A simple theory of human operation

schopenhauer1

Humans are social animals, and our survival is dependent on social arrangements. From the earliest days of human history, we have formed groups and communities to protect ourselves from the harsh elements, to hunt and gather food, and to care for each other. The philosopher Aristotle once said that "man is by nature a social animal," and this idea has been echoed by many other thinkers throughout history.

However, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to separate our behaviors from our survival needs. We can choose not to work because we don't like it, we can choose to commit suicide, or we can engage in a range of other behaviors that have nothing to do with our basic survival needs. This unique characteristic of human cognition has been the subject of much discussion among philosophers and academics.

Despite our general fear of pain and seeking of pleasure, we still must write narratives of motivation. Our behaviors are not fixed for these end goals but are tied to the conceptualizing-human mind in social relations to others. Every single day, every minute even, we have to "buy into" motivating ourselves with narratives. This creates a tension between our individual desires and the social fictions that we create to maintain our way of life.

Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. Aesthetic and non-physical pleasures become a built-in mechanism to deal with this fear. However, this also creates a need for fictions to explain why we must do anything, which is a tragic break in nature, as philosopher Peter Zapffe argued.

Zapffe believed that the human mind was too sophisticated for its own good, creating a sense of existential dread that can only be managed through various forms of denial. For Zapffe, this denial was a necessary part of the human condition, but it also created a sense of tragedy because it involved creating fictions to explain why we must do anything.

In order to deal with this tension, humans have created various systems of belief and value that provide us with a sense of purpose and meaning. These systems can take the form of religions, political ideologies, or even simple cultural practices. By buying into these systems, we are able to maintain a sense of coherence and continuity in our lives.

However, the fact remains that these systems are ultimately fictions that we have created to explain why we must do anything. This creates a sense of unease for some, as they struggle to find meaning in a world where everything seems ultimately arbitrary.

Summarizing all of this, human cognition is governed by conceptualization-language and social relations via this conceptualizing mechanism, and this creates tension in how we survive as compared with other animals. Despite our general fear of pain and seeking of pleasure, we still must write narratives of motivation to maintain our way of life. This is a tragic break in nature, as Zapffe clearly laid out. While we have created various systems of belief and value to provide us with a sense of purpose and meaning, the fact remains that these systems are ultimately fictions that we have created to explain why we must do anything.

plaque flag

↪schopenhauer1

Excellent topic for discussion.

these systems are ultimately fictions that we have created to explain why we must do anything. — schopenhauer1

I think we are thrown into existing, by parents that did as one does or the condom broke. Once the baby arrives, you can't help (unless you are wired funny) but love the little fucker. So the bring it up, knowing perhaps that life is a joke or whatever, but what are you going to do about it ? Friend of mine tried to express the ecstasy of becoming a father. We've lost touch. He's got three now, a hard working man with the picket fence and kids he always wanted, even a wife who stays home.

To me it's more like people find some role (hero myth, ideology) that feels right enough and keep getting out of bed every morning, largely to avoid losing a job, a lover, a home. We cling to what keeps us safe and comfortable. This is to be expected. Moloch demands it ! Those whose source code doesn't have them building a nice little web end up replicating less or not at all.

Is "these systems are ultimately fictions" itself a fiction ? Even the most negative ideology may help the species or the tribe as a whole contribute to the heat death. Antinatalism is the hand of god. It is the thought of genocidal violence taken to the last extreme. It is will-to-power. Does it not cry out after all for the coming of heat death ?

How does one escape metanarratives? A certain kind of 'strong pomo' tends to threaten itself with cancellation. My theory is that we are wired or programmed to perform some version of 'the hero with a thousand faces.' But what the hero myth of the person with the theory of the hero myth ? Self-knowledge, right ? I know and confess that I'm caught in this game of playing the hero, and that's how I play the hero. Does this relate at all to your own thesis and the position it puts you in ? If you inspire agreement and build community, does that not put another brick on the tower for Moloch ?

schopenhauer1

How does one escape metanarratives? A certain kind of 'strong pomo' tends to threaten itself with cancellation. My theory is that we are wired or programmed to perform some version of 'the hero with a thousand faces.' But what the hero myth of the person with the theory of the hero myth ? Self-knowledge, right ? I know and confess that I'm caught in this game of playing the hero, and that's how I play the hero. Does this relate at all to your own thesis and the position it puts you in ? If you inspire agreement and build community, does that not put another brick on the tower for Moloch ? — green flag

So my theory, along with Zapffe's, is more about our essential "break" with nature. We use narratives/fictions to create reasons which give us motivations. That's how a conceptualizing animal with recursive language capacity parses and synthesizes the world- one in which social arrangements are paramount. These personal fictions (partially drawing from meta-fictions of the culture) then must network with each other to get stuff done. Me agreeing to these conditions and parameters (what it means to "work" and constantly motivating to complete this "work", is an example here), is based on "reasons" that I have created for why I am going to continue to do something. I may not even like what I do. In fact, I may hate it. However, I can decide to continue on anyways, because the "reason" (fiction/narrative) is that 'I must do this so that I can make money. Money is this thing to buy the products and services of other people's labor'. However, every one of those conceptualizations and all of that narrative is indeed made up from cultural cues that I have (chosen to?) internalize. There is nothing inherently compelling about "continuing to work to make money". It is something I can freely choose to buy into everyday.

No other animal has such baroque mechanisms of "being-in-the-world" (for lack of better terminology). If a dog is hungry, it eats, it begs, it scrounges, it fights for its food. There is no meta-narrative to this. That's just a truism. The same for even higher order animals, even ones with rudimentary "language-like" capacities (dolphins, chimps, etc.). As Zapffe notes, this detachment from "being", represents a permanent (and tragic!) break with the rest of nature. It is why we are exiled from the Garden of Eden ("being"). We are always but a virtual self of a self, but never being a self.

jgill

I know and confess that I'm caught in this game of playing the hero, and that's how I play the hero. — green flag

:chin: :cool:

jgill

This is a tragic break in nature, as Zapffe clearly laid out — schopenhauer1

Stay away from this guy. Throw yourself into adventure.

plaque flag

It is why we are exiled from the Garden of Eden ("being"). We are always but a virtual self of a self, but never being a self. — schopenhauer1

Yes !

I agree with you that we are fundamentally split or alienated from ourselves, exiled from a Garden we were never in. If we had it at all, it was as an infant whose cry could summon mother, just as God summoned the world with only his voice.

It probably helps us replicate, our angry, restless, lusty curiosity. We hunt for impossible completion. As Becker and Sartre and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and Hobbes say in their own way, we are a futile passion to be god, a will to life, a will to justice, a will to order, a will to power, a will to assimilate. Call it the will to some everblurry X.

plaque flag

↪jgill

What I'm getting at is that some people can pride themselves on a strange selfhonesty. Contemplating the notion of a hero program might make one cynical, but it's just an aspect of know thyself, right ? In the same way, a person might be honest about the (hopefully relatively) dormant sadism and greed in themselves. This means integrating some uncomfortable truths, living at peace with the fact that we are both beasts and angels, that the enemy, finally seen, turns out to be us. Evil is not externalized but harmonized. Nothing human is alien to me.

plaque flag

Stay away from this guy. Throw yourself into adventure. — jgill

Zapffe was a climber !

plaque flag

It is something I can freely choose to buy into everyday. — schopenhauer1

This reminds me of Sartre's idea of freedom. Radical responsibility. It has its beauty.

plaque flag

However, I can decide to continue on anyways, because the "reason" (fiction/narrative) is that 'I must do this so that I can make money. Money is this thing to buy the products and services of other people's labor'. However, every one of those conceptualizations and all of that narrative is indeed made up from cultural cues that I have (chosen to?) internalize. — schopenhauer1

Our fear of death and homeless is a 'superstition' you might say. The 'saint' can starve homeless under the bridge. No one interferes. Those who lack the fear of death in 'the impostume of peace' are likely to genetically and memetically recede into the background. Such a pattern does not assert itself, work to get itself replicated. It nibbles on the margins along obscure paraphilias.

Freedom-responsibility is a beautiful ideal. Do people really choose ?

T Clark

However, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to separate our behaviors from our survival needs. We can choose not to work because we don't like it, we can choose to commit suicide, or we can engage in a range of other behaviors that have nothing to do with our basic survival needs. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an artificial distinction. Animals can also behave in ways that don't directly impact basic survival needs. They play, wander around exploring, and spend a lot of time napping. They hang out with their families. I'm not saying animals are the same as humans, but you are exaggerating the differences.

Despite our general fear of pain and seeking of pleasure, we still must write narratives of motivation. Our behaviors are not fixed for these end goals but are tied to the conceptualizing-human mind in social relations to others. Every single day, every minute even, we have to "buy into" motivating ourselves with narratives...

...Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. Aesthetic and non-physical pleasures become a built-in mechanism to deal with this fear. However, this also creates a need for fictions to explain why we must do anything, — schopenhauer1

I don't think this is right either. Human motivations include more than just pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. Calling artistic, recreational, and other non-instrumental activities "built-in mechanism to deal with fear," may be true for you, but they aren't for most of us. You and I have had this discussion before. Your vision of human nature is darker and less hopeful than mine is.

It is possible to act without intervention by narratives. Much of the point of Taoism is learning how to act spontaneously in line with our true natures. It is called "acting without acting." It is understood as the true source of human motivation. Narratives interfere with this rather than supporting it. Narratives don't generally promote action, they are more able to put the brakes on, to stop us from doing what our natural inclinations indicate. A lot of narratives are also post hoc additions put on to explain to ourselves why we did what we already did.

So my theory, along with Zapffe's, is more about our essential "break" with nature. We use narratives/fictions to create reasons which give us motivations. That's how a conceptualizing animal with recursive language capacity parses and synthesizes the world- one in which social arrangements are paramount. — schopenhauer1

I'll say it again. I don't think this is true, or at least not necessarily true. It's "seems to me" psychology/philosophy and I don't think it represents how people actually feel or behave.

T Clark

Friend of mine tried to express the ecstasy of becoming a father. We've lost touch. He's got three now, a hard working man with the picket fence and kids he always wanted, even a wife who stays home.

To me it's more like people find some role (hero myth, ideology) that feels right enough and keep getting out of bed every morning, largely to avoid losing a job, a lover, a home. We cling to what keeps us safe and comfortable. This is to be expected. Moloch demands it ! Those whose source code doesn't have them building a nice little web end up replicating less or not at all. — green flag

This is startlingly condescending. I think it shows your lack of respect for people who, apparently unlike you, find satisfaction in daily life, family, work, and other aspects of our humanity.

Is "these systems are ultimately fictions" itself a fiction ? Even the most negative ideology may help the species or the tribe as a whole contribute to the heat death. Antinatalism is the hand of god. It is the thought of genocidal violence taken to the last extreme. It is will-to-power. Does it not cry out after all for the coming of heat death ? — green flag

Such pompous arrogance.

schopenhauer1

I think this is an artificial distinction. Animals can also behave in ways that don't directly impact basic survival needs. They play, wander around exploring, and spend a lot of time napping. They hang out with their families. I'm not saying animals are the same as humans, but you are exaggerating the differences. — T Clark

We've been through this before. You tend to conflate what animals do and what humans do, and I don't even want to bother pointing out the difference in an animal that can use recursive linguistics to tell stories about itself and then buy into those stories, versus what animals do. But I guess I just. did. right. here. So please read that, and then re-read that to get my gist.

It is possible to act without intervention by narratives. Much of the point of Taoism is learning how to act spontaneously in line with our true natures. It is called "acting without acting." It is understood as the true source of human motivation. Narratives interfere with this rather than supporting it. Narratives don't generally promote action, they are more able to put the brakes on, to stop us from doing what our natural inclinations indicate. A lot of narratives are also post hoc additions put on to explain to ourselves why we did what we already did. — T Clark

I just don't find this Taoist stuff compelling. In fact, if it was natural, we wouldn't need Toaism or anything related. We would simply BE. But we aren't. And so there in fact IS something in the way of that. I am saying that contrary to what dichotomy fiction you are purporting on me, the animals are living Tao. Humans are never doing so, and are always trying to get there. Hence TaoISM.

I'll say it again. I don't think this is true, or at least not necessarily true. It's "seems to me" psychology/philosophy and I don't think it represents how people actually feel or behave. — T Clark

You keep saying that, but here you are using language, having a narrative of being angry and upset. Think about it.

T Clark

We've been through this before. You tend to conflate what animals do and what humans do, and I don't even want to bother pointing out the difference in an animal that can use recursive linguistics to tell stories about itself and then buy into those stories, versus what animals do. — schopenhauer1

I think we probably agree it won't be very fruitful for you and me to spend a lot of time bashing things we already know we disagree on back and forth.

I just don't find this Taoist stuff compelling. In fact, if it was natural, we wouldn't need Toaism or anything related. We would simply BE. But we aren't. And so there in fact IS something in the way of that. I am saying that contrary to what dichotomy fiction you are purporting on me, the animals are living Tao. Humans are never doing so, and are always trying to get there. Hence TaoISM. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I thought it might not be a good idea to bring Taoism into this, knowing it is not a well understood or accepted way of knowing things. I was right, although I do think it provides a good reflection of human nature. Again, I think your sour way of seeing human nature and behavior undermines the credibility of your views.

You keep saying that, but here you are using language, having a narrative of being angry and upset. Think about it. — schopenhauer1

I'm not angry or upset at all. I went back and reread my post. It was polite, respectful, and responsive. I tried to make sure I left out any provocative language. I've always tried to treat your ideas with respect, even though I strongly disagree with them. It's true, all verbal and written communication is narrative, but communication is not motivation, which was the primary substance of your OP.

schopenhauer1

I'm not angry or upset at all. I went back and reread my post. It was polite, respectful, and responsive. I tried to make sure I left out any provocative language. I've always tried to treat your ideas with respect, even though I strongly disagree with them. It's true, all verbal and written communication is narrative, but communication is not motivation, which was the primary substance of your OP. — T Clark

Motivation, as in why you continue to do something you might not otherwise want to do. The thing is, you are going to claim you have never done something you never wanted to do. Is that right? You are going to claim that no average human has ever had a thought of "I would rather not do this task right now, but I will because of X". Is that right?

schopenhauer1

Freedom-responsibility is a beautiful ideal. Do people really choose ? — green flag

Well there is a substratum of some determinism there as acknowledged in my OP. Here I said:

Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. Aesthetic and non-physical pleasures become a built-in mechanism to deal with this fear. However, this also creates a need for fictions to explain why we must do anything, which is a tragic break in nature, as philosopher Peter Zapffe argued. — schopenhauer1

T Clark

Motivation, as in why you continue to do something you might not otherwise want to do. The thing is, you are going to claim you have never done something you never wanted to do. Is that right? — schopenhauer1

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works.

plaque flag

This is startlingly condescending. I think it shows your lack of respect for people who, apparently unlike you, find satisfaction in daily life, family, work, and other aspects of our humanity. — T Clark

Take it easy, O defender of the common man. I too work for the general weal. I will give thee tools for to maximize the removal of coal and its transformation into rosycheeked youths.

plaque flag

↪T Clark

I ought to be patient with you, because you are talking to a projection. Seriously, though, your theatrics are misdirected. I'm glad for my friend and his happiness. We just lost touch. Such is life. It's just how the world works.

I don't owe you this clarification. It's a belatedly tolerant response to your indulgent misreading.

schopenhauer1

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works. — T Clark

Exactly, and you are LITERALLY displaying the point I am making in real time.

T Clark

I ought to be patient with you, because you are talking to a projection. Seriously, though, your theatrics are misdirected. I'm glad for my friend and his happiness. We just lost touch. Such is life. It's just how the world works.

I don't owe you this clarification. It's a belatedly tolerant response to your indulgent misreading. — green flag

I'll admit to being theatrical and indulgent if you'll admit to being condescending and pompous.

T Clark

Exactly, and you are LITERALLY displaying the point I am making in real time. — schopenhauer1

That's not true. Your OP was about how people use narratives to provide motivation. What does that have to do with me saying:

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works. — T Clark

schopenhauer1

That's not true. Your OP was about how people use narratives to provide motivation. What does that have to do with me saying:

Of course I've done things I didn't want to do. Jobs that need to be done are not necessarily enjoyable. All worthwhile activities include aspects that are unpleasant. I don't see that as unfair or unreasonable. It's just how the world works.
— T Clark — T Clark

Why is "it's just how the world works" connected with you doing a job you would not want to do, but doing it despite not wanting to do it?

T Clark

Why is "it's just how the world works" connected with you doing a job you would not want to do? — schopenhauer1

I've done a lot of worthwhile and enjoyable work in my life. All of it included aspects I didn't enjoy. If you like to cook, you have to wash the dishes. If you want to design the cleanup of a contaminated property, you have to figure out the budget and get the client to agree with it. This is where you and I always run into a wall. It's not unfair that life includes a bit of pain and unpleasantness.

schopenhauer1

This is where you and I always run into a wall. It's not unfair that life includes a bit of pain and unpleasantness. — T Clark

So you are changing the subject. I am not talking about fairness right now.
Why do you do the dishes even if you don't like it?

T Clark

Why do you do the dishes even if you don't like it? — schopenhauer1

Because it's part of a job I do enjoy and I can't complete that without doing the part I don't enjoy.

schopenhauer1

I can't complete that without doing the part I don't enjoy. — T Clark

How do you know that? Is that a concept you learned or are you born knowing about how to clean dishes and its association with cooking foods?

T Clark

How do you know that? — schopenhauer1

Sorry. That's enough. I'm all done.

jgill

that the enemy, finally seen, turns out to be us — green flag

Pogo's words reverberate through time. I once pulled a skiff through murky waters up to my chest in the Okefenokee much like Humphrey Bogart in "African Queen". That same week someone had lost control while water skiing not far away and had died, having fallen into a nest of water moccasins.

Stay away from this guy. Throw yourself into adventure. — jgill

Zapffe was a climber ! — green flag

Practicing what he preached?

schopenhauer1

Sorry. That's enough. I'm all done. — T Clark

Ahh, glad you are coming at this with good faith and seeing where this goes.
Anyways, the point is that you have a narrative of why you clean the dishes. You have just taken the narrative for granted to the point that to you, it seems the answer was written on high from Moses as to why you must do them.

If you want X, you must keep doing this task, is the narrative. That is the extra human layer other animals don't deal with!

Bylaw

Additionally, humans generally fear pain, displeasure, and the angst of boredom, while seeking pleasures to distract from this angst. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an oversimplification of our motivations. We are social mammals. We want contact and intimacy with other creatures, especially our own species. We are curious, we wonder, even as newborns, about the sources of sounds and other sensory phenomena. These motivations are not driven merely by pleasure and pain, in fact we will aim towards painful experiences to satisfy our curiosity and social desires. All this in place before any grand narrative to distract or give meaning is put in place. In fact any belief system needs to engage with these motivations - and often channels them, judges them, gives rules to restrict them. It's not that your post is incorrect. These belief systems do do the things you say, but there is tremendous motivation in place before these systems are plopped on top of them.

Further all sorts of practical information is plopped on top of them, without the qualities of the belief systems you are talking about. IOW we are given knowledge of 'how things work' and 'where things are' and these add nuance and individual characteristics and more inspiration for individual ways of expressing curiosity (wanting to learn about things, people, the world, ourselves) and social urges.

I realize there is no immaculate separation between practical information and the kinds of belief systems you mention, but before any belief system is understood by a child they have tremendous motivation and the complexity of the ways these motivations can be expressed increase with practical knowledge accumulation, each step in the mastery of movement and communication and exposure to different facets of the world, including people. other creatures, things and enrivonments.

In order to deal with this tension, humans have created various systems of belief and value that provide us with a sense of purpose and meaning. — schopenhauer1

Humans have these things regardless. They don't need a theism or set of morals or idealogy to have a sense of purpose and meaning. Given that we are always exposed to belief systems it may be hard to tease out what causes what, but a look at children can see that one has little need of any -ism to leap out of bed, demand things, express curiosity in a wide variety of ways and deliberately engage with others.

An awareness of death may well then draw people to belief systems that assuage anxiety, but we already have tremendous motivations - not unlike all our social mammal siblings and cousins.

A simple theory of human operation

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions