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. — schopenhauer1

I already told you that I need a narrative to communicate the situation to you, but I don't need one to motivate myself, which was the point of your OP.

Now I'm really done. No, seriously, I really mean it. For sure this time. La, la, la, la, la. I'm not listening. I'm going to turn my computer off now.

in fact we will aim towards painful experiences to satisfy our curiosity and social desires. — Bylaw

Aim for? I don't know about that pre-lingual. We do things and learn from them sure. Aiming for is a bit of a stretch. We have targets for our desires I guess, if that is an aim. The toddler wants X, and risks Y to get X and learns of Z obstacle. Aim seems like a self-knowledge that is not quite present prior to conceptualization.

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. — Bylaw

This is narrative. Though positive ones I guess. I was discussing ways we use narrative to overcome things we don't want to do.

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. — Bylaw

Perhaps there, it is more like animals pre-conceptualization. For example, learning to walk is somewhat by environment, not completely innate but doesn't take any self-talk to do it of course.

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. — Bylaw

Again, I am not talking about an ideology like a religion necessarily, but cultural beliefs that confer a motivating force. The belief that for example, "Work brings money. Money brings necessities for living in a certain cultural way. This knowledge means I must keep working even if I don't really want to." This is not something any other X animal generally goes through. The animal doesn't have complex conceptualization with recursive language capacity, letalone concepts like, "I don't like this, but I will do it anyways".

Now I'm really done. No, seriously, I really mean it. For sure this time. La, la, la, la, la. I'm not listening. I'm going to turn my computer off now. — T Clark

Ah yes, I believe that's Socrates, no? You are sticking your fingers in your ears to not engage.. This is magnificent philosophy discourse.

Aim for? I don't know about that pre-lingual. — schopenhauer1

I can live without the word aim, but there sure are motivations. I suppose I was thinking quasi literally that the child will aim his or her face towards other faces rather than other objects. There's already values and priorities.

This is narrative. Though positive ones I guess. I was discussing ways we use narrative to overcome things we don't want to do. — schopenhauer1

Yes, much practical knowledge is narrated, though we also imitate and learn by trial and error without narratives, especially as kids. And there will be steps in these processes that in and of themselves we wouldn't want to do, but to find out what's over there we may have to go through the thorny bush.

Again, I am not talking about an ideology like a religion necessarily, but cultural beliefs that confer a motivating force. The belief that for example, "Work brings money. Money brings necessities for living in a certain cultural way. This knowledge means I must keep working even if I don't really want to." — schopenhauer1

Sure. And I am not in any way denying these things exist. And some of these cultural beliefs even or perhaps often go against our primary urges. Curiosity killed the cat and any other memes, teaching practices, parental reactions, etc., that aim at stifling curiosity. Of course some stifling is needed - hey, what happens if I put the fork tines in an outlet? [a real example from my childhood curiosity. I was stunned that my father could figure out what I did after the lights went out without even finding the fork with it's blackened tines. I learned A LOT that afternoon

"I don't like this, but I will do it anyways". — schopenhauer1

But they certainly will do things they don't like if the motivation is present. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-10-16-me-6537-story.html

Sure. And I am not in any way denying these things exist. And some of these cultural beliefs even or perhaps often go against our primary urges. — Bylaw

Yes. As an adult human, fully formed with the self-aware bit, there comes an extra layer of reasoning that is a break from the rest of nature. That is the premise and I think it is still valid despite your interesting forays into child development. If a dog is hungry, it eats, it begs, it scrounges, it plays tricks, it fights for its food. There is no meta-narrative to this.

Even T Clark's dishwashing has an implicit narrative. He doesn't like doing dishes, but cleaning them will allow for use in the next round of cooking, so you must wash them if you want that. You don't have to though. You can decide to let it pile up. You can be a hoarder, walk out of the house, break all the dishes and buy new ones, etc. But T Clark is probably going to follow a simple enough narrative.

