A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why — schopenhauer1

This I believe is the fallacy. The mother tiger offers zebra to the young. It is quite yummy.

The mother tiger offers zebra to the young. It is quite yummy. — Outlander

Haha.. it does.. but does not know why. It is yummy and I am doing this because it is yummy are two different things.

Don't forget contingent suffering. You got you sore throats, headaches, nausea, fever, body aches, mental illnesses, migraines, indecision, poor planning, poor decision-making, cancer, AIDS, Ebola, genetic diseases, accidents, wrong place, wrong time, diabetes, autoimmune disease, trauma, natural disaster, broken bones, sprains, sun burns, vitamin deficiency diseases, back problems, diarrhea, food poisoning, bad drivers, traffic, noisy neighbors, autism, phobias, nervous disorders, anxiety, depression, psoriasis, gout, heart attacks, strokes, animal attacks, stinging or biting insects, muscle strain, eye problems, hearing problems,ear aches, loneliness, isolation, tediousness, suffocating crowds, people you cant get away from easily, deception, unkindness, burglary, larceny, stealing, muggings, embezzlement, driveby shootings, assaults, hit and runs, car issues, property issues, slumlords, injustice, hypothermia, heat stroke, shortness of breath, floods, droughts, wildfires, work stress, home stress, homelessness, red tape, loss of memory, Alzheimer, dementia, stubbed toes, hangnails, envy, deceit, rage, road rage, road obstruction, getting lost, addiction, water borne diseases, slips, falls, embarrassment, insomnia, sleep apnea, cuts, bruises, sexual dysfunctions, malaria, sleeping sickness, plague, leprosy, falling objects, cultural pressures, lung diseases, heart diseases, hypoglycemia, malnutrition, OCD, MRSA, MERS, SARS, cysts, hemorrhoids, head injuries, lacerations, abuse, toxic chemical inhalation or ingestion, radiation poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, poison, poisonous plants and mushrooms, warfare, gunshot wounds, stabbings, too cold, too hot, electrocution, coronavirus, and much much more. See here
https://www.cdc.gov/diseasesconditions/az/a.html


We are all painfully aware of all this.

Wow that's a pretty big list. Animals are prone to at least half those things.. of course they are but they do not know why. Is that much different to a person a few hundred years ago who got sick but didn't know why?

Some animals show a sense of self-consciousness at least. Example, I read if you have a dozen dogs in a cage and one by one they are taken out and killed in front of the others, the other dogs will "figure it out" and start to panic.

that we need to make various goals in a complex world to gain items to consume for our survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1

I think you're looking in the right direction when you bring up complexity. Your phrasing of the question is decidedly negative, however. Don't be so pessimistic.

We are more complex than the other animals, with more complex lives and more complex responses to more complex problems. Our struggles and disappointments may seem greater because of this complexity, but our joys are greater as well. Yes we are just engaged in glorified survival, but we have vastly more control over the terms of that survival and its opportunities for pleasure than any other animals do, by far.

Wow that is quite a list - brilliant!

I try to take the eastern approach and live in the moment as much as possible.
The moment, with no regrets of the past and no worries of the future, is always pleasant.
It seems that the moments that are not pleasant are the ones not lived in the moment.
Have you thought about this?

I try to take the eastern approach and live in the moment as much as possible.
The moment, with no regrets of the past and no worries of the future, is always pleasant.
It seems that the moments that are not pleasant are the ones not lived in the moment.
Have you thought about this? — Pop

This seems a little oversimplified. I feel like it may apply to particular types of unpleasantness, like some anxieties or disappointments, but it would fail horribly in the face of, say, passing a kidney stone, which would force you very much into the moment, where you would experience much that was unpleasant.

I do agree within the limited case of not worrying about all that stuff on his list because it's not really useful to do so. We can, but we shouldn't, unless we are in a situation where we are affected by one of those items more directly.

Wow that's a pretty big list. Animals are prone to at least half those things.. of course they are but they do not know why. Is that much different to a person a few hundred years ago who got sick but didn't know why? — Outlander

Not why they are sick, but the know they are sick and can resent it (contra animals who get sick, feel it, but that's it.. anthropomorphism and odd anecdotes aside).

Some animals show a sense of self-consciousness at least. Example, I read if you have a dozen dogs in a cage and one by one they are taken out and killed in front of the others, the other dogs will "figure it out" and start to panic. — Outlander

Not sure that kind of association is really the same as what I'm talking about.

I do not mean to give the impression that I live every moment without thought - LOL!
But when its possible, I've learnt to enjoy the moment.

Yes we are just engaged in glorified survival, but we have vastly more control over the terms of that survival and its opportunities for pleasure than any other animals do, by far. — Pro Hominem

And that negates the other things? Pollyannaism.. screening out what one doesn't want to see when evaluating.

Wow that is quite a list - brilliant! — Pop

Thanks :smile:.

I try to take the eastern approach and live in the moment as much as possible.
The moment, with no regrets of the past and no worries of the future, is always pleasant.
It seems that the moments that are not pleasant are the ones not lived in the moment.
Have you thought about this? — Pop

I don't think living in the moment applies when doing many things in life. Quite the opposite.

Not sure that kind of association is really the same as what I'm talking about. — schopenhauer1

Ability to recognize, albeit primitively, base cause and effect, idea of time (past, present, and future), and how outside influences can and will affect oneself?

I don't think living in the moment applies when doing many things in life. Quite the opposite. — schopenhauer1

"Living in the moment" doesn't have to automatically exclude any and all notion of planning, preparation, and long term goals. Does it? For many I suppose. Why do you have long term goals and aspirations anyway? So either you or another can- one day- be more free to live in the moment and pursue what is desired. Is this not correct?

I don't think living in the moment applies when doing many things in life. Quite the opposite. — schopenhauer1

I totally agree, and think perhaps this is why the thoughtless but experienced moment is so pleasant.

"Living in the moment" doesn't have to automatically exclude any and all notion of planning, preparation, and long term goals. Does it? For many I suppose. Why do you have long term goals and aspirations anyway? So either you or another can more freely live in the moment. Is this not correct? — Outlander

:up:

Ability to recognize, albeit primitively, base cause and effect, idea of time (past, present, and future), and how outside influences can and will affect oneself? — Outlander

Yeah, I guess I can agree here, but it's not the same as I am talking about. If a dog can think "I resent this moment", and not just have fear, maybe we can talk. Even if we were to keep debating it, the implication of the second paragraph is where I'd like this discussion to go, not comparative animal cognition.

"Living in the moment" doesn't have to automatically exclude any and all notion of planning, preparation, and long term goals. Does it? For many I suppose. Why do you have long term goals and aspirations anyway? So either you or another can more freely live in the moment. Is this not correct? — Outlander

Schopenhauer had a saying about not being able to just be, and if so, very temporary. That is part of his idea of suffering (what I call necessary suffering). What I don't get is, do you deny what I am explaining, or do you just point to very specific things to try to make the small large, and the large small?

Schopenhauer had a saying about not being able to just be, and if so, very temporary. That is part of his idea of necessary suffering. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps Schopenhauer would have benefited from an understanding of mindfulness? :smile:

All kidding aside , it is an interesting topic in that total awareness of the moment excludes awareness of other moments, and it is pleasant unless you are already in physical pain.

I imagine many animals would exist something like this.

I would agree that humans have a special brand of misery unique to ourselves. Seems like a combination of self-awareness and expectations. Animals aren't troubled by failing to meet the ideals that they never envisioned in the first place.

For example, if someone is born with one leg, they aren't stressed out by the difficulty of the situation; until they learn that most humans have two legs. Now they have something to be pissed about.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword. Are the advantages worth the drawbacks?

Perhaps Schopenhauer would have benefited from an understanding of mindfulness? :smile: — Pop

He thought that asceticism was the highest form of repose against Will's ceaseless impetus.

All kidding aside , it is an interesting topic in that total awareness of the moment excludes awareness, of other moments, and it is pleasant unless you are already in physical pain.

I imagine many animals would exist something like this. — Pop

Yes, as a cardinal, I'd say so. But, we humans need to deal with... always dealing with. One thing, then the next, then the next. Repose things like mindfulness is just something to schedule in with the rest.

For example, if someone is born with one leg, they aren't stressed out by the difficulty of the situation; until they learn that most humans have two legs. Now they have something to be pissed about.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword. Are the advantages worth the drawbacks? — Bird-Up

We are the animal that resents. Other animals might fear, maybe sad in some vague way. We can resent, and know exactly why. Every moment, there could have been something better. We know this.

And that negates the other things? Pollyannaism.. screening out what one doesn't want to see when evaluating. — schopenhauer1

Negates what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I acknowledge that there are undesirable things in human experience, but I was making the point that you seem to be enumerating them and emoting about them to exclusion of the desirable things. I suggest that your case as you've presented it is unbalanced on the side of pessimism.

I agreed with your identification of complexity as being integral to human experience, but I see complexity as a feature, and I think you're suggesting it's a bug.

Your question was "where does that leave humans?" I think it leaves us as powerful architects of our own outcomes, with much greater upsides (and correlating downsides) to be had than what mere animals can achieve.

It isn't possible to 'live in the moment' as if 'a moment' were an object we could enter, however, we can become aware that we (as awareness) are not separate from our forms, in other words, it could be said that each of us is 'made of' living awareness.

Animals are beings of living (immortal) awareness - Dog is always Dog, Cat is always Cat - and like unrealized Man, are not aware of this truth. Only men and women on the cusp of awakening to the truth of their immortal Form suffer existential dread. The good news is that once spiritual awakening occurs, existential dread (along with resentment, anger, greed, pride and hate) starts singing its swan song. :smile:

He thought that asceticism was the highest form of repose against Will's ceaseless impetus. — schopenhauer1

This is interesting. If will provides impetus, then what provides impetus to will?

It isn't possible to 'live in the moment' as if 'a moment' were an object we could enter, — Pam Seeback

What I meant was that a mental state of intense concentration on the present moment, excludes thought of other moments. But you seem to be referring to something else that I do not quite understand. Perhaps you could elaborate a little? I'm not sure we are awareness, I would have said quite the opposite. :smile:

I remember starting a thread titled Homo suicidus, my attempt at an unambiguous as possible reference to the fact that only humans commit suicide. Germane to the OP is that non-humans haven't been observed to override the basic drive to survive - the primordial desire to live and keep on living. In other words, the phenomenon of suicide is exclusively human. Since most suicides, in fact I wouldn't be too far off the mark if I said all suicides, are caused by major depression, it appears humans, however they may differ from other animals, have the ability, or should I call it susceptibility, to experience pain at such an intensity that the self-preservation instinct everyone's familiar with from personal experience is overruled in favor of an appointment with Grim Reaper at the earliest.

It makes me wonder then, given this our capacity to suffer more than non-humans, whether being human, despite the obvious perks of being one, is a curse rather than a boon? Perhaps the question, particularly the word "perks" in it, is a big clue in this mystery? Why do humans suffer or feel pain differently, more severely, relative to animals?

My theory is that the severity of pain in humans is modulated by psychological factors. For instance, if a person beats you up in public, the pain of the punches, kicks, weapon, is mangified by the sense of humiliation that comes with it. Non-humans don't "suffer" from such psychological pain and even if they do, it's not at the same level as humans.

Coming to the word "perks", humans, obvious even to the distracted, careless observer, have a clear advantage over non-humans. It's an old trope in biology that humans are smarter than non-humans - endowed with a brain capable of complex language, fine hand-eye coordination, logic, and creative imagination. These are the "perks" I refer to.

Enough said about the benefits of possessing such a powerful organ as the brain. A close examination of human brain power reveals its dark side. The psychological factors I mentioned before, those that amplify the pain humans feel, can all be traced back to human brain power. Depression isn't like the flu or cancer, illnesses have no direct links to the brain; depression is a reasoned position, arrived at after logical analysis of one's circumstances. Put simply, human brain power is a double-edged sword, a knife that cuts both ways - it gives us an edge over non-humans but the downside is we suffer more.

In an evolutionary context, brain power is our secret weapon against competition from non-humans even though we suffer greatly for it. I guess it's some kind of a trade-off: our highly evolved brains help us beat the competition but we must accept some losses in our ranks to "friendly fire".

Put simply, human brain power is a double-edged sword, a knife that cuts both ways - it gives us an edge over non-humans but the downside is we suffer more. — TheMadFool

We know our situation, the context for which this situation is situated in the broader picture. Other animals do not. We know that things can be better or different, or we can at least imagine so, yet know the reality of the situation is different than what can be. We know there is no utopia, yet we are born in non-ideal worlds.

Yet presented with this, people simply downplay it. They don't want to discuss it. Keep ignoring, sublimating, etc.

This is interesting. If will provides impetus, then what provides impetus to will? — Pop

The Will is the ground in Schop's theory. Is is what it is.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword. Are the advantages worth the drawbacks? — Bird-Up

People only want you to think of the advantages, but much of the it is experienced through the negative of dealing with. Dealing with the complexities of survival, comfort, entertainment, and all the contingent suffering suffused throughout.

are you referring to this guy?:

Haha, humans and that cat.

But what I think is funny is, because our situation arises out of a sort of interaction of our linguistic minds and the environment, the very human situatedness of our daily lives and its relation to suffering is downplayed, because of its virtual nature. It is not a straightforward instinctual interaction with the world. This leads people to believe that the type of suffering I am discussing (necessary suffering.. that is to say, that of being constantly dissatisfied in regards to our survival, comfort, and entertainment situations) is to also be downplayed. We are always dealing with. And somehow this awareness is also its greatest asset. A rock's greatest asset is it doesn't deal with.

We know our situation, the context for which this situation is situated in the broader picture. Other animals do not. We know that things can be better or different, or we can at least imagine so, yet know the reality of the situation is different than what can be. We know there is no utopia, yet we are born in non-ideal worlds.

Yet presented with this, people simply downplay it. They don't want to discuss it. Keep ignoring, sublimating, etc. — schopenhauer1

Look, if I didn't know better I might've said that the game is rigged. We're intelligent for sure, we can learn, gain knowledge and skills, and use that to change the world - make alterations in it to suit our needs or, in a moral sense, we have the ability to, if committed enough, to transform Earth into the Garden of Eden. Surely, this ability to transform our world needs to go hand in hand with the ability to imagine a different world - the ability to create an Eden is pointless if we can't imagine one, right? The downside is if we can imagine Eden, we're going to be deeply disappointed by Earth despite all its wonders.

Look, if I didn't know better I might've said that the game is rigged. We're intelligent for sure, we can learn, gain knowledge and skills, and use that to change the world - make alterations in it to suit our needs or, in a moral sense, we have the ability to, if committed enough, to transform Earth into the Garden of Eden. Surely, this ability to transform our world needs to go hand in hand with the ability to imagine a different world - the ability to create an Eden is pointless if we can't imagine one, right? The downside is if we can imagine Eden, we're going to be deeply disappointed by Earth despite all its wonders. — TheMadFool

You make it seem like everyone's daily life is one of transforming earth into a possible paradise. No. Collective achievements are not daily life. Naming off things like indoor plumbing and air conditioning do not make life thus utopia. Pointing to some future time of things being utopia due to technological innovations would also miss the point of necessary suffering involved in the human animal. Contingent sufferings, as things that I've listed, are not going to end any time soon either.

A fish swims in its tank, and doesn't know or care why. A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why. Things are simpler. — schopenhauer1

There are humans that do this very thing. Instead of doing a sort of reductionism in comparing humans to fish, it's probably better to compare philosophers to non-philosophers. Scientists to non-scientists, thinkers to non-thinkers, etc.

Also, you state the former, but then go on to say:

The existential animal that just keeps on going, knows we don't have to, but does it anyways.. — schopenhauer1

I think most people genuinely think they have to; in some cases, people must. I think this is a leading cause of human stressors. It isn't so much that they know they don't have to, but instead they know there are other options to the "have to" .. like laying down to rot, death, or not showing up.


I'm curious, though. How would you explain a rodent being bitten by a venomous snake, "experiencing" pain slowly and agonizingly until it's death. Would you call that a 'dislike of every minute'? Does a rodent require a higher degree of consciousness to feel "dislike for every moment," .. Does any animal, then? How would you explain animal torture or distress from mistreatment?

There are humans that do this very thing. Instead of doing a sort of reductionism in comparing humans to fish, it's probably better to compare philosophers to non-philosophers. Scientists to non-scientists, thinkers to non-thinkers, etc. — Cobra

I don't think anyone is exempt from knowing their situation and then having to keep going.

I think most people genuinely think they have to; in some cases, people must. I think this is a leading cause of human stressors. It isn't so much that they know they don't have to, but instead they know there are other options to the "have to" .. like laying down to rot, death, or not showing up. — Cobra

Well yes, the alternatives of dying, death, rotting, etc. are big motivators there. Rather, we can know we dislike a situation, but know we have to do it. We have evolved this consciousness which in turn can resent any moment. We can know the situation we are in, and not like it, and keep having to do it out of fear of pain and unknown.