Primacy of Being

_db

For the sake of simplicity, I will call things like ontology, ethics, and politics as attitudes or approaches towards existence.

The issue at play here is the common attitude of placing primacy on being rather than non-being, or "affirmativity". Affirmative politics (perhaps the only politics possible) organizes under a framework that includes affirmative ethics, which in turn organizes under affirmative ontology.

An example of the nature of affirmative ontology is the aversion to death and decay, non-persistence. That which can be observed is said to exist, and what exists is "superior" in some sense to what does not exist. Slogans of affirmative ontology might include things like genesis, production, and refinement; for example, it could be said that an affirmative approach sees the universe as "producing" a wide variety of things, that the "purpose" of the universe is to create.

But a negative ontology flips this in reverse. The universe not only creates, but also destroys. It lets go, decomposes, kills, disassembles. Instead of seeing the purpose of the universe as creation and refinement, negative ontology sees the purpose of the universe as destruction. Things are created to be destroyed. The negative approach is obscured by the fact that we aren't one of the things the universe has destroyed (yet). Thus, the negative approach fundamentally goes against the order in which we seem to find ourselves in before reflection.

Similarly, affirmative ethics (and affirmative politics or just politics in general) sees life as compatible with ethics (and politics). Being, life, is favored over nothing simply because it exists. It isn't questioned or asked to prove itself worthy, because the alternative is not easily considered. The fact that something exists is justification enough. Existence is, fundamentally, seen as more important, better than, or primary, to non-existence. Yet this is not usually defended.

Heidegger talks about the "oblivion of Being", but the negative approach once again flips it and talks about the oblivion of non-Being. Non-Being, the non-Being of Being, is obscured and "forgotten" about. There is no reason to favor Being over non-Being, though, simply because we find ourselves swept up in the former. If we ask ourselves "why does this being exist?" we can also ask ourselves "why doesn't this being not exist?" yet curiously we don't often do this. The contingency of Being is seen as evidence of its goodness, yet the opposite isn't incoherent either, that the contingency of Being is evidence of its impurity.

There are good reasons for questioning this primacy of Being:

Phenomenologically, there is the acute sense of "disappointment" with the world. Expectations fail to materialize. A window that looked perfectly clean turns out, upon inspection, to have various smudges and debris build-up (Debris is a fundamental part of Being, and an indication of the non-Being of Being; we throw stuff away, avert our gaze from an ugly display, hide bits and pieces from our gaze, like the inner workings of a machine or a structure - the quality of Being is superficial).

The world can be, when one is not preoccupied with a nifty novelty of sorts (once again, some beings are interesting and are taken to be constitutive of all beings and Being as such - there is a distinct sense of discrimination going on here), "boring" or "uninteresting" - Being is not inherently fascinating or impressive, but rather dull and repetitive (as a night out stargazing will remind anyone, the universe is filled to the brim with the same old patterns of spheres orbiting spheres). That which is fascinating or impressive "wakes us up" from this disappointment with the world in general.

Furthermore, that which catches our eye can quickly nauseate us. Sometimes it seems like the world is just filled with too much crap. There's stuff, everywhere! Why is there so much stuff! There's that goddamn couch in the corner, why does that couch even exist, it's an abomination and an insult to itself. If Being is good, why can we only tolerate so much of it? Why must there be a limit?

Only living things can "die" in the technical sense, but this can be metaphorically applied to non-living things. We can say that things die when they lose their structure that made them "what they were" or "what they appeared to be" in a certain stretch of time. It is clear, then, that things "die" all the time. Everything dies. Curiously, affirmative attitudes seem to conveniently ignore this fact. Birth and death surround Being, but are systematically forgotten about. Humans and all creation are beings-towards-death, yet we can ask ourselves: "what is the point of coming into existence if you are going to return back to where you came from?" What is so important in the hiccup of existence to warrant its genesis?

Now genesis and annihilation, from the negative attitude, seem like tears or accidents in the fabric of non-Being. Being is, as Sartre said, an imperfection, a lessening from the perfection of pure possibility.

Pain is an integral aspect of Being for those immersed in it. It serves as an indication when other beings are rubbing up against oneself, threatening the space one presides in. Once it exists, a being spreads out and takes over. This inevitably brings conflict. Pain is merely a notification of this happening. Something threatens your existence, you better go deal with it.

