people so they can simply desire, I do not know, and I think the more important existential question? Why is it we keep making more little desiring things and continue the human project?

I sympathize with Schophenaur (although I'm not scholar), but I suspect that there's merely the illusion of will, rather than a genuine will. In the same way evolution appears to have a teleos, but it's just an appearance. Think of it like natural selection for 'willing'. Things which don't strive for more existence, don't continue into the future, whereas those that do, do. — dukkha

I think Schop kind of sees it both ways. Will is unconsciously moving us forward (genetics, survival instincts), and Will also consciously moves us forward (boredom drives us to make goals great and small). So it seems both can be tied to Will proper. @Thorongil usually, has some interesting things to say about this. So in a way, even though Schop did not grasp full blown evolution, he anticipated a kind of process that blindly moves forward but sustains the species in the process. Also, Schopenhauer's Will is explicitly "blind". There is no telos in it. Will's own nature is simply to "strive-for-nothing" in particular. Now, this is clearly different than evolution on its own which is simply the process of genetics being selected for and happy accidents then become niche adaptations, but I think we can analogize it to the universal expansion of energy from the Big Bang in a way- energy and matter, constrained by its own set arbitrary initial conditions blindly moving forward via the interplay of its necessary constraints and contingent interplay of environment.

We must recognize now that as far as we know, we are the only species that recognizes the origins of new life, that can reflect upon life itself- its very process, what it means, and can choose to procreate or not procreate at our own desiring and will. That makes a difference in terms of Will being completely unconscious and working through pure mechanism versus working through our self-reflected ends. So then I ask, what is it about our species that we keep putting more people into the world if we can reflect upon procreation itself, and even choose to stop the process. All the X reasons that are used when self-reflected upon (in other words not just "accidents" which themselves could have been avoided easily), are absurd when taken as reasons in and of themselves. I just chose "redemption" because that answer is a great example of what does not even need to occur in the first place if humans were not born. Redemption does not need to take place if there is no one to exist who needs redeeming. So what is it about the human project, that it has to be carried forth? What are we doing here that we need to be here? And again, if you answer that with any X reason, that reason can be taken to its logical end where it becomes an absurdity because it becomes circular logic.

Also, we could wonder if it's necessarily a good thing to let everyone share equally in material wealth, even if the means of generating it aren't harmful to the environment anymore. If you just observe debates about providing people with a basic income in civil societies, not everyone is convinced that a "free lunch" would prove to be beneficial. — Gooseone

But my point is the vanity of existence itself becomes apparent even if everyone was "redeemed" (in whatever context that means). So for the secular humanist, if everyone was "redeemed" through social justice programs by having their basic needs/health care met. What then? Trying to find entertainment, social relations, goals of all varieties will abound but, when taken as a purpose in themselves will exhaust themselves into absurdity.. as it becomes apparent that we do X to do X to do X and that we really just see our striving nature. This is the idea of the instrumentality of existence and along with it the feeling of futility because there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions. Mere existence itself, though we want more of it is not satisfying in and of itself- hence we survive and then need goals simply due to this restless nature of existence.

But apparently you can't save people if they never exist. So the whole process of saving people becomes important in-itself. Christian morality has the tendency then to see life as machine of goodness. The more people there are, the more people need saving, and saving is good. It is apparently a good thing to put people into a shitty situation in order to help get them out of the situation you put them in. It certainly feels good to help people... This is quite obviously "slave-like", in that the objectively shitty conditions of the "slaves" are twisted around to be seen as something to be cherished. A classic example of a coping mechanism - when no alternatives are apparent, twist reality to be more suitable to your tastes. However it seems pretty obvious to me that if they had an alternative to enduring a life of suffering, most would take it. If there was a way to get to Heaven without the help of Jesus, we'd all take it. But, alas, there isn't another way into Heaven - or so we are told. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I agree with this assessment- to redeem to redeem to redeem does not make sense. Redeem for what? The purpose is obliterated once it is taken to its logical conclusion.

But in my opinion, "meaning" in the existential sense of purpose and justice is an imperfect coping mechanism; a hodge-podge method of ESCAPING (again! :( ) our condition by establishing a reason why things are happening the way they are and what our position is in the going-ons; a way of REASSURING ourselves that we are important (SELF-ESTEEM). Any sort of existentialist philosophy must then be powerful enough to ACTUALLY WORK but simultaneously flexible enough to JUSTIFY ITSELF as an AUTHENTIC way of life (and not just a coping mechanism). The absence of any such way leads one to extreme pessimism as panic, fear and meaninglessness solidify themselves, at least until one finds a suitable way to distract themselves. — darthbarracuda

Yes, the instrumentality and angst of existence becomes apparent without an anchor and thus distraction, and re-engagement with some sort of activity to take one's mind off existence itself is the only way out.

Sorry, I must have sent that without finishing. Those were good quotes. The one about following a story about our relation to the world seemed most relevant because essentially our reasons we give ourselves for continuing our individual selves and perpetuating future beings, when not defaulted to unthinking actions, usually end up being the things I mentioned in the OP. One of my themes is that philosophizing on the reasons for procreation also forces us to confront our own and our species purpose. The "temptation to exist" as E.M Cioran wrote. So I start out by proposing some popular candidates for an existential purpose (scientific discovery, entertainment, relationships, etc.). My latest candidate for reflection is redemption, a popular one for the religious minded. So then I take the proposed purpose to its logical end. So we exist to do X to do X to do X until it becomes an absurdity due to its instrumental nature. We redeem to redeem to redeem.. but why? I am saying under all the X purpose is simply the will-to-live- the individual's desire for more existence. However, existence is not edifying in itself- it is simply the platform to survive and entertain ourselves, so we can survive and entertain ourselves so we can survive and entertain ourselves and oh, here we are presented with the idea of instrumentality.

Thanks for considering these ideas. Hope they shed a little light on this large question. — 0 thru 9

Yes, thanks for sharing as well. So I ask you, what is it about existence for?

As far as I see, there is the life lived without much stepping back and then the life that is reflected upon as a whole. If we step back an examine it, there are several main aspects of the human condition:

1) Striving-for-goals. The brain is large it needs to be occupied. Attention needs to be focused on a task or activity for various short and long term aims. These aims are generally aimed at several types of desirable outcomes. Much of these outcomes end up looking like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs a) Flow would be the word for the most attentive of states. Flow from vigorous activity or passive activity is one kind of desirable state like games, a good book, solving a problem, working on a project. b) Simple sensual pleasures of food, sex, etc. is another desirable outcome. c) Aesthetics- at its broadest, it can be the enjoyment and production of good literature, of understanding something in a new way, feelings of beauty in art, music, and nature, catharsis in art, the sublime. d) Feeling emotions such as joy, humor, excitement, and even limited amounts of fear, pain, and sadness (varying degrees for masochists) as long as for overall enhancement. e) Esteem and recognition, ladder climbing, trying to fit a social role, competing, winning, upholding what one deems to be ethical or valuable f) security and safety in environment g) survival needs h) social interactions and friendships, romantic relationships, playful banter, schadenfreude (unfortunately), giving to and being concerned with others i) cultural upkeep and allaying discomfort- cleaning, maintaining property and environment, hygiene, consumption for superfluous needs beyond survival j) Mastering a skill k) maintaining one's sense of personality and ego (not losing one's sense of identity) l) Anything I missed that fits more or less in these categories

2) Boredom as baseline mental state. If one is given to a state of goal-less reprieve, one may stay "content" for varying periods of time before one becomes bored again and must concentrate attention on pursuing something of interest or to maintain comfort. Essentially, boredom motivates us for the pursuit of a combination of various needs listed above. Loneliness and the need for companionship is a sort of boredom with oneself. The need for stimuli from other humans, not just solo activities. Angst is certainly an emotion associated with boredom. It is significant in the Schopenhauerean sense that it shows the vanity of existence- that mere being is not satisfying enough.

