Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?

schopenhauer1

At the end of the day, it is our material survival and comfort that is the backdrop. I write this sitting in a chair in a structure connected through electricity and water and other utilities to the city on network, etc.

In order to sustain a way of life we must produce and consume in certain ways for certain sectors. Yet I can criticize, examine, evaluate, and complain about this very situation. Philosopher, Peter WesselZapffe had one of the greatest insights. As Wiki puts it:

Zapffe views the human condition as tragically overdeveloped, calling it "a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature."[1] Zapffe viewed the world as beyond humanity's need for meaning, unable to provide any of the answers to the fundamental existential questions.

The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.
— Peter Wessel Zapffe, The Last Messiah[1]

................
After placing the source of anguish in human intellect, Zapffe then sought as to why humanity simply didn't just perish. He concluded humanity "performs, to extend a settled phrase, a more or less self-conscious repression of its damaging surplus of consciousness" and that this was "a requirement of social adaptability and of everything commonly referred to as healthy and normal living." — The Last Messiah Wikip

We must contend with the everydayness of everyday. The chores of living a mode of life in an economic way of life. We must produce and consume, but we cannot help but judge that which we produce or consume. Other animals get the sweet bliss of JUST doing what it needs to get by. We cannot. Our very evolutionary path of cultural evolution and various cognitive tools has created the exaptation of being "self-aware" of how, why, and if we even want to survive (or survive the way we do). This gives us the extra burden of having to find motivations both extrinsically and intrinsically.

Extrinsically we find motivation when we are enculturated into a society with various tools, and these tools are denied us unless we decide to do the bidding of X organization/hierarchy.

Intrinsically, we are motivated by, once agreeing to this system of bidding, "getting the work done to one's own or other's satisfaction".. All of this is simply story making we tell ourselves to get the shit done that we need to.

All things eventually go back to the first principles of how to survive as a society.

Marx tried to find some sort of "authenticity" in work. I don't think it can be had. He had wrong notions that people are intrinsically motivated by a "species-essence" if freed from constraints. Nope. Our nature, as shaped by evolution, did not give us such a binary mechanism of motivation. Our freedom precludes this. There is no escape in a more authentic style of work. Only more ways to motivate.. whether through fear or satisfaction. It all comes down to the fact that first principles are always of survival, and in humans that is economics (not the abstract study of, but the production and consumption aspect of everyday life). Yet here we are, able to evaluate, criticize and freely know we must do these things, even if we would not otherwise want to. We have to put on self-constraints of motivation to pretend that this matters most.. because it does.

180 Proof

We must produce and consume, but we cannot help but judge that which we produce or consume. Other animals get the sweet bliss of JUST doing what it needs to get by. We cannot. — schopenhauer1

For some human animals this (metacognitive curse) is the case; for the rest (most), however, they live like "other animals ... doing what it needs to get by" – thus, they are masses (the "m" is silent), euphemistically called "the flock" by their priests. "Circum et panem!" (e.g. reality tv, social media, video games, shock-jock radio, online gambling-porn-shopping, etc).

Joshs

. In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground. — schopenhauer1

It all comes down to the fact that first principles are always of survival, and in humans that is economics (not the abstract study of, but the production and consumption aspect of everyday life). — schopenhauer1

Human intelligence isn’t just one peculiar (and questionable) mutation among others, like some antler. It is the quintessential expression of the directionality of function of living systems. The basis of life is not static survival , it is diversification. Intelligence is acceleration of the evolutionary process of diversification.

schopenhauer1

↪180 Proof

Yes, I believe both Zapffe and Sartre had similar takes to this phenomenon of "the masses".

Zapffe:
In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[4]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[4] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[4] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[4] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.

Sartre said:

Those who hide from this total freedom, in a guise of solemnity or with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards. Others, who try to show that their existence is necessary, when it is merely an accident of the appearance of the human race on earth – I shall call scum. But neither cowards nor scum can be identified except upon the plane of strict authenticity. Thus, although the content of morality is variable, a certain form of this morality is universal. Kant declared that freedom is a will both to itself and to the freedom of others. Agreed: but he thinks that the formal and the universal suffice for the constitution of a morality. We think, on the contrary, that principles that are too abstract break down when we come to defining action. To take once again the case of that student; by what authority, in the name of what golden rule of morality, do you think he could have decided, in perfect peace of mind, either to abandon his mother or to remain with her? There are no means of judging. The content is always concrete, and therefore unpredictable; it has always to be invented. The one thing that counts, is to know whether the invention is made in the name of freedom. — Existentialism is Humanism

schopenhauer1

Human intelligence isn’t just one peculiar (and questionable) mutation among others, like some antler. — Joshs

Do you really think he meant literally that the whole of human self-reflection is one mutation, or is being metaphorical to what the outcome is like? At least be charitable.

