There is 'being alive' and there is 'living'. It is unfortunate you have not seen the difference yet. If you keep digging down you may, perhaps, come to understand things differently. — I like sushi

So is this like Corvus in the other thread? Am I supposed to refer to the Hollywood movie where the curmudgeon main character learns that human connection is the most important thing?

does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Well, it entails a life. Any living organism is aware of its environment, which includes the organism. It is causally self-reflexive in the sense that it responds to its environment, and the fact that there is an environment causes its response.

Well, it entails a life. Any living organism is aware of its environment, which includes the organism. It is causally self-reflexive in the sense that it responds to its environment, and the fact that there is an environment causes its response. — jkop

That is what most animals do. But I am talking about self-awareness of existence (pretty just us).

I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk.

You can live what you preach or you can keep preaching. No skin off my nose.

I’m on a philosophy forum. Debating ideas.

I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk. — jkop

There’s a germ of truth in that but amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms.

amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms. — Wayfarer

The same type of reasoning has been used to justify discrimination against women, children, the poor, the sick, those of the wrong skin color, those "with too much dust in their eyes", those of the wrong religion, and then some.

:lol:

:yikes:

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

It seems to me obvious that self-awareness is the platform supporting the entire edifice of morality. Since it concerns proper behavior in society, morality assumes a basic structure of self and other.

The social contract organizes the relationship between the individual and society considered as one thing, a collective.

Without self-awareness, I don't see how moral principles and codes of professional ethics can even be developed, let alone practiced. Any kind of organized thinking about correct behavior going forward assumes the enduring point of view of an individual. Well, in the absence of self-awareness, individuals disappear.

Values fostered by morals anchor the sense of identity essential to individuality.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms. — ucarr

I thought this was an excellent insight here. Humans have to value something, hold it as a reason for pursuing before the pursuit. Before one ounce of ink is spilled over A -> B, or 1 + 1 = 2, one has to care. As one philosopher noted (and has become almost a mantra), there is an "aboutness" to consciousness, an "intentional stance". This takes the forms in different creatures, but in humans, the value seems primary. Yes there are reflexes and physical responses to stimuli or lack thereof, but most of everything takes on value-drives. But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended?

But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended? — schopenhauer1

As I'm thinking about it, the values are the conclusions. Consider drinking water and eating food. Of course, the sentient periodically experiences thirst and hunger. In the old days, carnivorous humans had to hunt game before they could eat. Hunting game is hard work. Individuals don't undertake hunting game unless they're sold on eating game to survive as holding status as a necessary value.

Perhaps there's an argument claiming instinct is separate from value. Okay. I'm guessing, however, that instincts light the way to core values. An example of this might be holding family as a core value based on the sexual instinct. Nature entices otherwise itinerant males into becoming family men through their sexual urges.

What does existential self-awareness actually consist of? Does a recognition of mortality accompany it? — Tom Storm

I wonder. i'm thinking some degree of intelligence is necessary for both of these things. But I wonder if the two things come with different degrees of intelligence. Can an individual be existentially self-aware, yet never consider the idea of personal death? Children learn about it at some point. But do they learn it without conversations about it, ultimately revealing the fact to them? Is it possible for entire species to be intelligent enough to be existentially self-aware without any member ever coming up with the concept of mortality? Are chimps self-aware, yet blissfully ignorant of mortality? Will evolution one day grant them a little more intelligence, and drop this metaphorical piano on their head? What about dogs? Mice?

Or do both ideas come to a species at the same time, one impossible without the other?

When I first came to this realisation as a child my primary reaction was, why did I have to be born? In reversing the usual cliché about such matters, I often thought to myself that it might be bad luck to be born - to have to go through the laborious process of learning, growing, belonging (to a culture you dislike), experiencing loss, decline and ultimately death. It's not easy to identify an inherent benefit attached to any of this. But there's a lot of noise called philosophy and religion which seeks to help us to manage our situation. — Tom Storm

This seems like a mental or emotional health issue. There are people who aren't concerned with dying, but apparently because they simply never think about it.

For others, the knowledge of their own mortality drives them to artistic creativity. Expressing what they feel. I remember an episode of Highlander where a brilliant composer found out she was immortal. As a result, she lost her brilliance. She hadn't been composing specifically with her mortality in mind. The idea is that mortality is a part of everything we do, and when she lost her mortality, and it was no longer part of her life's expression, her music was laughing. Wolverine said much the same thing to the Beyonder in an X-Men comic.

Some make something that will make others think of them after they are gone. I'm sure some art is created for this reason. But also things like buildings, which can be artistic, but might not always be what the builder is intending. Just a big physical thing to remember me by.

Other people do not ever deal well with the knowledge of their own mortality. Some deal with it very badly.

What I wonder is, is it possible for a species to gain existential self-awareness, and the awareness of their own mortality, but NOT be able to deal with it emotionally? I don't think I would expect the ... maturity? ... to ALSO be part of the package. It seems to be asking a lot for awareness of self, awareness of mortality, and the ability to deal with it, to all arrive together.

I assume these things begin with one individual. Thinking of basic evolution. An individual is born with a new trait, passes it on to offspring, and it spreads throughout the population. So, if awareness of both self and mortality are a package deal, I don't think it would have been passed on if the individual reacted very negatively. If the individual hated it, and suffered depression because of it, it wouldn't have been selected for, and wouldn't have been passed on for its own sake. So either the ability to deal with it came with it as a three-part package, or there were other still MORE things that came with the package, maybe not as obviously related to it, but which were great advantages, and overshadowed the (pretty serious) negative.

Or do both ideas come to a species at the same time, one impossible without the other? — Patterner

Yes, that seems to be the question. From an early age I always saw death as its own reward. Assuming death means non-existance. I have heard no convincing reason to think otherwise. I think not existing seems pretty cool and overall desirable. But such a view is likely to be dispositional and subject to contingent factors like culture and experience. And this does not imply a death wish on my part.

This seems like a mental or emotional health issue. There are people who aren't concerned with dying, but apparently because they simply never think about it. — Patterner

People seem to have a range of reactions to death. Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. But the experince of being, even in a privileged country, with every benefit and good fortune (health/wealth/stability) can be a bit of a drag, I find. I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? And seeing the misery and suffering of others, takes the sheen out of most things. But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own.

What I wonder is, is it possible for a species to gain existential self-awareness, and the awareness of their own mortality, but NOT be able to deal with it emotionally? I don't think I would expect the ... maturity? ... to ALSO be part of the package. It seems to be asking a lot for awareness of self, awareness of mortality, and the ability to deal with it, to all arrive together. — Patterner

I think so. But maybe less prevalent in Western cultures, where Christianity has seeped into most of our cultural and psychological cracks. My father didn't appear to be moved by death - he made it to 98. I find I think more about the death of others than my own death. When I do think about mine I am mainly curious as to where will it happen. Is the place where I will die already known to me? Do I walk past it every day. Is it my bed? Is it a familiar street corner? A hospital ward. A cave in the wilderness? The clock is ticking...

The clock is ticking... — Tom Storm

And some societies have less regard for time measuring than others. Herein lies the issue of mortality. We are only concerned with mortality if we are concerned with time.

Boredom was very important to Schopenhauer, as it showed Will's negative (lacking that is) nature. — schopenhauer1

I've thought about this. Obviously something I suffer from, as do many. But I think from a Buddhist perspective, it is an aspect of Kleśa, 'defiled cognition'. It is a form of delusion, and possibly also craving, namely, craving for things to be other than what they are. Of course, realising such a state of inner poise such that one is not subject to boredom seems remote, but I thought I'd mention it. (I suppose in my own case, that being the one I'm most intimately familiar with, it manifests as restleness, general low-level cravings to eat or watch something, and a bodily feeing of slight unease.)

We are only concerned with mortality if we are concerned with time. — I like sushi

Maybe. I'm not sure. Say some more. For me people also seem to have a fear of oblivion or a fear of the unknown. Some even fear judgement and suffering after death. I've met many in this camp.

If you only have the people around you to pass such judgments widen your circle to include those who have no concern for the day-to-day living of modernity. I suggest you seek out those on the fringes of the human urban empires.

I don't understand your statement.

Ask someone living on the fringes of modern society who have no schedules dictated by clocks if they fear death or judgment after death. Or look into anthropological studies of such things.

That seems like an odd comment to make. As it happens I've spent 30 years working with people on the fringes, including Aboriginal Australians and people what are homeless. None of them have watches or clocks. Their main fear of death is annihilation, not being remembered and a fear of being judged.

Have you ever had a mystical experience?

People seem to have a range of reactions to death. Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. But the experince of being, even in a privileged country, with every benefit and good fortune (health/wealth/stability) can be a bit of a drag, I find. I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? And seeing the misery and suffering of others, takes the sheen out of most things. But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own. — Tom Storm

I've thought about this. Obviously something I suffer from, as do many. But I think from a Buddhist perspective, it is an aspect of Kleśa, 'defiled cognition'. It is a form of delusion, and possibly also craving, namely, craving for things to be other than what they are. Of course, realising such a state of inner poise such that one is not subject to boredom seems remote, but I thought I'd mention it. (I suppose in my own case, that being the one I'm most intimately familiar with, it manifests as restleness, general low-level cravings to eat or watch something, and a bodily feeing of slight unease.) — Wayfarer

So self-awareness of existence, is beyond simply "self-awareness". Other animals display forms of "self-knowing" including apes, elephants, dolphins/whales, crows, parrots, etc. Clearly, a being equipped with language/conceptual framing of reality (pretty much just us), can form a "self-awareness of existence". So what is entailed with self-awareness of existence? Here is a somewhat more comprehensive list, and isn't only about "death" and our eventual demise but LIFE, and what that means to exist as we do:

Existentialism themes:
Individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a universe that offers no inherent purpose. Existence precedes essence (Sartre), the absurd (Camus), and authenticity (Heidegger).

Philosophical Pessimism: Emphasizes life's inherent suffering and futility.
Schopenhauer (life as "will to life" leads to endless striving and pain) and Zapffe (consciousness as a tragic evolutionary anomaly). Suffering (capital "S") as a universal category encompassing all negatives of existence: physical pain, emotional turmoil, existential dread, angst, and the dissatisfaction central to Buddhist dukkha.

Our Disconnection from Nature:
Alienation from the natural world, contrasting with other animals' instinctual harmony within their environments. Inspired by the Wayfarer quote: "Other animals are water in water. We are on the outside, trying to look in." The human condition as estranged from the seamless unity of natural existence due to our self-awareness and artificial constructs.

Suffering as a Metaphysical Category:
Suffering (capital "S") transcends individual pain, symbolizing the universal burden of existence itself.
Includes physical/emotional harm, existential dread (existence as imposed without consent), and pervasive dissatisfaction (dukkha) found in Eastern thought.

Existential Angst and Alienation:
Angst as the emotional manifestation of recognizing one's freedom and the weight of responsibility.
Alienation not just from nature but also from each other, ourselves, and any presumed divine order.

The Contrast of Being and Becoming:
Life as endless becoming (change, flux) versus the unattainable longing for static being (peace, fulfillment). Pessimism emphasizes this tension as a source of Suffering.

Human Exceptionalism and Its Costs:
Our cognitive detachment grants us creativity but also burdens us with existential uncertainty.
The price of consciousness is perpetual alienation and the magnification of Suffering.

Eastern Parallels:
Buddhist and Hindu traditions describe dukkha and maya, aligning with pessimistic views of life as dissatisfaction and illusion. Suffering viewed not only as personal but systemic and universal.

Hope as a Trap:
Camus' recognition of hope as part of the absurd; Nietzsche's critique of hope as prolonging suffering.
In pessimistic thought, even hope can be a mechanism of delusion, binding us to the cycle of becoming.

Communities of Catharsis:
A potential response to Suffering: forming compassionate communities grounded in mutual recognition of the impositions of existence. Not solutions but spaces for shared understanding and solidarity.

Antinatalism:
A moral stance against bringing new life into existence, grounded in the recognition that existence is imposed without consent. Life entails Suffering as an inescapable fact, and the act of procreation forces another being to endure it.

Schopenhauer:
Procreation perpetuates the "will to life" and endless striving.

Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument: the absence of harm for the non-existent is preferable to the inevitable harm of existence.

Existential Self-Awareness and Antinatalism:
Human consciousness uniquely grasps the futility and inherent Suffering of life.
This awareness implies a responsibility not to impose existence on others, given the universal negatives it entails.

Zapffe: Humanity copes with existential horror through denial, distraction, or sublimation, but these are inadequate foundations for justifying new life.

And what is the ‘third noble (aryan) truth?

Was that list from ChatGPT?

I put in the input but yes. It turned it into a list based on that. Saved me time but I can recreate it if you want using my own idioms.

Yes, that seems to be the question. From an early age I always saw death as its own reward. Assuming death means non-existance. I have heard no convincing reason to think otherwise. — Tom Storm

There couldn't be any such reason. It's how you feel about it. Subjective. Nobody can convince me to prefer Mozart over Bach. Or strawberry ice cream to chocolate.

Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. — Tom Storm

I doubt it evolved. That would mean the desire once wasn't part of living things. Things that don't act to keep living don't live long enough to reproduce.

I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? — Tom Storm

There are obviously people who pretend everything we can name. But there are also people who are naturally like that. Again, it's how they feel. I assume it has a lot to do with bio-chemistry.

But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own. — Tom Storm

What more could we want?!

Acave in the wilderness? — Tom Storm

Anything is possible. But you'll probably have to put some effort into that one.

Schopenhauer: Procreation perpetuates the "will to life" and endless striving. — schopenhauer1

Hence the association of celibacy with renunciate philosophies.

Hence the association of celibacy with renunciate philosophies. — Wayfarer

:up: To focus on the most important points above:

Our Disconnection from Nature:
Alienation from the natural world, contrasting with other animals' instinctual harmony within their environments. Inspired by the Wayfarer quote: "Other animals are water in water. We are on the outside, trying to look in." The human condition as estranged from the seamless unity of natural existence due to our self-awareness and artificial constructs.

Suffering as a Metaphysical Category:
Suffering (capital "S") transcends individual pain, symbolizing the universal burden of existence itself.
Includes physical/emotional harm, existential dread (existence as imposed without consent), and pervasive dissatisfaction (dukkha) found in Eastern thought. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism:
A moral stance against bringing new life into existence, grounded in the recognition that existence is imposed without consent. Life entails Suffering as an inescapable fact, and the act of procreation forces another being to endure it. — schopenhauer1

Our capacity for self-awareness of existence, has enormous capacity to open up the Suffering entailed in existence. We are not like the other animals in how we Suffer. It is not just immediate; it is bound in our past, present, and future. It possesses subtle nuances of physical, emotional, and existential negative valence. Once one has looked at the situation long enough- it would be madness/callous/misguided to put more people into the situation. Thus Zapffe's emphasis on some psychological defense mechanisms we have developed:

Zapffe: Humanity copes with existential horror through denial, distraction, anchoring or sublimation, but these are inadequate foundations for justifying new life. — schopenhauer1