All for now.

schopenhauer1

Curiously, affirmative attitudes seem to conveniently ignore this fact. Birth and death surround Being, but are systematically forgotten about. Humans and all creation are beings-towards-death, yet we can ask ourselves: "what is the point of coming into existence if you are going to return back to where you came from?" What is so important in the hiccup of existence to warrant its genesis? — darthbarracuda

That's the question I was essentially asking in my other thread. Why does continuing being for the sake of continuing being matter? At the heart of life is survival for survival's sake- so the vehicle for life's preference for being (survival) involves two major things- the ability to adapt due to random mutations and on top of the initial randomness, the eventually tendency for organisms to stabilize around "what works" for that organism when the random changes create a viable niche for survival and procreation. What works ratchets itself up to survive even more efficiently because the mutations will have unintentionally built upon the avenues that have caused the species to thrive and thus refine it, causing a feedback loop of more efficient survival in the specific avenues of survival of that particular species. Much of the time, when species are stabilized in a niche, randomness causes destabilization and thus that generation dies off with maladapted changes. Thus random mutations can promote survival in ecological niches, or promote death in certain already stabilized ecological niches. One of the survival strategies that humans stabilized around was the idea of cultural continuity through shared rituals and beliefs. This ability to use cultural transmission came about from a number of factors, but generally it is agreed it is due to changes in cognitive capacities- especially around concept/language generation.

Anyways, one of the early strategies of survival of the group, was to have rituals surrounding birth. Procreation was given much significance and held primacy along with marriage as one of the major functions of the clan/tribal order. No one questioned this stabilization strategy of the young species- it happened to work. Those who did not have procreation as a primacy of their culture, obviously died out. Generations and generations were concerned with how to be fertile and produce offspring. It was probably the number 1 concern besides finding food for an early human. Rituals reinforced this concern and institutionalized it so that group cohesion offered better chances of procreation. Then, man, through contingent circumstances, found out how to farm and raise livestock, thus leading eventually to complex and stratified civilizations. The cultural memes that were involved in group cohesion and survival, were now set free to pursue all sorts of specialized forms of work and entertainment. However, what remained of the old, was the rituals surrounding procreation. Marriage, fertility, legacy was still primary. There were perhaps some who questioned the need to keep existing.. Ecclesiastes, Wisdom Literature, and such seem to question existence itself with its vanity and suffering, but this was just a small subset- probably of nobles and scribes who had the time to contemplate existence itself.

As trade increased, this democratized existential thinking, and while some indulged in self-reflection of our own existence and questioned why we procreate in the first place, most people seemed to follow the inheritance of our early human ancestors- which is to worry about how to put forth a next generation without questioning why. It's as if the original use for something was no longer needed, but people still did it anyway out of habit.

Now, we are at a stage where we can truly self-reflect without the relentless drive of survival and group cohesion getting in the way. We can question the very thing that caused our species to proliferate in the first place. What is it that we are struggling for on this planet? Is survival and entertainment it? People now, more than ever, have to justify why they even care about anything. Many cultures are rebelling and using the old time cohesion tactics of religion.. That ideology is a tired and true safe bet against the impending fears of existential dread.

Other people have to gin up some sort of "AWE" (capitals intended to show its overinflation).. AWE of knowledge, AWE of nature, AWE of other cultures.. Somehow, it's as if the scientific-minded, like priests of old, want to shame you for taking for granted the AWE of this or that aspect of existence.. yet they too are falling pray to cultural cohesion- of group think, of survival for survival's sake without question.

"Don't you get it? Look at the the little sparrow singing in the tree, the beautiful sunset. That is why you are here, they would say. Isn't it so awe inspiring? We must create more experience so we can be in awe" is the new norm for why we must exist. "Don't you like the struggle? Isn't it self-justifying?"

Of course my answer is no to all of these, but those are the default programs.. Struggle for struggle's sake.. awe of the various aspects of experience. Look at sports and competitive games.. People want challenges. Why? Because we are at an existential age whereby we cling to that which focuses the mind.. AWE inspiring nature, the throng and thrill of beating a competitor, the focus and flow of solving a mathematical formula.. We need to entertain ourselves because our complex minds crave entertainment. It is being reified.. Being craving itself.. eating itself alive with its need for itself.

Harry Hindu

I place myself in the middle. There is no creation nor destruction - only change.

Thorongil

Yes, life is not a self-justifying peepshow, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified. Because it's not self-justifying, there needs to be an argument as to why suicide is not the most rational response to it. "Because it's painful and other people might feel sad" doesn't cut it, for to be opposed to something merely on instinctual or emotional grounds is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything painful need be bad, just as not everything pleasurable need be good.

Being, life — darthbarracuda

I've come to see this equation as problematic. Life is suffering, but all suffering arises through lack or want of a thing, and so life as a whole is a kind of non-being that lacks being.

That ideology is a tired and true safe bet against the impending fears of existential dread. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and underrated in this regard.

_db

Yes, life is not a self-justifying peepshow, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified. Because it's not self-justifying, there needs to be an argument as to why suicide is not the most rational response to it. "Because it's painful and other people might feel sad" doesn't cut it, for to be opposed to something merely on instinctual or emotional grounds is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything painful need be bad, just as not everything pleasurable need be good. — Thorongil

I would say that this is one of the few issues I truly have with Schopenhauer's philosophy. He accepts that the justification of life is not easy, and defends the right to kill oneself. But ultimately he comes back full-circle by arguing suicide only gets rid of the phenomenon, and not the noumenon.

I don't see this as very satisfactory. Who gives a damn about the noumenon?

To be short and sweet, then, I don't see any rational reason to continue living. It's absurd. Not only is life generally mediocre but it also has the potential to be really, really, unimaginably bad. So bad that you might wish you had died earlier. I see the possibility of horrible trauma and pain as a sort of undeniable "trump card" on the side of the pessimists - opponents may try to argue that it's all about "perspective" or "trying harder" or something, but you can't just get rid of extreme pain by a switch of attitude.

I've come to see this equation as problematic. Life is suffering, but all suffering arises through lack or want of a thing, and so life as a whole is a kind of non-being that lacks being. — Thorongil

I don't think it's adequate to say all suffering arises through lack or want. Clearly getting impaled through the stomach will cause someone to suffer, but it's not as if the only thing going on is a desire to not be impaled. There's a metal rod puncturing the stomach, it's going to be painful regardless.

Our well-being is basically dependent on the health of our bodies, of which we have limited control.

So any sort of eudaimonology is going to have to deal with the looming possibility of horrible, disfiguring, traumatic episodes of pain, physical and emotional but especially the former.

_db

Other people have to gin up some sort of "AWE" (capitals intended to show its overinflation).. AWE of knowledge, AWE of nature, AWE of other cultures.. Somehow, it's as if the scientific-minded, like priests of old, want to shame you for taking for granted the AWE of this or that aspect of existence.. yet they too are falling pray to cultural cohesion- of group think, of survival for survival's sake without question. — schopenhauer1

Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race:

“One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.” — Ligotti

It reminds you of some people on this forum, doesn't it?

As trade increased, this democratized existential thinking, and while some indulged in self-reflection of our own existence and questioned why we procreate in the first place, most people seemed to follow the inheritance of our early human ancestors- which is to worry about how to put forth a next generation without questioning why. It's as if the original use for something was no longer needed, but people still did it anyway out of habit. — schopenhauer1

Yes, it's as if every generation struggles with the same fundamental questions as the previous generations. There's nothing new under the Sun. It's the same old story with different characters who all believe themselves to be entirely unique, who only learn life is not worth it when it's already too late. Disappointing, to say the least.

Thorongil

I don't see this as very satisfactory. Who gives a damn about the noumenon? — darthbarracuda

Well, I do. It's what enables the possibility of salvation. Against Schopenhauer, though, I would say that it can't be attained in this life.

To be short and sweet, then, I don't see any rational reason to continue living. It's absurd. — darthbarracuda

Absent the possibility of salvation, I would agree. So why do you continue living?

Thorongil

I don't think it's adequate to say all suffering arises through lack or want. Clearly getting impaled through the stomach will cause someone to suffer, but it's not as if the only thing going on is a desire to not be impaled. — darthbarracuda

In that case, being impaled causes one to lack health, indeed, to literally lack a stomach.

_db

So why do you continue living? — Thorongil

Curiosity, a fear of death, the aesthetic of a spontaneous explorer, and the attitude of "modest arrogance", i.e. I'm sticking around to see if anyone can convince me there's a reason to stick around. I'm also fairly healthy and young so I might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

schopenhauer1

Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race:

“One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.”
— Ligotti — darthbarracuda

Ah yes, I remember that one.. He always has a fun turn of phrase.. Indeed, it's essentially the same sentiment.

It reminds you of some people on this forum, doesn't it? — darthbarracuda

Yep.

Yes, it's as if every generation struggles with the same fundamental questions as the previous generations. There's nothing new under the Sun. It's the same old story with different characters who all believe themselves to be entirely unique, who only learn life is not worth it when it's already too late. Disappointing, to say the least. — darthbarracuda

Well-stated.. It can go back to roles..People take their roles so seriously... Computer programmer, genius-scientist, mechanic, engineer, throw themselves into competitions, excitements, consumption, and chores.. They are maintaining the institutions, making slight novelties that keep their brain stimulated in work and play. I wonder sometimes if some people even have the capacity to question this. Would it be too painful? Would they go mad? Do people live in the absurdity of striving-for-nothing, the instrumentality of surviving to survive? Is it that the next concern, the next plan, that distracts them from facing this emptiness?

_db

↪Thorongil

I also failed to mention that a major part of my "reason" to live has to do with a personal commitment to the welfare of sentient organisms, particularly non-human animals. I can't exactly help those in need if I'm rotting in the ground.