Joshs

↪schopenhauer1

Do you really think he meant literally that the whole of human self-reflection is one mutation, or is being metaphorical to what the outcome is like? At least be charitable. — schopenhauer1

The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by over-evolving one ability is not confined to humankind. — schopenhauer1

Which ability is he claiming has been over-developed? Self-reflection? I don’t think that is its own special category of thinking. All human experience is in some sense already self-reflective simply in orienting itself toward the world. He is under the illusion that by somehow suppressing this ‘faculty’ one can be less unhappy. But to eliminate self-reflection is to eliminate thought.

schopenhauer1

Which ability is he claiming has been over-developed? — Joshs

You can read the whole article, but our ability for self-reflection is basically how I'd sum it up. As it applies to the subject of production, it is pretty clear.. "I have a task to do.. I do this task because of an outcome. That outcome is me getting rewarded with the means to consume goods and services. If I don't do a satisfactory enough job, I won't get this reward. I rather not do this at the moment, but I must. If I don't, long-term worse-off things are likely. etc. et al".

So please don't take things too pedantically.. Like "Oooh what does "self-reflection" really mean?" or even get caught up with, "Just change jobs.." If you get my drift, you get my drift.. if you drift off into pedantic land, then you have missed the mark. Course correct if you want to stay on topic to the conversation at hand.

Rocco Rosano

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→. et al,

(COMMENT)

Production and Consumption are basic factors that drive the economics of a given system → but as we apply Economics today, the VeryFirst Principle in Economics is that: Every choice has an opportunity cost.

We evaluate our continued existence (humanity) as having an opportunity cost.

The "Production Possibilities Frontier" (PPF) is a comparative analysis and prediction of two products competing for the same resource.

The two Goods or Services create consumption budget constraints that set the condition for the market. It is the continuing struggle over the cost of the resources that mark the production curve.

Each decision made concerning the available production represents the "opportunity costs" that drive the budget constraints.

(´ ∑ Ω )

Every choice has an "opportunity cost" associated with it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Joshs

↪schopenhauer1

So please don't take things too pedantically.. Like "Oooh what does "self-reflection" really mean?" — schopenhauer1

Whatever he means by it , he clearly means to separate off some specific intelllectual capacity of thinking from others, and I argue that he is mistaken here and is succumbing to a Romantic illusion about the bliss of ignorance or some such thing, and the demonizing of intelllectualism and self-awareness, as if one could be ‘excessive’ in these processes of thinking, as if the child is happier than the adult , the primitive happier than the modern, the animal happier than the human.

schopenhauer1

↪Rocco Rosano

Indeed, this is good Economics 101, but not quite how I am using "economics".. I mean more "economic activities" hence why I put in parenthesis (production/consumption).

Our mode of survival is via economic factors like production and consumption. I don't necessarily mean the academic study of opportunity costs and marginal changes in demand and supply curves.

schopenhauer1

Whatever he means by it , he clearly means to separate off some specific intelllectual capacity of thinking from others, and I argue that he is mistaken here and is succumbing to a Romantic illusion about the bliss of ignorance or some such thing — Joshs

Then you are focusing on the wrong thing then, and indeed are drifting to pedantic land and thus missing the bigger theme.

as if one could be ‘excessive’ in these processes of thinking, as if the child is happier than the adult , the primitive happier than the modern, the animal happier than the human. — Joshs

Not quite. You are focusing on the wrong parts here. Stop being so literal about his metaphor. There is a cognitive aspect of humans (he never specified what mechanisms or how they operate or even tried to in those quotes), and this allows for us to self-reflect. It can be through many means.. we have complex language skills, recursive thinking, or if you don't like that whatever "fits" this unique cognitive piece.. But what it allows for is this difference that he is explaining.. One in which we don't just "survive" but "survive" through self-reflective means.. In other words, I can protest existence and starve myself to death if I REALLY wanted it.. No animal is ever "protesting existence".. They may commit suicide out of instinct or something of this nature, but not out of EXISTENTIAL reasons. And once you get to that point, let's start chatting from there.. If we are going to get mired in the mechanisms, then we haven't even started the conversation yet.

Bird-Up

our ability for self-reflection is basically how I'd sum it up — schopenhauer1

I would agree that this is the fundamental flaw of modern man. Humans were given a will to survive, but not an explanation of why they needed to survive. A fear of death and the desire to consume other lifeforms implies that our life is somehow valuable among all others. That was perfectly fine in the early days of human existence; when we never questioned the notion.

With the invention of abstract thought, humans could now ask:

"Who am I?"
"Where am I?"
"Why am I?"

The more we learn about our existence, the less we can justify our egomaniac's will to survive. The individual is missing from the objective world. We can see that there are 110 trillion mosquitos, but we have trouble explaining why there needs to be 110 trillion plus one. Why does the Earth's most-recent mosquito need to devote so much energy towards survival? Would anyone notice if that mosquito was missing?

We broke our primal urge to survive when we questioned it for the first time. What remained afterwards was a collection of excuses; some more useful than others. But we have yet to prove that any one of those excuses justifies our existence. If we had, there wouldn't still be such a heated debate about the topic.

as to why humanity simply didn't just perish — The Last Messiah Wikip

All who truly saw this flaw have perished. More who see it will die tomorrow. We are merely the survivors of this realization; each with our own unique set of excuses and distractions that keep us going. Each with our own delusion. Do the dead pity us?

Our ridiculous modern needs serve as a crutch for what was lost. It's hard to remember our dilemma when we are knee-deep in self-satisfaction. But nobody ever chose to be born. You could say we have been blackmailed into our modern needs. The patient needs to stay sedated or he will start attacking the nurses when he wakes up. We are stuck in it now. More sedation will always be useful to our cause. The next unnecessary thing you sell me will become vital to my survival.

Rocco Rosano

RE: Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?
SUBTOPIC: Production and Consumption
⁜→ schopenhauer, et al,

It does not matter if you are studying ECON 101 or ECON 501, the First Principles in Econ hold just as true as the First Principles in the cornerstone sciences. They simply do not change (with any regularity).

↪schopenhauer1

(COMMENT)

What I think you are exploring is the stimulation of manufacturing and commerce, which are made more available through monetary manipulation, the availability of credit, and interest rates.

Yes, of course, there will be common threads that run through the fabric of Economic Programs from the very basic to the most advanced. And you can entire libraries on the Economics of this, that and the other things. But enlist other forms of mathematics, Economics can very accurately describe the triggers leading up to major significant events. It can very accurately outline the temporal incidents that lead to a crash, major collapses, and bubble bursts (just to name a few), but it is not like tools that provide automatic braking. It does not render a sufficient warning relative to future adverse events. (Just to name a few.)

Production and manufacturing Sink Holes: One of the biggest examples of this is the problem of outsourcing manufacturing jobs. It has become a national security issue. Probably ≈ 40% - 50% of the parts in your computers are manufactured outside the US. And while the Major US Transnational Corporations will be quick to point out that these corporations do not owe Americans a job, As high tech as our electronics in cars, planes, trains, and computing tools, should overseas Pacific Rim Nations want to put the squeeze on the US, all they have to do is withhold critical parts.

Well, I'll shut up now and move back to the shadows.

Most Respectfully,
R

schopenhauer1

We broke our primal urge to survive when we questioned it for the first time. What remained afterwards was a collection of excuses; some more useful than others. But we have yet to prove that any one of those excuses justifies our existence. If we had, there wouldn't still be such a heated debate about the topic. — Bird-Up

Well-stated. But even more, the inefficiency in survival this created.. We all know evolution is a clunky blind designer. Imagine if we did what we could do but with no capacity for self-reflection? For example, imagine you can do any task and not have thoughts like, "I wish I could do something else...".. WITHOUT massive changes in "mindset" or buying into some slogan, or philosophy, or finding some other motivation.. You just "did".. But that is not how humans work.. It comes with the package of, "I'm doing this, but I don't necessarily want to, but I have to, but I must, but I find this fulfilling right, I need a paycheck right, what else is there for me to do right?..." What an odd way of "surviving". It isn't just.. "See rabbit, hunt rabbit eat rabbit, share rabbit with pack in hierarchical fashion" as many carnivorous animals do.

All who truly saw this flaw have perished. More who see it will die tomorrow. We are merely the survivors of this realization; each with our own unique set of excuses and distractions that keep us going. Each with our own delusion. Do the dead pity us? — Bird-Up

Precisely.. And it is inauthentic to have people say the default mode is, "Well why don't you stop complaining and just WORK mothafucka!!!".. Because THAT TOO is just a continued preference...an attitude of many one can take and one does take based on a number of factors, but ones that can be chosen...

In Zapffe's model it is:

Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[4] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[4] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.

schopenhauer1

It does not matter if you are studying ECON 101 or ECON 501, the First Principles in Econ hold just as true as the First Principles in the cornerstone sciences. They simply do not change (with any regularity). — Rocco Rosano

But I am talking about economics as a lived thing.. more of the Phenomenology of Work.

schopenhauer1

Indeed, I think I'm right.. Our own needs/wants and thus the economic way-of-life of supply and demand are First Principles above and beyond anything else.. Priorities first is our ways-of-survival.. all other things are dancing on top of this substrate. Its nauseating to think about. It means that whatever we truly cherish or think is important is subsumed by this behemoth of a phenomenon. Like the dark gods of some Lovecraftian novel under the substrate of what we think going on. It is simply subsumed in the supply-demand behemoth.

All is economics.

Is Economics (production/consumption) First Principles?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions