I just mean that no one really knows why they live life every day. So when confronted with the question, people just come up with platitudes; and the results are no different on TPF either.

I wake up every morning and kiss my wife because the alarm goes off and hope I can get through my shower before my daughter wakes up.

Each morning I dress her and we talk about the day before and what's she's going to do today. That's my first bright point of the day. We have breakfast and then she waves goodbye when I leave the backyard. This week she doesn't want me to go to work which is both the sweetest thing in the world and heartbreaking. When thinking about dying I don't want her to feel the pain of missing me so I've decided to live forever.

Before coming home I'm already happy with the expectation of seeing my wife and daughter. I usually put her to bed as well; brushing teeth is a struggle but then we go through the day again and what she'll do tomorrow. Finally, I read her a story and spend some quality time with my wife.

If my daughter and wife were the only thing going for me it would be enough.

↪charleton
What I take to be your self-portrait is my favorite. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
9 hours ago ReplyShareFlag — dog

Did you mean this one?
https://www.artfinder.com/product/the-telos-of-all/#/

A dog will provide you with a reason to get out of bed every morning. It will get off the bed and stand beside you and whimper softly. Then whine louder. Then poke you with its nose. Then poke harder. Then bark once, loudly. Repeat. You WILL get up because its bladder is full and its stomach is empty, an intolerable situation. It will do this every day throughout its long life. — Bitter Crank

I just got home. My dog ran round in circles at the sight of me; grabbed her plastic squeeky pig and teased me to try to take it off her; after a tussle she rolled into her back and juggled the pig and (threw it) propelled it in the the air; I then stroked her tummy with my foot as I sat to answer my emails; then she tried to jump up pushing the macbook aside sniffing my clothes for microscopic particles of food; finding none she pushed her armpits into my face; a sure sign of wanting a pee.
After letting here out the back for a pee she expectantly looked for a few kibble as a reward - the look is unmistakable.

Boffy (the Boffin), for that is her name, has learned the word for her favourite treat; a deep fried pig's ear. Nothing excites her more. It is impossible to use the phrase pig's ear without her getting manically excited.
Hoping to avoid such excitement we have decided to replace the phrase with "P. E.".
She now gets ridiculously excited when she hears "P. E.", so much so that we now have to call it "The Aural Organ of a Swine".
So having learned the phrase, and then how to spell the initials; how much longer will it take before her knowledge of scientific language allows her to break the code???

(I wonder if 'full of shit' has the same resonance outside the states.) — dog

During a period of international conflict having something to do with some guy named Napoleon, A Hapsburg minister referred to a French minister as "a sock full of shit". So, from that I take it that "full of shit" probably has resonance outside the states.

That link didn't work for me, but it was a profile image for a site connected to the links you provided. It was a light brown color.

The self that gives reasons does seem like a rider on a horse with a mind of its own. If we find ourselves in a reflective mode, we can reach into the fog of our minds for words. 'I like this. I like that. Here's a short term project. Here's a long term project.'

When immersed in a project, we don't see it from the outside as a project. Such is my view. But philosophy or what-you-may-call-it is the project of (among other things) making life's projects explicit as projects. I'm tempted to argue for a 'nihilistic'/negative 'violence' at the heart of critical thinking.

It's from the zoomed-out perspective that the long-range emptiness of all projects appears. We look like clever animals who woke up to our eerie situation. Is life good or bad? Every mood has its own philosophy. In good moods the awake-to-nullity thinking type can speak of the fascinating show of its mysterious origin. In bad moods, he speaks of the nightmare from nowhere that at least will subside into the blackness from which it came.

It's from the zoomed-out perspective that the long-range emptiness of all projects appears. We look like clever animals who woke up to our eerie situation. Is life good or bad? Every mood has its own philosophy. In good moods the awake-to-nullity thinking type can speak of the fascinating show of its mysterious origin. In bad moods, he speaks of the nightmare from nowhere that at least will subside into the blackness from which it came. — dog

This long-range emptiness to all projects I call "instrumentality". It is instrumental in that we pursue but with no final satisfaction to any particular goal, just a general striving that underlies our linguistic-conceptual minds. Conceptually we can break this general Will or Striving into three basic categories of motivation: survival (in a cultural and/or economic context), seeking comfort/maintenance (e.g. you clean your house, you brush your teeth, you make your bed, etc. etc.), fleeing boredom (e.g. you get lonely, you pursue a hobby, you make art, you take a walk, etc. etc). All the most complex goals/technologies/outputs come from a combination of those three underlying motivations. However, these motivations are simply conceptual breakdowns of our originary Striving/Will that manifests from within us in the first place. It is an instrumental moving-forward-but-for-no-reason. All goals are subsumed by the simple sheer need in our waking daily lives for striving/willing.

So yes, we slap on a label after-the-fact for what we are doing it for. The problem is, as you indicated, that we are an existential creature. Whereas other animals may have motivations of survival (and perhaps maintenance/boredom for higher level animals), they are not self-reflective to our degree. We are the animals that know that we simply live to live to live. Our conceptual minds turn in on ourselves and there is no easy way out by slapping a label on why we do anything. We simply keep the continual striving for survival/maintenance/boredom-avoidance going to the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so on and so on and so on. Meanwhile, we are plagued by the contingencies of our circumstances- mental/physical conditions, uncomfortable circumstances, tragedies, and what not.

Hence I categorize suffering into two main camps- structural suffering and contingent suffering.

Structural suffering is the instrumental nature of existence- the striving that is never satisfied, the motivations of want/desire (survival/comfort/maintenance/boredom) that lead to the repetitious Sisyphean aspect of existence (yet another day of survival, comfort seeking, boredom fleeing).

Contingent suffering is the circumstances which can be different for each person is identified with classical notions of suffering in the West (i.e. circumstances of physical/mental pain, circumstances of negative situations, etc. etc.).

The classical retort is to minimize one's purview such that you get "caught up" in something. Thus the bigger picture of existential issues will be ignored/suppressed. Thus, analyzing a spreadsheet for 8 hours, or figuring out an engineering differential equation, or writing a paper on the philosophy of biology, will keep one's mind on intra-worldly affairs and not on the global situation of our existential place. Thus, just go play a video game, just go read that book on evolution, networks, form and function, language, and logic, write that paper on biophysics, or just go knit a pair of socks.

@Bitter Crank You may want to join in with the usual critiques ;).

This is the part I like the best:

The classical retort is to minimize one's purview such that you get "caught up" in something. Thus the bigger picture of existential issues will be ignored/suppressed. Thus, analyzing a spreadsheet for 8 hours, or figuring out an engineering differential equation, or writing a paper on the philosophy of biology, will keep one's mind on intra-worldly affairs and not on the global situation of our existential place. Thus, just go play a video game, just go read that book on evolution, networks, form and function, language, and logic, write that paper on biophysics, or just go knit a pair of socks. — schopenhauer1

What you call the classical retort is successful as far as it goes. While we're engrossed, we forget our absurdity.

Here's something I've been thinking about. In general being future oriented is associated with virtue. Work hard now for greater reward later. Work out and have a great body for the beach. Study hard and end up with a creative and/or high paying career. Save money and don't throw money away on interest by going into debt. There's also research and development. Arguably our foresight is our greatest gift.

But projecting too far into the future reveals decay and death. We generally like to accumulate value, build castles, empires, legacies. There are comforts for personal mortality that depend on the survival of a community. Yet projecting far enough ahead removes even this comfort. A critic could retort that each moment is real and has its own fragile value even as it passes. They aren't wrong. But I think there's an instinct (or something like that) which demands permanence. In my opinion, the easily mockable 'nihilistic' crisis is an often inarticulate frustration with the theoretically perceived impossibility of leaving a deathless mark.

I don't think this decides the value of life either way, but it does open a source of suffering. On the other hand, I think there's a part of us that wants everything erased. We also dream of starting from zero, of being reborn. So we laugh at dark comedy. We laugh at the part of us that dreams of substantiality.

I liked the rest of your post too. I do think the breakdown or classification is a little arbitrary. Not bad, just arbitrary. I suppose I see more of a chaos of particular needs/desires. True, some are especially linked to survival. But I don't see how to cleanly separate morale from survival. Boredom arguably kills indirectly in the sense that stimulation is a sort of need. But these are quibbles.

But projecting too far into the future reveals decay and death. We generally like to accumulate value, build castles, empires, legacies. There are comforts for personal mortality that depend on the survival of a community. Yet projecting far enough ahead removes even this comfort. A critic could retort that each moment is real and has its own fragile value even as it passes. They aren't wrong. But I think there's an instinct (or something like that) which demands permanence. In my opinion, the easily mockable 'nihilistic' crisis is an often inarticulate frustration with the theoretically perceived impossibility of leaving a deathless mark. — dog

We are always hoping.. Everything on the horizon seems good- we swing from hope to hope, thinking that after this or that endeavor or long-term project, this will bring some salvation or answer. I think the worst conceit is the idea of a pyramid gleaning towards self-actualization. In fact, it is a straight line. Achievement is really the Striving of our very nature churning in its own instrumental nature to do something. Culture just gives it direction which presents itself as some "meaning".. The hope that is built-in to this social cue is someone internalizes it enough for the long-term projects to be useful for society. It is society perpetuating society.

I liked the rest of your post too. I do think the breakdown or classification is a little arbitrary. Not bad, just arbitrary. I suppose I see more of a chaos of particular needs/desires. True, some are especially linked to survival. But I don't see how to cleanly separate morale from survival. Boredom arguably kills indirectly in the sense that stimulation is a sort of need. But these are quibbles. — dog

Granted they are quibbles, but I think everything is really categorized in these ways very broadly. Survival-through-cultural-means, maintenance-through-cultural-means, fleeing-boredom-through-cultural means is really useful in understanding where we are coming from.

Oh come on, you're going to go into detailed responses to others, but ignore the small second paragraph of my response you so readily agreed with? The small paragraph that goes against your views?

Oh come on, you're going to go into detailed responses to others, but ignore the small second paragraph of my response you so readily agreed with? The small paragraph that goes against your views? — Noble Dust

What exactly do you want me to comment on? You said it is a matter of why we live, no? Do you want me to answer why we continue to live rather than commit suicide?

Do you want me to answer why we continue to live rather than commit suicide? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

I want you to answer this:

Which has nothing to say about why life should be lived, which is the implied question within your question. The recognition of the uncertainty and the insincerity are good starting points, however. — Noble Dust

Assuming Bitter Crank is answering for Noble Dust- the pain of life is not so unbearable as to go against the biological instinct/enculturation of survival. This is not an indictment that life is therefore something which is necessary, too-good-not-to-continue, etc. etc.

Also, may I add, that is the point- we are going by our nature based on our survival/maintenance/boredom motivations.. this is not a positive reason for existence, just what we do. Labels are put on after.

I feel a classical notion is that we do stuff to compensate for other stuff.. I did this negative experience so I can experience this positive experience. See, isn't life worth it? I think it's more than this simple equation.

Assuming Bitter Crank is answering for Noble Dust- — schopenhauer1

He is not.

I want you to answer this: — Noble Dust

I guess I am asking- is this about why we don't commit suicide?

No; re-read the first paragraph that you agreed with, and then the second short one that I assume you don't agree with.

By detailing how I think we don't know why we live life, I wasn't specifically agreeing with you, but rather cutting to the chase of why I think you started this thread. But, in doing that, I was tacitly agreeing with you that we mainly don't know why we live life. Then, in the second short paragraph, I was emphasizing that the fact that we don't know why we live life says nothing about the implicit question of whether life is worth living, which I know you're getting at; or, as you put it, with your assumption, whether or not we should commit suicide.

We are always hoping.. Everything on the horizon seems good- we swing from hope to hope, thinking that after this or that endeavor or long-term project, this will bring some salvation or answer. — schopenhauer1

'There is no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto' says a character in one of Cormac's novels. To truly feel on the way (the pleasure of anticipation) does seem like a genuine temporary salvation. That's another shade of meaning of instrumentalism. We are future-oriented problem solvers. Our hands and words serve as instruments (forceps) that give birth to a desired future. It's a platitude that we are often less satisfied than we expected. What comes to mind is a person who loves to be in love more than they love the individual object of love.

Granted they are quibbles, but I think everything is really categorized in these ways very broadly. Survival-through-cultural-means, maintenance-through-cultural-means, fleeing-boredom-through-cultural means is really useful in understanding where we are coming from. — schopenhauer1

Don't get me wrong. It's a strong categorization. But here's an example of an objection. Boredom is not-being-in-love or being trapped in un-stimulating circumstances. It gives rise to a consciousness of futility. The feeling tone helps open up a thinking that justifies death. A person who's always 'in love' can't take nihilism/pessimism seriously. They can cognize the abstractions, but it's natural for them to advise the ultimately emotional retort: be fascinated as I am in a project and that futility vanishes. Of course we can't will ourselves into fascination, even if we can seek out the conditions for its possibility. In short, I associate boredom with frustration and frustration with a desire to die. That desire to die looks for reasons/justifications/methods like any other desire. Even if nihilism/pessimism is true in some sense, it also seems like the rationalization of a mood.

Then, in the second short paragraph, I was emphasizing that the fact that we don't know why we don't live life says nothing about the implicit question of whether life is worth living, which I know you're getting at; or, as you put it, with your assumption, whether or not we should commit suicide. — Noble Dust

The question is to get people's understanding of why they think life is worth living. I am curious to see people's take on it which usually leads back to the usual theme of instrumentality.

I've read about your idea of instrumentality, but remind me.

And by the way, I was right, then, that this thread is basically a loaded question, right?

And by the way, I was right, then, that this thread is basically a loaded question, right? — Noble Dust

I don't know, that depends- is life a loaded question? ;). What is your point though? Gadfly the gadfly right? Question the questioner.. Get it. Provide a response, make a positive claim about something.

Instrumentality- I've stated so many times.. here is one way I phrased it: Here is the idea of instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that 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.

Another way I phrased it is in this thread here: This long-range emptiness to all projects I call "instrumentality". It is instrumental in that we pursue but with no final satisfaction to any particular goal, just a general striving that underlies our linguistic-conceptual minds. Conceptually we can break this general Will or Striving into three basic categories of motivation: survival (in a cultural and/or economic context), seeking comfort/maintenance (e.g. you clean your house, you brush your teeth, you make your bed, etc. etc.), fleeing boredom (e.g. you get lonely, you pursue a hobby, you make art, you take a walk, etc. etc). All the most complex goals/technologies/outputs come from a combination of those three underlying motivations. However, these motivations are simply conceptual breakdowns of our originary Striving/Will that manifests from within us in the first place. It is an instrumental moving-forward-but-for-no-reason. All goals are subsumed by the simple sheer need in our waking daily lives for striving/willing.

So yes, we slap on a label after-the-fact for what we are doing it for. The problem is, as you indicated, that we are an existential creature. Whereas other animals may have motivations of survival (and perhaps maintenance/boredom for higher level animals), they are not self-reflective to our degree. We are the animals that know that we simply live to live to live. Our conceptual minds turn in on ourselves and there is no easy way out by slapping a label on why we do anything. We simply keep the continual striving for survival/maintenance/boredom-avoidance going to the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so on and so on and so on. Meanwhile, we are plagued by the contingencies of our circumstances- mental/physical conditions, uncomfortable circumstances, tragedies, and what not.

Hence I categorize suffering into two main camps- structural suffering and contingent suffering.

Structural suffering is the instrumental nature of existence- the striving that is never satisfied, the motivations of want/desire (survival/comfort/maintenance/boredom) that lead to the repetitious Sisyphean aspect of existence (yet another day of survival, comfort seeking, boredom fleeing).

Contingent suffering is the circumstances which can be different for each person is identified with classical notions of suffering in the West (i.e. circumstances of physical/mental pain, circumstances of negative situations, etc. etc.).

I don't know, that depends- is life a loaded question? — schopenhauer1

That's unrelated to whether this thread was a loaded question, and obviously a diversion.

What is your point though? Gadfly the gadfly right? Question the questioner.. Get it. Provide a response, make a positive claim about something. — schopenhauer1

My point is that this thread was a loaded question, which you know, since you started it.

the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action — schopenhauer1

I fully identify with that sentiment.

free time — schopenhauer1

Free as opposed to what?

Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that 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. — schopenhauer1

The feeling of futility is predicated on the very concept of completion, fulfillment, etc. So the nihilistic experience of moving from "the possibility of fulfillment" to "the loss of fulfillment" begins with the concept of fulfillment. Where does that concept come from? Not just social causes; look at any society other than our nihilistic twilight world, and you'll find concepts of fulfillment writ large everywhere.

That's unrelated to whether this thread was a loaded question, and obviously a diversion. — Noble Dust

No it's not actually. Whether life is a loaded question is something prior to me asking about it.

I fully identify with that sentiment. — Noble Dust

Cool.

Free as opposed to what? — Noble Dust

Just meaning activities that we deem to be our non-work time. Much of this can be seen as arbitrary, but the way our culture has it set up, is that we psychologically/socially make space for "work-time" and then make space for our personal "free time". Of course, it can be any combination of work/non-work time that you can think of. Any activity not related directly to the attainment of some survival goal (i.e. work-to get money- to buy stuff- to live in a first world country, OR hunt/gather/build and maintain hut/subsistence farm, etc. etc.).

The feeling of futility is predicated on the very concept of completion, fulfillment, etc. So the nihilistic experience of moving from "the possibility of fulfillment" to "the loss of fulfillment" begins with the concept of fulfillment. Where does that concept come from? Not just social causes; look at any society other than our nihilistic twilight world, and you'll find concepts of fulfillment writ large everywhere. — Noble Dust

Don't follow. The very point is that it's all instrumental, yet we are self-aware of this. We are existential animals, not just animals that can "be" without knowing it. Thus, some animal-life, primary consciousness, non-linguistic, non-reflective state is not really an option.

A person who's always 'in love' can't take nihilism/pessimism seriously. They can cognize the abstractions, but it's natural for them to advise the ultimately emotional retort: be fascinated as I am in a project and that futility vanishes. Of course we can't will ourselves into fascination, even if we can seek out the conditions for its possibility. — dog

Ah yes, those oxcytocin feelings of love.. that doesn't last, is not sustained, life moves forward, the novelty wears off. In fact, it is these type of enthrallments that beget more life which brings more instrumental existence on a new person.

Whether life is a loaded question is something prior to me asking about it. — schopenhauer1

No, lol. If your worldview is that life is not worth living, and then you make a thread called "what do you live for everyday", then you're definitely asking a loaded question; begging the question, essentially, from your own point of view.

Don't follow. The very point is that it's all instrumental, yet we are self-aware of this. We are existential animals, not just animals that can "be" without knowing it. Thus, some animal-life, primary consciousness, non-linguistic, non-reflective state is not really an option. — schopenhauer1

What are existential animals?

I see you made an edit there which added a lot of paragraphs. I'll get to it when I can, assuming you wanted me to respond, despite the fact that I wouldn't have seen it unless I had scrolled up.

No, lol. If your worldview is that life is not worth living, and then you make a thread called "what do you live for everyday", then you're definitely asking a loaded question; begging the question, essentially, from your own point of view. — Noble Dust

But you are missing the point of how I phrased it. And, most people know my point of view here, I would suspect after 10+ years on this and the previous forum. Though, some newer posters have probably caught the drift rather quickly.

What are existential animals? — Noble Dust

Animals that can self-reflect on their own existence. They know they have an existence and question what is the point.

But you are missing the point of how I phrased it. And, most people know my point of view here, I would suspect after 10+ years on this and the previous forum. Though, some newer posters have probably caught the drift rather quickly. — schopenhauer1

So since I'm a mere 1-year guy, I'm not worth debating? Got it. Sorry.

So since I'm a mere 1-year guy, I'm not worth debating? Got it. Sorry. — Noble Dust

Oh stop with the histrionics. That's beneath you, no? You clearly know my point of view, since you are stating it now. My point was that no one was expecting me to tie it all together with a nice bow.