Thorongil

Curiosity, a fear of death, the aesthetic of a spontaneous explorer, and the attitude of "modest arrogance", i.e. I'm sticking around to see if anyone can convince me there's a reason to stick around. I'm also fairly healthy and young so I might as well enjoy it while it lasts. — darthbarracuda

Well, forgive me, but this sounds hypocritical and seems to commit the naturalistic fallacy I mentioned.

I also failed to mention that a major part of my "reason" to live has to do with a personal commitment to the welfare of sentient organisms, particularly non-human animals. I can't exactly help those in need if I'm rotting in the ground. — darthbarracuda

That sounds better.

_db

Well, forgive me, but this sounds hypocritical and seems to commit the naturalistic fallacy I mentioned. — Thorongil

I'm not sure I follow.

Thorongil

I'm also fairly healthy and young so I might as well enjoy it while it lasts. — darthbarracuda

This in particular commits the fallacy I mentioned.

_db

↪Thorongil

I don't think it's the naturalistic fallacy. Under that logic, you could say that the instinctual aversion to tall cliffs doesn't cut it, or that the aversion towards impalement is not a good enough argument. Also I don't really get how the rest of my view commits it.

Indeed, to add on, this is why people like Julio Cabrera call pain, particularly extreme pain, to be ethically disqualifying. We aren't disqualified due to some intrinsic gnostic evil, but because we live in an environment that places pressures on us and forces us to act in rational self-interest even if it's not the ethical thing to do. A spy who spills the beans while being tortured may have done the wrong thing, but cannot be blamed.

mcdoodle

the nature of affirmative ontology — darthbarracuda

My ontology is something of a blank: I take everything as epistemology, provisional, but that most of the time I live as if things were thus and so.

Isn't, though, the idea of an 'affirmative' ontology in the eye of the beholder? For those who engage with a detailed ontology of their own, the overall state of things just is as it is. If it is an ontology then surely it is prior to valuation.

This is related in my mind to my feeling about your very absorbing op - that you are using Being in two different ways but writing as if they are the same concept. Heideggerian and Sartreian Being just is. There is at the core is-ness. Then, secondly, there is (for Hr) Dasein, human being, and it is this latter version of 'being' that Sartre calls 'imperfect', from the pre-cogito outset, because its Being derives from the Being-it-is-not.

Erik

↪darthbarracuda

As I see it, one need not privilege Being or Nothing but can instead see that the two are intimately and necessarily related. If that interconnection is understood, then I feel that we can joyfully affirm life (Being) despite having a vivid awareness of its ultimate end in annihilation and nothingness. This is the general outlook and disposition that I take to be characteristic of thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger, and possibly even ancient sages like Heraclitus and Lao Tzu. It's a position that, to me, lies far beyond the either/or of optimism and pessimism, since these terms are somewhat superficial in light of the profundity or intensity of life. Another sort of evasion is to retreat from this discomforting feeling into all-encompassing solutions and explanations, even those of a seemingly more courageous and realistic approach.

As I see it, when the precariousness of 'what is' is grasped--rather than evaded through wishful thinking--then beings can become even more meaningful to us. It's one possible approach to our predicament. Of course this insight can and often does lead to paralysis and despair, especially when it involves an obsessive fixation upon our own death, which I know from firsthand experience. Perhaps that epiphany is a necessary condition for a more meaningful and engaged life. I guess I just don't see why this honest and clear-sighted understanding of life's fragility, it's constant hovering over the abyss of nothingness, must necessarily end in an outlook of despair.

I think one of Heidegger's primary aims (and lasting contributions) is to free us from many of the guiding assumptions we have about ourselves--which at the same time means about Being (more accurately: the Being of beings)--and, by doing so, open us to a new conception of the way in which we exist. This radical reassessment of our way of being can be therapeutic and affirmative, and it can be such without smuggling in comforting metaphysical illusions. But first things first: we should get as clear as possible about who we are and how we exist. Fundamental ontology, as the specific analysis of human existence, lays the groundwork for the larger ontological inquiry of Being more generally. A return to the question of Being can only proceed by moving away from interpreting ourselves in terms of subjectivity and towards being-in-the-world. I think Heidegger, despite his many personal failings, makes a compelling case in this most important matter. And Nothingness plays an important role in this

To lay it out very quickly, by reconceiving human existence in terms of Dasein, as a sort of no-thing-ness in which beings are cleared or 'lit up', the dread of death and Nothingness can dissipate a bit. With this shift in self-understanding we can ultimately affirm life and (to paraphrase Heidegger) be thankful that a world (Being) is at all, that beings are rather than nothing, that we ourselves are and yet hardly know who we are, and hardly know all of this. On the other hand, if we conceive of ourselves as encapsulated egos locked inside our heads and constantly threatened by a hostile 'external' world, then the appropriate response would likely be terror and a preference for Nothing or non-existence over Being (not sure why I'm capitalizing--added affect I guess).

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your position.

Primacy of Being

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions