In terms of axiology, being the science of value, you can find the predominantly expressed attitude of the earliest time of self-awareness as a highly valued state. Most beings express gratitude for being able to exist and enjoy their own existence.

Hell, there are even laws written about this.

In terms of axiology, being the science of value, you can find the predominantly expressed attitude of the earliest time of self-awareness as a highly valued state. Most beings express gratitude for being able to exist and enjoy their own existence. — Shawn

I mean, this is kind of circular. Being self-aware allows for gratitude in the first place. But also, it allows for so many other things, that to pick out gratitude alone would be a major selection bias. Certainly, self-awareness allows for one to have feelings (like gratitude) about self-awareness, but that's more accurate than the idea that the gratitude is necessary/automatic.

Well, I don't like labeling things as totalizing or brute in terms of facts, and I think you may have a point. Even with the high propensity for beings with self awareness to feel grateful sometimes changes after learning and the growth period ends.

It is perplexing that children just feel happy or not depressed most of the time; and yet such feelings subside as they grow up... Food for thought.

Well, I don't like labeling things as totalizing or brute in terms of facts, and I think you may have a point. Even with the high propensity for beings with self awareness to feel grateful sometimes changes after learning and the growth period end.

It is perplexing that children just feel happy or not depressed most of the time; and yet such feelings subside as they grow up... Food for thought. — Shawn

Funny thing is, children are usually deemed not fully "self-aware", so that might be even more of a case against the initial claim.

But I'd like to take this down a path that I think there is a case that practical reasoning leads to various conclusions if one considers the fact of self-awareness. I'm wondering if others would get there too though. I'm wondering what side-trails people would take to deviate from the conclusions that it seems to inevitably lead to. The dialectic only leads one way, but then I want to know the psychological biases that lead the dialectic in a different direction from where the current is actually flowing.

But I'd like to take this down a path that I think there is a case that practical reasoning leads to various conclusions if one considers the fact of self-awareness. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well the trodden path is usually, according to Schopenhauer, that of the nature of desire and how it causes us harm.

Other paths include life affirmations and even the vanity of existence.

Yes, well the trodden path is usually, according to Schopenhauer, that of the nature of desire and how it causes us harm.

Other paths include life affirmations and even the vanity of existence. — Shawn

:up:

Very good. But I want to actually see the deviations in action. You mentioned gratitude. There's an example. I want to see the the stones trying to divert the stream of the conclusion. Keep them coming. A compendium of stones.

There's also the Will. I think that's a pregnant topic which I haven't seen you often talking about. I made a shot in the dark about how wild nature is and how we struggle with our own inner instinct.

There's also the poor fawn in the burning forest that experienced what some might call gratuitous harm.

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact?
That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

What does existential self-awareness actually consist of? Does a recognition of mortality accompany it? When I first came to this realisation as a child my primary reaction was, why did I have to be born? In reversing the usual cliché about such matters, I often thought to myself that it might be bad luck to be born - to have to go through the laborious process of learning, growing, belonging (to a culture you dislike), experiencing loss, decline and ultimately death. It's not easy to identify an inherent benefit attached to any of this. But there's a lot of noise called philosophy and religion which seeks to help us to manage our situation.

There's also the Will. I think that's a pregnant topic which I haven't seen you often talking about. I made a shot in the dark about how wild nature is and how we struggle with our own inner instinct.

There's also the poor fawn in the burning forest that experienced what some might call gratuitous harm. — Shawn

So using the OP's point as a starting point, there is the "fact" that some animals are "self-aware". There is an indication that this leads to a certain set of conclusion, like an inevitable stream that can only be temporarily diverted, but never really moved from its final destination.

Indeed, Will is something to consider for "self-awareness". Will is part of the inevitability of the stream. There are diversions that try to make it seem like the conclusion is not inevitable, but these diversions are more psychological biases detracting from the logic of the dialectic of the fact of self-awareness.

What does existential self-awareness actually consist of? Does a recognition of mortality accompany it? When I first came to this realisation as a child my primary reaction was, why did I have to be born? In reversing the usual cliché about such matters, I often thought to myself that it might be bad luck to be born - to have to go through the laborious process of learning, growing, belonging (to a culture you dislike), experiencing loss, decline and ultimately death. It's not easy to identify an inherent benefit attached to any of this. — Tom Storm

:up: You've identified (informally, through example), the inevitable conclusion. And you even recognized some underlying factors for the diversions:

But there's a lot of noise called philosophy and religion which seeks to help us to manage our situation. — Tom Storm

The World as Will can lead to absurdity. With so much to say one sometimes expresses life affirmations.

Yet, every act or deviation from the nature of the Will could be perceived as ignorance of a greater truth.

Yet, every act or deviation from the nature of the Will could be perceived as ignorance of a greater truth. — Shawn

:up: One of the hugest stones is the pursuit of X.. (love is a big one...but insert any lofty goal). Schopenhauer identified it as variations of Will fooling the hapless manifestation. But we need not take Will literally as a metaphysic for the metaphor to be true.

But it is the nature of this fooling that we should explore for biases.

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

This is the kind of question that only a species of animals that has the ability to conceptually know that it exists would ask or answer. What would be the value of a response from that kind of animal?

This is the kind of question that only a species of animals that has the ability to conceptually know that it exists would ask or answer. What would be the value of a response from that kind of animal? — T Clark

I mean that's the point. The kind of species of animal with self-awareness of existence cannot but help but know this. And clearly I'm indicating that there is something entailed with this fact.

But we need not take Will literally as a metaphysic for the metaphor to be true. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well this is where Schopenhauer left this aspect out of the discussion about the axiology of the World itself. I believe that this aspect left out of the discussion about the nature of the Will is important to have.

Yes, well this is where Schopenhauer left this aspect out of the discussion about the axiology of the World itself. I believe that this aspect left out of the discussion about the nature of the Will is important to have. — Shawn

You'd have to explain more for me to respond to what you are actually saying.

You'd have to explain more for me to respond to what you are actually saying. — schopenhauer1

According to Arthur Schopenhauer, the concept of a creator, particularly a personal God, is essentially non-existent; he viewed the driving force behind the universe as a blind, aimless "Will" which does not correspond to any conscious or intentional creator, effectively negating the idea of a traditional God figure.

So, I believe that without a driving force guiding the universe apart from the Will, which determines how things happen, then my concern is over how to find happiness in a world where the Will is all encompassing. With regard to the totalizing nature of the Will, what are your thoughts about it?

There's also the poor fawn in the burning forest that experienced what some might call gratuitous harm. — Shawn

It's all about justice and balance in this best of all possible worlds.

Bambi must burn in order for the spiritual balance of the forest to be maintained. Contrary to sentimentalists, Bambi burned with equanimity because he understood the necessity of his sacrifice. His wise father, the Great Prince of the Forest, had explained it to him. Bambi's bit-part nameless mother also experienced natural sacrificial immolation after Bambi was weaned. She was bitter and resentful about the whole deal. Her last words were "Fucking patriarchy!". Bambi's father didn't have to burn because his doe and fawning son fulfilled all of his debts--a good thing because he was the bearer of the Wisdom of the Forest.

It all worked out for the existential good of all.

According to Arthur Schopenhauer, the concept of a creator, particularly a personal God, is essentially non-existent; he viewed the driving force behind the universe as a blind, aimless "Will" which does not correspond to any conscious or intentional creator, effectively negating the idea of a traditional God figure.

So, I believe that without a driving force guiding the universe apart from the Will, which determines how things happen, then my concern is over how to find happiness in a world where the Will is all encompassing. With regard to the totalizing nature of the Will, what are your thoughts about it? — Shawn

Ok, so you are focusing on Schopenhauer's Will, and not the idea that it can just be a metaphor, got it. I wasn't sure. As for the notion of the Will itself, I think it can simply be a metaphor as if we are "driven by an aimless "Will". As the fact of a metaphysical Will and the practicality of living as a conscious, and self-aware being is basically identical. That is to say, the reality of Will as some metaphysical entity at play, need not even have to be the case for Schopenhauer's conclusions about how life (from the perspective of a subject/lifeform) operates.

So we are a lifeform that is self-aware of its existence. Consciousness, even without self-awareness, is pulled along by some drives- hunger, boredom, mating, etc. Self-consciousness brings with it a negative element to it as well (as in "lacking" something). That is to say, we have hunger- lack satiation or the stimulation of the senses in the form of food. In a more general sense, we lack a general satiation of the mind- a profound angst or boredom. We lack social stimulation in the form of loneliness and being lovelorn.

But even all this, which we might impute as the nature of Will (even as just a metaphor), is a contributing factor for a more general notion of Suffering. Schopenhauer, agreeing with various ancient wisdoms, thought that Suffering (capital "S") is the only way that this Will can be characterized. That is to say, this "lack" is equivalent to a profound form of Suffering. Playing into Platonic notions of completeness (in the Forms), and even more profoundly in Buddhist/Hindu notions of "Moksha/Nirvana", there is a sort of incompleteness to the animal that causes unfulfilled/neverending needs. But the cruel part is the "fooling" aspect. As the human animal, unlike mere instinct or simpler forms of experience that other animals exhibit, is that we make "goals" for ourselves. And those goals often are thwarted, and we are disappointed, or when they are reached, they are but temporary, and thus "the vanity" of Ecclesiastes. And throughout all this will-thwarting-temporary satiation, we have the anxieties and physical ailments of social and physical harms. We are self-aware, we know this. Yet what biases delude us?

The ever pursuit of stability (work/home). The ever pursuit of social bonds (love, relationships, friendships, family), and all sorts of self-limiting things to focus the mind (hobbies, interests, studies, and other toys and imaginative wonderings). But if Schopenhauer is right, these are temporary, not satiating, delusionary, and often lead to more pain. But even more tragic, is it prevents someone from understanding this very nature of Will which is so ever-present in the dialectic of self-awareness of existence itself. Life itself should not be imposed.

THAT IN FACT, SELF-AWARENESS ITSELF LED TO THE ANXIETIES THAT LED TO THE IMPOSITION OF MORE SELF-AWARENESS :scream:

Contrary to sentimentalists, Bambi burned with equanimity because he understood the necessity of his sacrifice. — BC

:lol:

The morbid justifications of the Pollyannas...

Bambi's bit-part nameless mother also experienced natural sacrificial immolation after Bambi was weaned. She was bitter and resentful about the whole deal. Her last words were "Fucking patriarchy!". Bambi's father didn't have to burn because his doe and fawning son fulfilled all of his debts--a good thing because he was the bearer of the Wisdom of the Forest.

It all worked out for the existential good of all. — BC

Echoes of Pangloss?

According to Arthur Schopenhauer, the concept of a creator, particularly a personal God, is essentially non-existent; he viewed the driving force behind the universe as a blind, aimless "Will" which does not correspond to any conscious or intentional creator, effectively negating the idea of a traditional God figure. — Shawn

An actual "personal God" may well not exist, but the CONCEPT of a creator and personal God can not be denied. How believable and/or compelling is Schopenhauer's blind and aimless "will"? It seems like one could dismiss this "blind aimless will" as easily as a personal creator. Isn't Schopenhauer just swapping out one invisible entity for another?

I'd find Schopenhauer's cold wind of will sweeping across the cosmos more convincing if the wind was God. God doesn't have to be warm, fuzzy, loving, up close and personal or personable. God could be distant, cold, hard edged, indifferent, not lovable and still be God and creator. Just between you, me, and the fencepost I rather think God is closer to being a cold wind than a god keeping watch over sparrows and dandelions,

In my humble self-aware opinion, I'm more happy, more grateful, and more content now than I have been in many decades. Perhaps that's because the game is just about over for me (but not quite yet) and there's now little to lose?

How believable and/or compelling is Schopenhauer's blind and aimless "will"? It seems like one could dismiss this "blind aimless will" as easily as a personal creator. Isn't Schopenhauer just swapping out one invisible entity for another? — BC

Which is why I said this in reply to Shawn:

As for the notion of the Will itself, I think it can simply be a metaphor as if we are "driven by an aimless "Will". As the fact of a metaphysical Will and the practicality of living as a conscious, and self-aware being is basically identical. That is to say, the reality of Will as some metaphysical entity at play, need not even have to be the case for Schopenhauer's conclusions about how life (from the perspective of a subject/lifeform) operates.

So we are a lifeform that is self-aware of its existence. Consciousness, even without self-awareness, is pulled along by some drives- hunger, boredom, mating, etc. Self-consciousness brings with it a negative element to it as well (as in "lacking" something). That is to say, we have hunger- lack satiation or the stimulation of the senses in the form of food. In a more general sense, we lack a general satiation of the mind- a profound angst or boredom. We lack social stimulation in the form of loneliness and being lovelorn. — schopenhauer1

I'd find Schopenhauer's cold wind of will sweeping across the cosmos more convincing if the wind was God. God doesn't have to be warm, fuzzy, loving, up close and personal or personable. God could be distant, cold, hard edged, indifferent, not lovable and still be God and creator. Just between you, me, and the fencepost I rather think God is closer to being a cold wind than a god keeping watch over sparrows and dandelions, — BC

If the ancient Israelites were correct, and we are reflection of God, then God is also a reflection of us. That gives me a cold shiver indeed! I think things were muddled when medieval philosophizing tried to misconstrue God as all-powerful/all-loving/all-good, etc. Rather, the one from the Bible is capricious YET oddly goal-driven, needs things to happen to be satisfied. This God is rather not necessarily all-X, but rather a SUPER version of the human. The human traits MAGNIFIED into (monstrously) awe-filled forms.

Echoes of Pangloss — schopenhauer1

No, I don't think this is the best of all possible worlds -- we live in one of the rest of all possible worlds. Best? Not so much,

I felt compelled to scribble a little nonsense about fawns burning in the forest. It's an example of the Will to Nonsense.

I felt compelled to scribble a little nonsense about fawns burning in the forest. It's an example of the Will to Nonsense. — BC

That's not entirely true in the animal that is SELF-AWARE OF EXISTENCE. Is there not something in this understanding that is quite clear and leads to conclusions, and not simply a fact? The fact that we know Bambi can burn means something?

I felt compelled to scribble a little nonsense about fawns burning in the forest. It's an example of the Will to Nonsense. — BC

This is said in regards to "a blind aimless will", I assume?

Well, if Bambi is incapable of being self-aware, and we really go down this path of how humans are so much more self-aware, then isn't there at some point a need to invoke morality about how, if not nature itself, then human nature affects our self-awareness and deeds and acts we do?

It's been a VERY LONG TIME since I saw Bambi, if I ever did. I did have a little picture book about Bambi. My impression of Bambi is that it is a cloying saccharine story. A couple of years ago the New Yorker ran a piece, "“Bambi” Is Even Bleaker Than You Thought.

The film in question is, of course, the 1942 Walt Disney classic “Bambi.” Perhaps more than any other movie made for children, it is remembered chiefly for its moments of terror: not only the killing of the hero’s mother but the forest fire that threatens all the main characters with annihilation. Stephen King called “Bambi” the first horror movie he ever saw, and Pauline Kael, the longtime film critic for this magazine, claimed that she had never known children to be as frightened by supposedly scary grownup movies as they were by “Bambi.”

Clearly my memory has been manipulated by unknown agents!

The 1942 movie is based on a 1922 novel, Bambi: A Life in the Woods by the Austrian Felix Salten. (He often hunted deer.) The book is grimmer still, I hear.

The fact that we know Bambi can burn means something? — schopenhauer1

Yes. But.

I was being silly and didn't intend to subject Bambi to the further suffering of existential analysis. I also don't want to suffer by being forced to think more deeply about Bambi. In the last five minutes I've tripled the size of the Bambi case file, and most of the New Yorker article remains to be read.

Yes. But.

I was being silly and didn't intend to subject Bambi to the further suffering of existential analysis. I also don't want to suffer by being forced to think more deeply about Bambi. In the last five minutes I've tripled the size of the Bambi case file, and most of the New Yorker article remains to be read. — BC

I know you were being ironic and silly. But even this can be instructive to my point. Please do add more, maybe not about the plight of Bambi, but the question at hand:

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact?
That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Speaking of grim topics, the facts of life about human nature are pretty dark, revealing their...

Isn't there a button that just stops this Bambi discussion?

It's important to note that axiology is a branch of ethics regarding the degree of good or evil.

It's important to note that axiology is a branch of ethics regarding the degree of good or evil. — Shawn

I'm going by this definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory

That is to say, I see ethics as a type of value, not the other way around. Axiology > Ethics.

Aesthetics, economic value, love, and ethics are axiological in nature.