Yes. As an adult human, fully formed with the self-aware bit, there comes an extra layer of reasoning that is a break from the rest of nature. That is the premise and I think it is still valid despite your interesting forays into child development. If a dog is hungry, it eats, it begs, it scrounges, it plays tricks, it fights for its food. There is no meta-narrative to this. — schopenhauer1

My point was that your op seemed to make it sound like our only motivations, without some later cultural belief, are move towards pleasure, move away from pain. I don't think that's the case. I have to point to animals and children to make an argument here since they aren't or have yet been captured by cultural beliefs. And even without a metanarrative, they do and will even move into pain/discomfort due to social desires and curiosity. Sometimes repeatedly.

Even T Clark's dishwashing has an implicit narrative. He doesn't like doing dishes, but cleaning them will allow for use in the next round of cooking, so you must wash them if you want that. You don't have to though. You can decide to let it pile up. You can be a hoarder, walk out of the house, break all the dishes and buy new ones, etc. But T Clark is probably going to follow a simple enough narrative. — schopenhauer1

I would tend to agree that that example doesn't work as a counterexample. But, again, animals and kids will do things that cause pain due to motivations that are not dependent on cultural narratives.

And also drive us to do all sorts of things without immediate pleasure gained.

And I experience this driving me and others along with cultural beliefs as an adult.

And the tremendous frustration cultural beliefs have added when they have gone against motivations not dependent on cultural beliefs. You can feel these primal motivations chafing against the handcuffs. No one had to tell me to be social - though they sure added a lot of narratives about what was appropriate. I was willing to go through pain to get closer to other beings. No one had to give me a cultural belief to get me to explore and find out. And I was willing to go through discomfort and suffering to satisfy curiosity.

This all may seem tangential, but I think those drives undlie much of what we do, often despite cultural beliefs.

And the practical information I got or learned myself, including tacit knowledge about how to move and find out things, this merely extended the range and nuances of my core drives to be social and find out stuff. That knowledge had nothing to do with warding off the fear of death.

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. — schopenhauer1

I would tend to agree that that example doesn't work as a counterexample. But, again, animals and kids will do things that cause pain due to motivations that are not dependent on cultural narratives. — Bylaw

Sure, I agree with that.

And I experience this driving me and others along with cultural beliefs as an adult.

And the tremendous frustration cultural beliefs have added when they have gone against motivations not dependent on cultural beliefs. You can feel these primal motivations chafing against the handcuffs. No one had to tell me to be social - though they sure added a lot of narratives about what was appropriate. I was willing to go through pain to get closer to other beings. No one had to give me a cultural belief to get me to explore and find out. And I was willing to go through discomfort and suffering to satisfy curiosity.

This all may seem tangential, but I think those drives undlie much of what we do, often despite cultural beliefs.

And the practical information I got or learned myself, including tacit knowledge about how to move and find out things, this merely extended the range and nuances of my core drives to be social and find out stuff. That knowledge had nothing to do with warding off the fear of death. — Bylaw

I think I acknowledged all of these underlying desires (both social and "pleasure-based") here:

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. — schopenhauer1

and then here:

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. — schopenhauer1

So basically I am saying that although there are tendencies to do one thing (based on various things like pleasure, aesthetic pleasure [such as ones gotten from engaging socially, etc.]) there is the ability (and need) to tell stories to convince ourselves of doing things we wouldn't normally want to do in order to get those unpleasant things done. Again, unlike other animals, that simply exist and do what it needs to get things done and survive. We have an extra layer that makes us tragic in our way as it is a break from being into counter-factual being. We can "trick" ourselves, but it would only be in denying our true capacity for self-knowledge, which is that we agree to any of the story for why we do things, ones we don't even "want" or "desire" to continue doing.

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. — Bylaw

Good post - good ideas, well written.

I'll admit to being theatrical and indulgent if you'll admit to being condescending and pompous. — T Clark

I will admit to that, just to be clear. But I sincerely suspect that much of the thrill and joy of philosophy is in the sense it gives us of being elevated. Consider Plato's Cave myth. Consider conspiracy theory in general. Its allure is (seemingly, partially) that those who embrace it see better than those 'lesser' souls who are still caught up in illusion.

Why would a person seek to be more rational, more educated, if this wasn't understood as an improvement, a development, an enrichment ?

There is too much existence. Schopenhauer might have had the notion here:

Their wealth becomes a punishment by delivering them up to misery of having nothing to do; for, to escape it, they will rush about in all directions, traveling here, there and everywhere. No sooner do they arrive in a place than they are anxious to know what amusements it affords; just as though they were beggars asking where they could receive a dole! Of a truth, need and boredom are the two poles of human life. — Schopenhauer

This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. — Schopenhauer

The brute is much more content with mere existence than man; the plant is wholly so; and man finds satisfaction in it just in proportion as he is dull and obtuse. Accordingly, the life of the brute carries less of sorrow with it, but also less of joy, when compared with the life of man; and while this may be traced, on the one side, to freedom from the torment of care and anxiety, it is also due to the fact that hope, in any real sense, is unknown to the brute. It is thus deprived of any share in that which gives us the most and best of our joys and pleasures, the mental anticipation of a happy future, and the inspiriting play of phantasy, both of which we owe to our power of imagination. If the brute is free from care, it is also, in this sense, without hope; in either case, because its consciousness is limited to the present moment, to what it can actually see before it. The brute is an embodiment of present impulses, and hence what elements of fear and hope exist in its nature—and they do not go very far—arise only in relation to objects that lie before it and within reach of those impulses: whereas a man's range of vision embraces the whole of his life, and extends far into the past and future.

Following upon this, there is one respect in which brutes show real wisdom when compared with us—I mean, their quiet, placid enjoyment of the present moment. The tranquillity of mind which this seems to give them often puts us to shame for the many times we allow our thoughts and our cares to make us restless and discontented....But the brute's enjoyment is not anticipated, and therefore, suffers no deduction; so that the actual pleasure of the moment comes to it whole and unimpaired. In the same way, too, evil presses upon the brute only with its own intrinsic weight; whereas with us the fear of its coming often makes its burden ten times more grievous. — Schopenhauer

Has anyone ever had the feeling of a sort of emptiness or ennui? Science and technology, for the "thinking man" seems to be the things that confer any sort of inherent meaning. But is it not a manifestation of our own discontent? Science is delving into the walls of our confinement, looking at the cracks, and the specs on the wall with closer and closer examination. Mining more and more minutia. It's almost a masturbatory gesture in that it reveals our discontentment. And then, its usefulness in bringing the comforts simply amplify the need for need and its instrumental nature. We must keep reorienting to a value, but what for? Survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat.

Survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat. — schopenhauer1

Also expansion and conquest, a forward march without a definite destination. To more go and to more go and to more go.

Has anyone ever had the feeling of a sort of emptiness or ennui? — schopenhauer1

Ecclesiastes.

I don't think Solomon actually wrote it, but it's a nice story. The king who has tasted all pleasure and all knowledge can see through to the void behind it.

***********************
All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
https://biblehub.com/kjv/ecclesiastes/9.htm

Following upon this, there is one respect in which brutes show real wisdom when compared with us — Schopenhauer

This is also the advice of 'Solomon.' And Whitman is nice on this:
************************
They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.

Ecclesiastes.

I don't think Solomon actually wrote it, but it's a nice story. The king who has tasted all pleasure and all knowledge can see through to the void behind it. — green flag

A classic.


Ok Green Flag, I'm going to give you three concepts. I'd like you to string them together:
Science (and technology), minutia-mongering, meaning

Also expansion and conquest, a forward march without a definite destination. To more go and to more go and to more go. — green flag

More information and application of information for varieties of outputs, and? Any value put on this becomes suspect as a whole range of assumptions is being questioned. Circularities, instrumentality, etc.

How does this not become a circularity of reasoning?:
Humanity mines more information from the world and its own historical information to gain new insights to improve the survival of the species and we are all doing our part to bring about more refining of information to bring about more improvement of survival.

a) How is that ethic itself a justification for itself?
b) Isn't this a value we are imputing and thus making assumptions from the start? Unlike other animals that just survive. We survive because we justify it with reasoning. The hunger we feel, and the sickness we can get, the physical pleasure of taste and sex are about as close to the animal as we get. Beyond that it's all justifying without foundation. We are always putting the cart before the horse. Even survival itself is just a concept reified into some sort of societal motivation to get shit done. We can't escape justification being unfounded.

We can't escape justification being unfounded. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Just to be clear, I'm saying that we just already have an 'irrational' or 'unjustifiable' urge to expand...and to find and demand justifications as part of that. We are building a god just now more explicitly than ever: artificial intelligence. This is Nietzsche's overman, even. For Moloch demands a tower. Anything that does not replicate and self-assert and exploit its environment gets shouldered out. Complexity increases. We climb the entropy gradient, the death of the sun.

But we are highly cooperative / communicative, so that the tribe is itself a larger organism. To me the question is how it's even possible for life to question its own value. How did 'Moloch' allow this to happen ? In other words, how did 'game theoretical' pressures not 'filter out' such fantasies in us of own extinction ? Does this connect to the age of empires ? Is antinatalism related to intertribal violence? A generalization and radicalization of genocide ? Is radical questioning in general justified in the long run (statistically), despite dangerous philosophical byproducts, because of related technical innovations ?

How does the 'demon' known as the will-to-live manage to question and sabotage itself ? Or to seem to ?

Just to be clear, I think antinatalism is profound. It questions existence itself. It looks down on this great stage of fools like a god.

I'd like you to string them together:
Science (and technology), minutia-mongering, meaning — schopenhauer1

Science is about power and glory and wonder, a chip off the old block? Is philosophy not the superscience of being or overmetascience or neometatheology? Minutuiamongering is just a means, a necearriy evil, which may be becoming less necessary. Bots are going to revolutionize this world.

You ever see the image of a donkey with a carrot tied in front of its eyes and mouth ? For humans that carrot is an updating screen. Thrown chasers after projections.

We aren't simply beasts in loops. Our softwhere is getting more and more compact and selfreferential. Is all this still vanity ? Are we orange flowers at the funeral of the sun ?

Why would a person seek to be more rational, more educated, if this wasn't understood as an improvement, a development, an enrichment ? — green flag

For me, philosophy isn't about being more rational or educated, it's about being more self-aware. I'm not interested in being more self-aware in order to improve or enrich myself, I'm just curious. Not off-hand curious; real, deep, intense, urgent curious.

For me, philosophy isn't about being more rational or educated, it's about being more self-aware. I'm not interested in being more self-aware in order to improve or enrich myself, I'm just curious. Not off-hand curious; real, deep, intense, urgent curious. — T Clark

:up:
Fair enough. But what is this deep curiosity ? Do you have any thoughts on it ? On its source ? Is it good for the species ? Is it innate in us ?

Also, for me self-aware involves education and enrichment, because I experience myself as inherited softwhere with a meat suit to run around in. (I think the softwhere is embodied 'here', but it's pretty much the same softwhere that's in lots of other people.)

Fair enough. But what is this deep curiosity ? Do you have any thoughts on it ? On its source ? Is it good for the species ? Is it innate in us ? — green flag

When I think of my curiosity, I get an image of a cat moving around a dark room. Looking behind every object, into every nook. Following sounds and smells. Climbing on top of everything to get a better view. Then lying down for a while before getting back up and doing it all again. It's a drive, something pushing, pulling. Seems like it's probably innate. Babies are curious. Being curious certainly has value - A curious animal is one that is familiar with it's surroundings.

It's a drive, something pushing, pulling. Seems like it's probably innate. Babies are curious. Being curious certainly has value - A curious animal is one that is familiar with it's surroundings. — T Clark

:up:

Yes. I feel that drive. When I find a new thinker, it's like when I was kid and me and my friend would find an abandoned house in the woods. There's just a little bit of fear at the edges of the familiar, which is like the bitterness of dark chocolate.

I imagine this is one of the many things we enjoy because it helps us replicate. It's good for the persistence of the pattern.

To me the question is how it's even possible for life to question its own value. How did 'Moloch' allow this to happen ? — green flag

Indeed, it's that Zapffe paradox again.

In other words, how did 'game theoretical' pressures not 'filter out' such fantasies in us of own extinction ? Does this connect to the age of empires ? Is antinatalism related to intertribal violence? — green flag

No, it's the opposite. It calls into question the whole enterprise, especially the violence, aggression, and unjustified and unquestioned assumptions

Is radical questioning in general justified in the long run (statistically), despite dangerous philosophical byproducts, because of related technical innovations ? — green flag

Antinatalism is a political question. Why are we putting more people and pressing them towards the survival-game-through-technological-innovation-and-maintenance? What's the point? It is a cycle without justification. "I gotta work and contribute" or "I gotta work" and the byproduct is some sort of contribution doesn't matter. But either justification or phrasing- visible or invisible hand, doesn't answer why we want this from (yet more) people.

How does the 'demon' of the will-to-live manage to question and sabotage itself ? — green flag

And an animal that must provide justifications for its actions and to hold onto narrative fictions. "I got work to do" is one of those oddly revealing phrases...

Just to be clear, I think antinatalism is profound. It questions existence itself. It looks down on this great stage of fools like a god. — green flag

It is the ultimate why in the flesh. It compresses all existential dithering into an immediate presentation to the consumer of existence, and asks, "But what for?". It's no longer an abstract question for coffee-shops and leisure but immediate political implications that reflects back to the person themselves as to why they are doing anything on the stage.

No, it's the opposite. It calls into question the whole enterprise, especially the violence, aggression, and unjustified and unquestioned assumptions — schopenhauer1

I see (let me emphasize) that it's gentle on the surface. It's like euthanasia for those who are not even zygotes yet. Out of disgust for violence, it wants to destroy the possibility of violence. But that means life itself should not exist if it is to be vulnerable. Life is (the implication seems to be) only justified if it's safe and clean and decent. Give us paradise or nothing at all. No compromise. No trust in progress (transhumanism of Pearce, etc.)

Science is about power and glory and wonder, a chip off the old block? Is philosophy not the superscience of being or metascience or neometatheology? Minutuiamongering is just a means, a necearriy evil, which may be becoming less necessary. Bots are going to revolutionize this world.

You ever see the image of a donkey with a carrot tied in front of its eyes and mouth ? For humans that carrot is an updating screen. Thrown chasers after projections. — green flag

How about instead..
It is purported science and technology in themselves provides meaning. And thus, the modern man puts more people into the world, organized by the knowledge classes and organizations that generate and distribute that, but it is just mining minutia into itself. The minutia mines for mining for mining. The search for more laws of nature and technological application doesn't produce any more "meaning" than anything else. It's just figuring out the blueprints and building various projects from it. This in itself is lauded, but its just being pressed into mongering more minutia in ever more projects.

I see (let me emphasize) that it's gentle on the surface. It's like euthanasia for those who are not even zygotes yet. Out of disgust for violence, it wants to destroy the possibility of violence. But that means life itself should not exist if it is to be vulnerable. Life is (the implication seems to be) only justified if it's safe and clean and decent. Give us paradise or nothing at all. No compromise. No trust in progress (transhumanism of Pearce, etc.) — green flag

Yes. Who are you to decide for another that non-paradisical existence is thus good in itself or for that person?

Why are we putting more people and pressing them towards the survival-game-through-technological-innovation-and-maintenance? What's the point? It is a cycle without justification. — schopenhauer1

Why do germs fill a petri dish if given food ? Have you given Darwin much study or thought ? Evolution is almost tautological once conditions for it arise. Justification is the kind of thing one talking primate offers another for taking the last plum from the icebox.

Quakers didn't procreate, right ? Some humans don't replicated. I haven't. But I'm a freak, a parasite. Or I'm a recessive type who makes memebabies. Hardware is too fragile. I'll flee death by identifying with software, ignoring somehow the coming erasure of the heat death.

What you do make of the heat death ? Won't we be snuffed out anyway ? Is that a comfort ?

Evolution is almost tautological once conditions for it arise. Justification is the kind of thing one talking primate offers another for taking the last plum from the icebox. — green flag

I won't let you escape that easily.. Zapffe's paradox...

Quakers didn't procreate, right ? — green flag

It was the Shakers.