3) Contingent harms- the innumerable amounts of negative circumstances that befall a human by simply being an individual with a certain genetic and developmental propensity interacting with various environmental factors that may cause harm. With this understanding is the idea of luck or fortune. Some are more fortunate than others in the distribution of positive circumstances. People's constitutions and the environments can cause various amounts of harms in different distributions for different people. Regretful or bad decisions can also come into play which tangentially also have to do with fortune, but not quite the same.

4) Instrumentality- always becoming and never being. The absurd feeling one gets..the exhaustion of existence as there is no completion.. just more goals to pursue (see the 1 above) and time to fill because we are alive and there is no other choice. The world-weariness of seeing the same basic thing in different arrangements day in and day out.

5) Hope- the idea that any of the negatives of knowing one's instrumental nature, contingent harms, world-weariness, etc. will not be present in the future. It is the carrot and the stick. It keeps the goals in 1 always in sight. It is to try to override any feelings of world-weariness, instrumentality, or suffering to keep living. The delusion that permanence is possible, the delusion that we can be fully satisfied.

Yeah, I agree with that. That was part of what I was getting at. And I think most folks, as they age, learn how to find very small, subtle things interesting. Of course, babies and toddlers are typically like that, too, so a lot of people kind of grow out of it when they're kids but grow back into it when they're adults. — Terrapin Station

Thresholds for boredom may get higher, but this does not mean boredom does not go away. As time progresses, given nothing to do for extended periods of time (no books, no other people..just one's own self-talk), boredom ensues. Again, it's the default state for when there is nothing interesting to do for extended periods of time. What is interesting can be subjective and vary, that is not in dispute. I am also not disputing that some people can get bored more easily than others. After a certain time, eventually all people will get bored though, no matter what the thresholds are.

And can you prove this? Or can you even prove that humans have a "baseline mental state"? — Jeremiah

Proof with academic journals? Probably not. But this is to already have a position where anything but scientific evidence does not count for "proof". Certain physiological phenomena are obviously substantiated with empirical proof through scientific institutions and methodologies (physical, chemical, biological phenomena, etc.). Things like ethics, qualia, metaphysics, the human condition, meaning, aesthetics etc.. are not necessarily proved through science, though science can inform these areas of study. In other words, it may be necessary but not sufficient for a theory in these areas (but may not be necessary either per se).

If I am being honest, I am having a hard time remembering the last time I was genuinely bored, which would suggest to me that it is not my "default" position. But I can't judge the nature of all humans based on my single experience; for all I know I may be abnormal. — Jeremiah

Well, it may be a default position, but you simply haven't been idle for long. You may be sufficiently occupied with pursuing goals, being immersed in activities or simply your own thoughts.

Well, I have driven a car and that hardly makes me a mechanic. Likewise being bored does not make you a neuroscientist or a psychologist. I am sorry, but simply because you have a human brain, that does not mean you necessarily understand how it works. Your OP was very much opinion, and there is nothing wrong with opinions, but they should be supported by more substantial information. — Jeremiah

I don't need to know how a car works to know that without gas, it does not go. I don't need to know the physiological substrate to know what it feels to be at the default position. Knowing that a c-fiber firing in X cortical layer is correlated with the mental state of boredom, does not change the fact that I experience the mental state of boredom.

Just because it does not conflict that doesn't make it correct or accurate. If we accept what John Eastwood and Theodor Lipps describe there is a conflicting state of wants that was not addressed in your OP. This part "Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task" would need further validation; I simply don't accept it. And this part here "can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do" is at the very least incomplete; if we are accepting that boredom is a conflict of wants, or a conflict of a want and a lack of. — Jeremiah

Granted they did not discuss this, it is perplexing that this is not apparent as a given. If you have no goals/tasks/interesting things to do, indeed you will get bored. Should I devise a simple experiment? Ok, deprive yourself of activities that you find interesting for an extended period of time and see what happens. Now, people's tolerance with ruminating on their own thoughts may vary amongst people, but eventually boredom ensues.

In your article they say, " which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks." That says nothing about it being an emotion. You keep calling it an emotion, but you have not provided any supporting data for doing so. — Jeremiah

Ok, I'll accept that it's not an emotion. I was trying to communicate the phenomena, and if you want me to just call it something like an experience or mental state, I'm fine with that.. I can change the title "baseline mental state" and it would not change the main argument. However, calling it "opinions" about boredom is a bit odd, being that I can experience the mental state myself. Denying that a lack of stimulating things causes boredom, seems to me to deny what is a very basic origin of boredom simply to make a counter-argument that this is not written in some academic journal.

But, looking at the article which you requested I show forth as making the claim "legitimate", it does not conflict with my view. There is wanting to be immersed in something but not finding something that keeps your attention and is also interesting. The opposite of boredom would seem to be flow, where you are highly immersed and interested and time passes by quickly.

My more controversial claim, that it is a baseline mental state- and that this makes it more significant because it is the default mental state. Further, it can reveal the vanity of existence.

Schopenhauer said:
That human life must be a kind of mistake is sufficiently clear from the fact that man is a compound of needs, which are difficult to satisfy; moreover, if they are satisfied, all he is granted is a state of painlessness, in which he can only give himself up to boredom. This is a precise proof that existence in itself has no value, since boredom is merely the feeling of the emptiness of life. If, for instance, life, the longing for which constitutes our very being, had in itself any positive and real value, boredom could not exist; mere existence in itself would supply us with everything, and therefore satisfy us. But our existence would not be a joyous thing unless we were striving after something; distance and obstacles to be overcome then represent our aim as something that would satisfy us — an illusion which vanishes when our aim has been attained; or when we are engaged in something that is of a purely intellectual nature, when, in reality, we have retired from the world, so that we may observe it from the outside, like spectators at a theatre. Even sensual pleasure itself is nothing but a continual striving, which ceases directly its aim is attained. As soon as we are not engaged in one of these two ways, but thrown back on existence itself, we are convinced of the emptiness and worthlessness of it; and this it is we call boredom. That innate and ineradicable craving for what is out of the common proves how glad we are to have the natural and tedious course of things interrupted. Even the pomp and splendour of the rich in their stately castles is at bottom nothing but a futile attempt to escape the very essence of existence, misery.
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Emptiness of Existence

I don't see anything in there about the need to prove boredom exist. — Jeremiah

From http://www.livescience.com/23493-why-we-get-bored.html
The researchers, led by psychological scientist John Eastwood of York University in Ontario, Canada, define boredom as "an aversive state of wanting, but being unable, to engage in satisfying activity," which springs from failures in one of the brain's attention networks.

That seems to be a definition with an origin in there as well.. inability to engage in satisfying activity. Again, this has to do with attention, inability to focus, and lack of stimulating activity.. all basically what was mentioned or implicit in the OP. I don't see what you are trying to get at. It's a pretty common experience and we can write many paragraphs describing the psychological state and what causes it.. Being trapped in an airport but with not much that keeps our interest, repetitive acts, not having anything to do for long periods of time. It is the last one especially that I am interested in as this implies that at the end of the day, boredom is a baseline emotion- one that remains when everything else seems to be okay, but there is no clear goal and one is not immersed in anything in particular.

As far as boredom being baseline, that is controversial. As far as boredom being a psychological state, I wasn't aware that was controversial. Do you need me to provide academic journals to prove that boredom exists? As an aside, have you never experienced this?

But then it could still be a choice and not a necessity to exchange goods. But to wish the world had more scarcity just so you can get the pleasure of exchanging your goods for money is a bit odd.

Well that's not necessarily the case. You could be self-employed and working in something you like or care about for example. I think work is a necessity of life, and therefore I cannot even begin to imagine a world without work. Such a world would be hell for me. — Agustino

If you are self-employed and love what you do, could you do it without being paid for it? By work here, I mean getting a wage for labor. If that was taken care of, you can potentially do whatever you like doing and give it away or even sell it, if money still worked that way. But it would not be done out of necessity, simply out of the enjoyment of doing it.

What is it saying about the human condition if we must choose between two non-ideal states? To be "managed", told what to do, stressed out, and/or bored with repetition at a job setting, or be bored with a long stretch of leisure time?

Another comment I have is that, you seem to be assuming that everyone else is working and you are not, like unemployment. But what if EVERYONE did not need to go to work. That means more people to form social interactions with for all sorts of reasons.

You bring up something interesting in a post-work society. I'm going to bring that up as a topic.

I disagree that boredom is a baseline experience for humans. The baseline is "rest", unstressed quiet. There are many states of excitation, one of which is boredom. "Being bored" isn't being at rest -- its being irritated, stressed, oppressed, with monotony. Boredom isn't "at rest" -- it's a stress that seeks release. You've been at work, doing some fucking dull pointless activity all day, and are bored out of your mind. That is not a baseline status.

What it says about being and existence is that life is a mixed bag: some pleasure, some suffering--usually not in the preferred combination. In other words, live is a bitch and then we die. — Bitter Crank

Unstressed quiet, done long enough, leads to boredom.

Take away enough distractions, boredom will be there no doubt. There's only so much self-talk one can handle before one gets tired of oneself.

2. This loses its rhetorical force once it is clear that stress is not necessarily negative. It does not require habituation, and indeed the stress of novelty can be included. So you are reduced to saying that folks may enjoy life and want others to enjoy it. — unenlightened

The work that goes into living- once a life is started, it is perpetual unto death. This is a simple truth, but the implication is one which I've quoted before:

Schopenhauer said:
It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops; or, again, like a pole balanced on the tip of one’s finger; or like a planet, which would fall into its sun the moment it ceased to hurry forward on its way. Unrest is the mark of existence.
-Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism, On the Vanity of Existence

Why is it that we want to start this perpetual motion in the first place- not just of a robot or an unthinking thing, but of one that will feel the consequences of the motion, the burdens, the constant work involved in sustaining, maintaining, and entertaining.

Yes, this is rather what I thought. Rather than conceptualise stress as a particular psychological state, you seem to generalise it to include almost any sensation at all, hunger, fear, arousal, whatever. And with such a sense stress is indeed inescapable, since to be alive is to be responsive to the environment, and if any response is stress then life is stress.

But then I no longer agree that stress in this sense has any connection with distress, that is is inevitably negative or harmful. — unenlightened

I'd like to make a couple points to this.

1) At the least, "negative" stress, or distress, is not necessarily controllable. It can be managed under certain circumstances, but the circumstances and individual constitutions are so nuanced, one cannot say that any one form is the silver bullet to manage stress for all types of people under the various human experiences. Also, more importantly, an average day might bring more negative stresses than we usually account for, as often distress is associated with larger events.

2) Even just the stress of responding to environmental and internal pressures- why are we giving burdens, goals, needs, wants to individuals by procreating them in the first place? The alternative is to not give beings these things. Again, people may prefer stress and want to see others have the stresses that they are habituated to. They also downplay the distresses and the various constitutions and circumstances that go into everyday life, let alone larger stressful events.

At the least, we have to deal with life. There is no Platonic calm- aesthetics are experiences of perhaps an echo of what a Platonic calm is like, but it's more of a representation of the calm we are seeking. A brief reprieve amongst the tumult.

Well hang on. "Exposed to stress" is to my understanding a term of projection, as if stress were something in the world, rather something in oneself. — unenlightened

I say it like that not to reify stress as some tangible "thing" but to mark it out as a necessary component of being an organism. Organisms must endure stress to survive at the least, endure undue stress when overburdened, and seek out stressful situations to provide novelty and something to do otherwise. So it is exposing an organism to stress because it is a necessary part of being an organism.

But to cut to the chase, I would say that stress is not necessary to life. One can very well do without it. But I think you do not admit that possibility? — unenlightened

Correct, I do not think we can never have stress as it is indeed a necessity of being an organism. Perhaps one can try to avoid undue stress, but even this is hard due to forced cultural interactions of work and other people..and even the therapies that some people to ameliorate these initial stresses are stressful initially. In other words, waking life is almost always filled with some stress unless it is at rest which, though can be relaxed for a bit, if given too long to idling, will lead to acute boredom, and if taken to the extreme, profound boredom, which may be accompanied by feelings of anxiety.