The mild torture of "Do something about it!" assumptions

schopenhauer1

Recently, I've been musing about the notion that there is a pervasive metaphysical and normative ethical position that humans must "Do something about it!". Let me explain.

Metaphysical: Going back to the very framework of human/animal existence, we are thrown into the world (not of our choosing), and then have to "deal" with navigating it to maintain self-preservation and to navigate comfort levels, and presumably, entertainment levels. This is metaphysical as, once born, and become an autonomous, self-conscious being, we must always deliberate with how to deal with a situation. We are presented with challenges, discomforts, obstacles, and then we deliberate and act accordingly. This is what I mean with "dealing" with the situation. In other words, we are presented with existence, and then we have to "Do something about it!". There is no other option. Non-action is still doing something about it.

Axiological: If you are ever given advice about something that is causing discomfort, making you unhappy, etc. it is always "Do something about it!".

In other words, combining the metaphysical and axiological/ethical here, it seems that most humans assume it is good to be put (put someone else) into a situation where they have to "Do something about it" (the experiences, obstacles, challenges of life vs. not existing at all). This assumption thus creates the situation (i.e. new life) for which people MUST do something about "it" (life/life's discomforts/challenges/needs/wants). What is it about this assumption that there needs to be something that we must do something about, even to the point where we create others to "deal" and "do something about it" who didn't need to deal with anything in the first place?

This is not as easy and open-shut as "because happiness/flourishing!!". This is discounting the fact that all of life is "dealing with" some situation- even getting out of bed, opening a door, walking down the street. This is not trivial, it is the heart of human existence. We are thrown into a world of "dealing with" and we give advice of "do something to deal with X situation", and we throw people into a world that they didn't need to deal with, but once born MUST deal with.

This to me seems to little reflected upon why people think it's good to
a) "deal with" situations in the first place
b) cause others to "deal with", situations (by birthing new people)
c) we give the de facto (and tautological) advice to "Do something about it" is good, which, even if true, indicates that we are constantly in a dissatisfied state and constantly need to do something about it. Yes, you can point to some repose of some sort- but it is always in relation to the dealing with.

Why are we assuming it is good to "deal with" anything at all? Why is this such an ingrained baseline notion that this is a right/good existential state, besides the fact that it is inescapable?

NOS4A2

↪schopenhauer1

Why are we assuming it is good to "deal with" anything at all? Why is this such an ingrained baseline notion that this is a right/good existential state, besides the fact that it is inescapable?

I think by “do something about it”, people mean you should work to change the situation rather than complain to us about it.

schopenhauer1

people mean you should work to change the situation rather than complain to us about it. — NOS4A2

"Us" I like it..brings images of people standing in a circle with angry faces and torches. Village of the "annoyed". Anyways, you kind of didn't see the main gist of the post I see. I was about ALWAYS being in a place of dealing with something and putting others in this situation. We assume this is good. Why? What is good about dealing with at all? Of course, we have to "do something about it", there is no other way..

NOS4A2

↪schopenhauer1

I think I get your point: we can’t not deal with it. But I think that when people use the phrase “deal with it” they mean you can take certain steps to alter your situation. I just know that whenever some has said “deal with it” to me, it was because I was complaining about a situation or other.

schopenhauer1

I think I get your point: we can’t not deal with it. But I think that when people use the phrase “deal with it” they mean you can take certain steps to alter your situation. I just know that whenever some has said “deal with it” to me, it was because I was complaining about a situation or other. — NOS4A2

Yes I get that- but that is kind of the surfacey way of thinking about it. Yes, we all know that "do something about it" is a colloquialism for, "change your course of action or take these other steps you are not taking". However, to broaden and deepen the point here, we are ALWAYS in a state of "dealing with", and when bringing people into existence (procreation) we are recruiting THEM to deal with as well, so there is something about "dealing with" that seems culturally/individually assumed is good. Being put and putting others in a situation of "dealing with" seems to me a mild torture that we simply take as what existence is about. It is the dissatisfied background radiation of life.

Alan

↪schopenhauer1

I don't think that dealing with some situation is good is something we can all agree upon. Good in what sense? Good for me only, the person who has the problem? Good for everybody else but me? There was a case in Which a girl killed people because it was Monday and she hated Mondays and so she dealt with that by killing people. People will not always deal with the same issues the same way and thus a general consensus on morality will not be reached. Dealing with things personally is good to me only when there's something to deal with in the first place. Waking up, brushing my teeth, going to work is not dealing with some other problem. Those actions are not a solution to some problem and therefore I'm not dealing with anything, I'm just living life because all those activities some of the things we do when we live life as an average middle class employed human according to culture and morals which does not bother me at all. I have problems because some things are not the way I want them to be and therefore I call them problems and if I have to deal with those it may be good for me or I can just not care. In fact, problems seem to be relative to every person. Some may have the same problem but their subjective experience is completely different so now I would ask you to please explain why you think people think dealing with stuff is good? Some stuff may not be worth dealing with for some people and therefore dealing with it being good makes no sense.

There's this other point you put and I do agree with you: bringing someone to life is something that should be analyzed more exhaustively because times change and they may become less diesirable to live in over time and therefore more problems will arise. It may have nothing to do but I highly recommend you to watch Evangelion. I think it refers exactly to this point you make. In it Shingi, the main character, refuses to do lots of things and flees from what he is supposed to deal with. Most people hate him as a main character but they don't realize he has been brought to existence to deal with the consequences of human stupidity, so I really believe that in his case life is really something to be dealt with.

To conclude I'll just quote Kierkegaard.

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced. Soren Kierkegaard

NOS4A2

Yes I get that- but that is kind of the surfacey way of thinking about it. Yes, we all know that "do something about it" is a colloquialism for, "change your course of action or take these other steps you are not taking". However, to broaden and deepen the point here, we are ALWAYS in a state of "dealing with", and when bringing people into existence (procreation) we are recruiting THEM to deal with as well, so there is something about "dealing with" that seems culturally/individually assumed is good. Being put and putting others in a situation of "dealing with" seems to me a mild torture that we simply take as what existence is about. It is the dissatisfied background radiation of life.

Seems a little too tautological for my own tastes. I don’t see how “deal with it” amounts to living.

Terrapin Station

we are thrown into the world (not of our choosing), — schopenhauer1

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world.

TheHedoMinimalist

I agree that it is preferable to have not been born but I don’t think anyone has a duty to avoid having children. This is simply because there doesn’t seem to be any natural rights or duties which people possess. The only reason that anyone has to reduce the suffering of others is if it would also minimize their suffering or cause them to feel joy in the long run. I do think that you have reason to minimize suffering in your life though. This is because when you suffer, you cannot easily trivialize the badness of that suffering upon exposure to that suffering. You are compelled to regard that suffering as being bad inherently. Whereas, you are not compelled to regard the suffering of others as bad(unless it also causes you to suffer). It’s quite easy for some people to trivialize the suffering of others even while watching it take place. I think the reason why people might tell you to “do something about it” is because they don’t feel anyone has a duty to solve your problems(and they are completely right about that). The upside is that you also don’t have any duties to solve anyone else’s problems. I do think that most people who have children have made a mistake though. It’s not a moral mistake but a prudential one. Having children usually brings about more suffering for the parent as well.

Alan

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world. — Terrapin Station

I agree with this and I would also add that parents are not to blame either as there's no way to know why you were born and not someone else.

Alan

↪TheHedoMinimalist

in the end to do something about something is the best advice you can have as people cannot properly empathize, I guess.

schopenhauer1

Good in what sense? Good for me only, the person who has the problem? Good for everybody else but me? There was a case in Which a girl killed people because it was Monday and she hated Mondays and so she dealt with that by killing people. People will not always deal with the same issues the same way and thus a general consensus on morality will not be reached. — Alan

So this isn't about how to deal with something but THAT we deal with anything/all things at all in the first place. We are always in a state of "dealing with" (deliberating about goals, solving a problem, overcoming a challenge, prioritizing what to do next, finding more comfortable circumstances, etc.).

Waking up, brushing my teeth, going to work is not dealing with some other problem. Those actions are not a solution to some problem and therefore I'm not dealing with anything, I'm just living life because all those activities some of the things we do when we live life as an average middle class employed human according to culture and morals which does not bother me at all. — Alan

So this is dealing with, but it is just such a wrote enculturated routine, it feels more habit. But indeed you are dealing with what you should be doing, what is expected of what you should be doing, prioritizing, planning, executing, etc. In other words, you are almost always in a state where you have to do something about something. I mean, you can live in your own feces in one spot and slowly die of starvation. That is still dealing with in an ascetic (perhaps Cynic?) fashion. Dealing with comes de facto as a living being in almost all waking moments.

I have problems because some things are not the way I want them to be and therefore I call them problems and if I have to deal with those it may be good for me or I can just not care. In fact, problems seem to be relative to every person. Some may have the same problem but their subjective experience is completely different so now I would ask you to please explain why you think people think dealing with stuff is good? Some stuff may not be worth dealing with for some people and therefore dealing with it being good makes no sense. — Alan

This is the heart of the question I am asking. Life has a series of "dos" these does must be dealt with (assuming no starvation and sitting one's own feces until death). We are constantly in a dissatisfied state, hence our "deal with" to get over dissatisfaction. The bed is uncomfortable and you can't sleep- must find bed. I need money, must find optimal job. The boss expects these goals from me- must deal with tasks or get fired and not get money. The bathroom looks and feels dirty- gotta clean make sure that gets cleaned. I'm lonely and can't find a partner or friends- better get out there and join some group. The grass is getting too long, better mow that. I need a garden- better go build a bed for the plants, plant, water, fertilize, and weed. Etc. etc. etc. It's a series of dos based on baseline dissatisfaction. But it is assumed this is what makes life great- tending to the garden, joining the social group, getting that work-task done, brushing the teeth, etc. Yes, you can say you do those things IN ORDER to do other things more preferable (pleasurable?), but these "goods" that are pursued represent also the things that are not had initially- again, the initial dissatisfaction (just more dos to get the goods, so to say). We are in an initial state of dissatisfaction or deprivation that must be dealt with, repeatedly until unconsciousness/death. This whole system is deemed as "good" by many, but not reflective about its deprivational nature that is there to begin with. If life presents itself as challenges to "deal with" (get and keep a job to survive, let's say, or making more comfortable environs for yourself), then what is it about this that is "good"?

There's this other point you put and I do agree with you: bringing someone to life is something that should be analyzed more exhaustively because times change and they may become less diesirable to live in over time and therefore more problems will arise. It may have nothing to do but I highly recommend you to watch Evangelion. I think it refers exactly to this point you make. In it Shingi, the main character, refuses to do lots of things and flees from what he is supposed to deal with. Most people hate him as a main character but they don't realize he has been brought to existence to deal with the consequences of human stupidity, so I really believe that in his case life is really something to be dealt with. — Alan

Yes, there is nothing needs to take place for another person. By having them, they exist and must "deal with".

schopenhauer1

Seems a little too tautological for my own tastes. I don’t see how “deal with it” amounts to living. — NOS4A2

The minute you wake up you are dealing with. If it seems too simple to you, it is because it is never reflected upon or looked at from a birds eyeview...it's just assumed as what we do. I'm questioning the whole thing of having to deal with being good (essentially amounting to being good).

whollyrolling

I'm not sure who says "do something about it" other than idiots and sociopaths. Are you saying that you perceive idiots and psychos as social norms in this day and age?

schopenhauer1

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namely, throwing you into the world). But there's no you outside of the world. We can't do something to an entity that doesn't exist. Your existence can't obtain until you're already in the world. — Terrapin Station

Ok, first this is a tangential argument. This is typical from you though and your poor argument-style habits. You are going down a rabbit-hole rather than look at the actual argument at hand..also we've had this type of non-identity debate numerous times I believe. But I'll indulge here..

When a child is born, it is thrown into the world at point X of its consciousness. It isn't relevant actually at what X time you want the person to be considered fully "conscious" either. That person was procreated, and the procreation is done by the parents of that person. This is a no-brainer and no amount of semantics will bypass the self-evidence that people are born from be procreated by a set of parents. The "born" is the thrown into the world part. Prior to this it is just the parents' imagination or projection of what the child will be.

schopenhauer1

I think the reason why people might tell you to “do something about it” is because they don’t feel anyone has a duty to solve your problems(and they are completely right about that). The upside is that you also don’t have any duties to solve anyone else’s problems. — TheHedoMinimalist

Interesting egoistic perspective. The point is, we live in a world where we are constantly having to "do something about it". There is no way out of it. That I am saying is bad, and should be a good reason to not bring others into this state.

schopenhauer1

I'm not sure who says "do something about it" other than idiots and sociopaths. Are you saying that you perceive idiots and psychos as social norms in this day and age? — whollyrolling

Ha, there are tons of people that have that knee-jerk response to a complaint someone else has. But my point is we are ALWAYS doing something, dealing with something in the first place. Why should we embrace the "dealing with" just because we are born into a world that is inherently like this? Do we have to identify with something just because it is what is the case? Doesn't make sense that we think it is always good to identify with that which causes suffering. For example, people rather say, "No pain, no gain" or "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger" than say, "life is inherently flawed due to structural suffering". It is enculturated to identify with that which causes the suffering than to call it out as bad.

whollyrolling

↪schopenhauer1

I guess what I'm thinking is that whoever says that, if you challenge the notion to their face, they back pedal or go blah blah, and they really seem to have no understanding of the figure of speech. It came from somewhere and spread like a virus, just like "yoga" and "I'm going to surround myself with people who are brimming with false optimism".

whollyrolling

↪schopenhauer1

Every figure of speech is just blah blah. 80% of people have little to no idea what they're saying or doing or why.

schopenhauer1

I guess what I'm thinking is that whoever says that, if you challenge the notion to their face, they back pedal or go blah blah, and they really seem to have no understanding of the figure of speech. It came from somewhere and spread like a virus, just like "yoga" and "I'm going to surround myself with people who are brimming with false optimism". — whollyrolling

I tend to agree with you here. I think people pick up slogans and don't reflect on the assumptions behind them.

whollyrolling

↪schopenhauer1

But they pick up more than the slogan, they base their lifestyle on it. It consumes them. This is what is accomplished when a society revolves around purchasing commodities.

schopenhauer1

But they pick up more than the slogan, they base their lifestyle on it. It consumes them. — whollyrolling

Well, this is partly why I am questioning this in the thread- specifically the slogan "Do something about it". In this case, I am delving into the idea that we are ALWAYS dealing with in life, and then asking why is it that we embrace the notion that "dealing with" is a good thing.

Terrapin Station

Ok, first this is a tangential argument. — schopenhauer1

Just tackling things I disagree with in the argument, in the order that they occur. If it wasn't important in your argument, you should have edited it out prior to posting.

When a child is born, it is thrown into the world at point X of its consciousness. — schopenhauer1

The child is already in the world prior to birth.

TheHedoMinimalist

That I am saying is bad, and should be a good reason to not bring others into this state. — schopenhauer1

I think there might be a good emotional reason. I might feel pretty bad about bringing someone into existence and it might cause me to suffer. But, if I was capable of not feeling bad about causing others to suffer, what reason would I have to not cause suffering to others? Well, I would say only the prudential reasons like the fear of being reprimanded or the fear of spoiling valuable cooperative relationships. I think it would easier for you to persuade people to avoid having children by talking about how much suffering will come to them from the stress, anxiety, worry, sleep deprivation, emotional exhaustion, labor pain, boredom, and possible grief that comes with having children.

schopenhauer1

The child is already in the world prior to birth. — Terrapin Station

It's a colloquialism you are taking too far then. Clearly no actual "thing" is "thrown" into the world. A person is conceived, gestated, and birthed into the world. The idea is, no one existed prior to their existence (whatever that might mean, conception, gestation, birth, consciousness, self-consciousness one or all of them).

schopenhauer1

But, if I was capable of not feeling bad about causing others to suffer, what reason would I have to not cause suffering to others? Well, I would say only the prudential reasons like the fear of being reprimanded or the fear of spoiling valuable cooperative relationships. I think it would easier for you to persuade people to avoid having children by talking about how much suffering will come to them from the stress, anxiety, worry, sleep deprivation, emotional exhaustion, labor pain, boredom, and possible grief that comes with having children. — TheHedoMinimalist

Yes, there are apparently people like @Terrapin Station that don't care about causing unnecessary harm where it can be completely prevented unto another person.

↪schopenhauer1

Images of people standing in a circle with angry faces and torches... from the word "us"?

You're always so full of skewed hyperbole. It's a joke.

whollyrolling

↪Terrapin Station

Calm down.

schopenhauer1

You're always so full of skewed hyperbole. It's a joke. — S

He used the term "us" in hyperbole terms, just showing what it was conveying.. US- the "real people", "genteel society", "the regular Joe" annoyed at someone complaining.

whollyrolling

↪Terrapin Station

Seriously man, if you see a car slam its brakes on the freeway do you just drive into the back of it?

↪schopenhauer1

You posted this on a public forum, with an audience, knowingly. Who else are you complaining to, if not to us? Yourself?

The mild torture of "Do something about it!" assumptions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions