Don't blame me if you lack literacy and are too lazy even to google the unfamiliar. — apokrisis

If you didn't notice I tried interpreting your "pleonastisms" anyways, thus trying to be charitable to your content. I just thought it comes of as bloviating (i.e. talking at length, especially in an inflated or empty way). That is where YOU have to not be lazy and actually put context to your term dropping and self-referential jargon. I use a word like "instrumentality" or "Will", and somewhere in the argument, I will explain what these mean, so not to confuse the reader with other interpretations. It's just being courteous to the audience and making sure we are on the same page as far as the language of neologisms, jargon, or non-common usages of words. It also ensures that I am not simply trying to use academic or fanciful language simply to try to show off some knowledge of terms but not really say anything of substance or clarity. If it makes you feel that you are "winning" an argument by using such terms, I won't stop you, I'll just let you know what it looks like. Anyways, you still haven't addressed my response to your content of the last substantive post.. so I'll wait here, and patiently wade through the jargon as well.

Except you forget that my naturalism has been checked out all the way down. So I am happy to ask the question whether nature is natural. Why does life even exist if physical existence is mechanical and meaningless - as its entropic story appear to suggest? And that naturalism explains why negentropic structure is needed to allow entropification to occur. The basic unifying dynamic of existence has been exposed. And it turns out that the mechanical view was wrong. The cosmos itself is organic in being a semiotic dissapative structure. — apokrisis

Honestly, do you have the ability to not use jargon? Either you are obfuscating a real argument or you do not have the ability to easily explain your ideas.. If I was to interpret this into something comprehensible and relevant to this argument, you are trying to somehow justify why living things exist with "negentropic structure" in an otherwise "entropic" universe. But what this has to do with Cabrera's point is lost on me. If I was to try to stitch this together as somehow relevant, you may be trying to say that the goals of survival are inherent in the universe or something of that sort. Even if that was the case, you seem to continually make the is/ought fallacy over and over again. You take (your version of) a description of what is going on and try to justify it as prescription. You cannot keep doing this and think that no one will see it. What is currently the case, and what we ought to do, or what our reaction to the case may be, are two different things. This should not even have to be stated. So, survival is the outcome of evolutionary pressures of the organism and the environment. Humans can self-reflect though, and make deliberate actions- ones that even prevent the very actions that lead to more survival (at a species level). Thus, your argument is moot there. The inevitability of human actions are not "written in the stars" if I was to be poetic. Again, that is the naturalistic fallacy. It may be this way for non-reflective, non-deliberative animals.. but we are both reflective and deliberative.

Of course you can dispute that new metaphysics, argue with it as a theory. That is when we turn to the empirical evidence to see whose theory best explains what we observe. — apokrisis

I didn't know I was disputing a new metaphysics. Again, this is vague, but this seems like your other area of creating a strawman false dichotomy so that you can set up your Romantic vs. Apokrisis theory again. This is something that seems shoved into the argument that doesn't need to be there. I have yet to see how your metaphysics has much to do with the ethics we are discussing.

And you know that I've made that argument often enough in terms of modern romantically striving western consumerist culture and the entropic desires of a bazillion barrels of buried, energy dense, fossil fuels. — apokrisis

This also makes little sense how it fits with the argument. You are shoehorning this into the picture it seems. Maybe because you are trying to show that we have not planned our energy consumption in a responsible manner to protect the future of the species.. So, it unintentionally is making survival less likely. Okay, but what does that have to do with whether survival of the species itself, SHOULD be the goal of individuals? That was really the problem that Cabrera seemed to have with pragmatism- the idea that what is "logical" is that which "works" to achieve ends.. But those ends (things as seemingly basic as survival) may be questioned.. His notion was that ethics focuses on "intra-worldly" goals and evaluations, but does not question the assumption that Being itself should be a goal.

So I am hardly guilty of affirmative bias - in either the guise of pollyannism or pessimism. Instead I'm quite happy being the scientist putting competing theories to the test. It just so happens that nature itself affirms its own immanent organicism - existence as the universal growth of "reasonableness". — apokrisis

Again, your jargon obfuscates your argument. This seems to be the naturalistic fallacy again. You are denying that we are self-reflecting and deliberative. We can look about our situation and know what we are doing, assess it, and take actions about it. Oddly, your "organicism" approach seems to deny this, thus making humans more mechanical- the very thing you accuse me of doing. In other words, we can question why we continue to put forth more people into the world. We can evaluate structural harms of coming into existence (with its necessary and contingent harms). In Cabrera's terms, we can question whether we should pursue the goal of more Being in the first place. But, if you think I don't interpret your "organicism" right, it is because you are using jargon-heavy philosophy where it is not needed.

Now if you want to debate whether you need Being in the first place for the "salvation" for non-Being, because non-being cannot metaphysically be apart from being, then we can have an interesting discussion.

Yeah, Cabrera's book is more meta-ethical and meta-philosophical than normative or applied ethics. He has some things about how you shouldn't kill anyone or have children but that's about it. The closest he gets is basically when he asks whether or not negative ethics is even possible, or if we need to make "negative categories" after the affirmative ones die. I know somewhere in the book he talks about how letting a murderer kill you is "technically" an ethical victory, but I also think he realizes the clumsiness of this view (severe agent centered restrictions, essentially). But I suppose that goes all the way back to the initial observation, that we can't have life without some kind of conflict or compromise. Someone gets hurt, no matter what. — darthbarracuda

I was thinking about this for a bit, and I am wondering about the "salvation" theories that a Buddhist, Schopenhauer, Mainlander, et al would say about existence. That is to say, if Being entails the fact of non-Being, and non-Being is preferable, wouldn't we need both in the picture in order to have the salvation of non-being? According to this view, being is perhaps inevitable, or built into the structure somehow, so if that is the case, despite being's harmful nature to the individual, it is also through being that non-being is achieved?

As an addendum, does non-being ever have its own metaphysics by itself, or must it always be in relation to being? If it must always be in relation to being, does that mean, that non-being is not even a possibility and therefore an ethics surrounding it is moot?

My answer might be that the closest we can get is antinatalism, as it is an ethics preventing future being. There is the possibility of pure non-existence of being. The ideal of antinatalism would be to remain pure possibility without actuality. The possibility of actuality should not be actualized.

Thank you for explaining- those were some good quotes. As far as what I read, I definitely agree that life itself is assumed to be "obviously" good. It reminds me of the neoplatonoic idea that more existence must be better existence.

Do you have examples where he applies this negative ethics to certain ethical questions? It's funny how he specifically targets pragmatism's affirmative approach, which is akin to apokrisis's theories on this thread. So as applied to apokrisis' view, his assumption of survival has already made his theory dead in the water, due to not questioning the very assumption of the argument to begin with.

Edit: I'm reading a bit of his work, but only at the beginning. From what I can see, he probably would not go over applied ethics as much as that would be participating in the "intra-wordly" ethics rather than looking at Being as a whole.

So we aren't mincing terms, can you define affirmative narrative?

I think this debate only makes sense if both sides recognize the same definitions and then go from there.

I think darthbarracuda's point, and mine as well, is that you cannot remove yourself from the muck of the experience by hand waving it as good/bad and therefore above evaluation. There are experiences which are simply not pleasant and would not have been experienced otherwise had one not been put into that situation. However, life, social relations, environment, and sometimes INEVITABLE poor predictions or underestimation of consequences lead us to harm. Also, better options that were never even open to the individual (e.g. COULD not occur to them due to unknowability at the time) or personal pathologies, lead us to these negative experiences.

But the things listed above are CONTINGENT harms- or what you seem to call "accidental" harms. They are not necessary to being a living being, but 99% of the time will inevitably occur in some way due to the circumstances of events of the individual interacting with the environment. There are also NECESSARY harms. This is my Schopenhauer influence coming out. The necessary harms are ones that are built into the system. One such harm is the striving-but-for-nothing, the instrumentality of being. We can concretize this in more scientific terms to "survival for survival's sake". This is not as much a problem until you get to self-reflecting beings such as ourselves. Then, we experience this harm in feelings such as existential boredom, world-weariness, the anguish of having to push the boulder up the hill and struggle, and find entertainments and fake struggles to overcome the feeling of time itself without a goal. Of course there are long-term goods- relationships, learning, art, music.. I am not denying we can and do pursue this. What I am saying is that these harms can be overwhelming and are pervasive. Contingent harms are not easily solved, and necessary harms are never solved. You can whistle Dixie through your teeth, and pretend that this all goes away by simple apokrisis-branded techniques, but it does not go away easily.

Further, to put more people in existence for certain long-term goods- relationships, learning, art, music, etc. seems to be putting these goods as just so compelling, that harms experienced by the individual, both necessary and contingent, are denied, repressed, Pollyainaized (forgotten for the past or underestimated for the future), ignored. It is a bit of trickery to have people brought into life, and then say "Well, you have to be part of the maintenance crew because you want to keep experiencing good things, don't you!!". That is unfair, as being alive is the default. There is nothing to compare it to other than the "scary" notion of dying/death. This dying or death is not the same as never being, we can never experience death. Thus there is an asymmetry, as we cannot compare living with the experience of death, that is never an option for the already-born. Thus, no shit, someone will simply take what is known- life good and bad, and obviously want to live so they can have more of the good. That is the ONLY option to him/her once they already exist. And good here, can be your little pleasure/pain mix that you like to tout as counterexample of bad that is "good".. Yes, we all agree that things like games, exercise, learning can cause pain as but also be in some sense "good" because it has an element of excitement, or appeals to our sensibilities, or is part of achieving a goal.

You may want to see this related thread on society, institutions, and questioning why we maintain and continue institutions.
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1113/the-implication-of-social-contract-on-social-relations#Item_140

we require families — ernestm

If life is forced and no one can ever sign the contract, where does the justification of being in a contract lie? In the fact that one did not commit suicide or become a hermit, does one choose to continue in the contract, or is this a false dichotomy due to the fact that even this choice was forced? I am just trying to provide some debate material here and make this a discussion.

Also, at what point does the social contract just become a perpetuation of a system with no justification? Why are we surviving to survive via institutions? What is the point of it in the first place? Must we maintain and perpetuate society, Being, the species, and so forth, or is this something that we tell ourselves because it is scary to think of non-existence/non-being?

It's not a problem if its just a phase. Toddlers can be very uncompliant. But we expect them to grow up. Same with teenagers. And on the whole, noncompliance is superficial - a hairstyle, a dress code, a collection of slogans.

There is nothing as restrictive on your freedom as being a punk, emo, hacktivist, gender fluid, or whatever. Genres are particularly intolerance of true difference. Again a familiar irony of modern life. — apokrisis

You are ridiculous yet again. Here you go with your false dichotomies and naturalistic fallacy. You've been accused of it many a time, maybe you should actually take heed. To assume what we tend to do as a culture is what is right because it is what the culture expects us to do, is a circularity. I'm not sure if you care or know this.. It is also part of the naturalistic fallacy.

Unfortunately, since you can't really think outside the little box you made for yourself, you don't realize "rebelling" is not simply doing the "opposite" but rather the idea of not even considering it as the assumed position in the first place.

You're Brady (the bald guy) here.. Instead of the Bible, it is Systems theory.. The System speaks through apokrisis, apokrisis tells the world.. the prophet from Weeping Waters, Nebraska.. let us have a book of apokrisis!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYfuTlTiixA&list=PLX4_3lO6guPMS7R93Qq-pi8UrWHkdqo0b&index=36

You will interpret what you think right by appealing to some ideal version of social norms (first fallacy- no justification) and by what we already do (naturalistic fallacy), then make false accusations about dichotomies (strawman), and label interlocutors arguments as something perceived as negative (red herring).

It is a difference at the basic level. It relies on the claim that there is this mythical "we" who "exist" in ontically separate fashion. Whereas I am saying that "we" is a social and biological construction. Romanticism literally was an idea whose history can be traced through modern culture. You can see people constructing the image and then trying to live the part. — apokrisis

This is kind of full of shit.. You are not above the fray.. You betray your own Romanticism- it's just of a different kind, "the reasonableness of the system". It's as if you drank the Kool-Aid Bateson et al was passing out and you went off the deep end.. turning the circularity in on itself.. Romanticizing Peirce.. You don't even know what you mean anymore except you don't like the sound of pessimism because its dark and scary to you.

And it wasn't a wrong response in itself. It was quite natural in that it was the social construction of individuals stripped down to devote themselves creatively to abstractions - like being heroes on a battlefield or economic self-starters. This notion of the outsider, the rebel, the uncompliant, the one who resists out of personal dignity - its all a bunch of social imagery dedicated to the furtherance of the cause that is modern society. Everything you so "celebrate" is the script being handed out to today's maintenance crew. That's the irony. — apokrisis

The double irony is the ironic fashion whereby you speak for some sort of reasonableness that you do not define.. All you have done is made an edifice that you call Romanticism and went full throttle. The maintenance crew is that which keeps itself going. I don't see how the scrip of the "uncompliant" who does not further the position would be of much benefit.. If anything, it gunks up the works. You even said that.. and then sleight of hand-like tried to say it will start again, thus diverting the attention. Clever, but diversionary.

And there you go. The transcendent bit that completes your dualistic metaphysics. They can do everything to you ... but break your will. You can have the ultimate revenge ... of not believing the bastards. The self is ultimately not part of the world. It can stand outside and pass its (admittedly impotent) judgement. And for the Romantic, that is what counts. The inalienability of the subjective. The helpless martyrdom becomes the very proof of the metaphysics. They could do everything to control your being ... but they couldn't force you not to suffer! :) — apokrisis

How is this even an argument? Calling it transcendent, Romantic, dualistic, does not prove it wrong. You haven't even shown how. I'd like to see you make an argument without simply throwing out labels and letting that be its own justification. You barely showed anything beyond the idea that the rebel stance is labeled as Romantic and transcendent, thus advancing nothing to dispel its efficacy in consolation against he existential situations of instrumentality, suffering, and dissatisfaction. By saying Positive Psychology, you show your own Romanticism- but this one is real.. The quixotic elixir of life.. Stoicism for the new age. More grin and bear it techniques..

But it is bad metaphysics even if cathartic as light entertainment. Whereas naturalism supports a culture of self actualisation and positive psychology - the cultivation of the habits of potency, the ability to engage with the world in socially fruitful fashion. — apokrisis

And here you go again.. Habits of potency, fruitful fashion.. all preloaded statements. That solves nothing of instrumentality.. we already do that in any task where we try to get better at achieving a goal. Getting better at achieving goals has nothing to do with the existential questions I have outlined. It is simply distracting, ignoring, or trying to replace the problem with an unrelated one in order to have something that can be more managed in place of one that cannot. This is not putting the problem front and center. Pessimism does this- it recognizes you don't need a solvable problem, as these were never solvable to begin with.

So your claim was either/or. Either we are truly our own person, or we are simply helpless perpetuators. No middle ground. No interaction. Just a dualism cashed out in the familiar way - a mechanical and mindless world vs the Romantic "other" of the transcendent self. — apokrisis

But you keep overlooking the fact that I don't really believe there is an either or. Of course it is society and the individual- there cannot be a separation. It is not the origins or the fact of this intertwining of the two. Rather it is a stance or perspective to take on the situation. I am simply calling your idea secular Taoism. These naturalistic philosophies irk me for partly the same reason Stoicism irks me. It's the idea that the stance we take must be one of bear and grin it. Rather, the rebellious stance is not rejecting the intertwined nature of society and the individual, but sees the situation for the raw deal it can be. We are the maintenance crew.. we cannot become untethered from the situation, of course, but we do not have to grin and accept it. Rather, we can see it as the furtherance of the survival cause which we are a part of.. We are not separated from it, but we can seek an attitude of non-compliance. So to reiterate, we do not disagree that humans are a part of the system, but rather, our STANCE towards the system can be one where we preserve our dignity as people who understand the situation for what it is, do not flinch from it, and prevent it for future people. We do not have to be willing vessels of the system even though we must be a part of it while alive. It is a difference on perspective of the system, not a difference of metaphysical position.

Indeed Schopenhauer even thought we are a part of the system- all aspects of will. Schopenhauer's stance was one of rebellion- not just bear and grin it. As Thorongil and I pointed out, the will-denying hero in this conception will probably never accomplish his goal, but his stance here is what matters.

If that was all you said - making that pragmatic point - then of course I agree. But I don't see where you have argued that society is a natural phenomenon, or that nature - and so the cosmos - might have a proper non-contingent purpose. — apokrisis

Non-contingent purpose? I'm not sure what that even means. Whatever your answer is going to be..jargon-laden and all, what does that matter? Are you saying we have a necessary obligation to this non-contingent purpose?

But I justified that in detail. You are simply asserting that I'm wrong without countering my actual argument. — apokrisis

No, I saw no justification to "live hard". But if I'm missing something, feel free to copy and paste it.

So what I have objected to is the reductionist simplicity of your ethical conclusions and I have opposed them with the irreducible complexity of a holistic or systems view of existence. — apokrisis

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. All this really translates to is just deal with it.. And I already am.

My little joke. You exaggerate by calling life a burden. I say hey no, its a gift. But clearly - in saying that I am opposed to any transcendental framing of the human condition - I think the whole notion of life being "given" as either a burden or a gift is nonsensical in its invocation of some external telos. — apokrisis

It is already "given" as a burden de facto by having challenges that must be overcome. Every person, no matter what, has to deal. There is no invocation of external telos.

So do you understand the fallacy? It applies just as much to taking the undesirable in terms of feelings to be "the bad". — apokrisis

Yeah, you think we must follow what nature wants.. which is ludicrous on many fronts, not least of which is "knowing" what nature "wants"- its "necessary telos".. and then to believe that because we supposedly can "know" this telos, we should follow it.

As far as undesirable in terms of feelings to be "the bad".. Yeah, if the bad is not for the individual, then you have some bizarre impersonal view of the good at the expense of the individual. Of course the individual sees harm done to him/her as bad, whether or it strengthens the system or not.

Or rather, the inevitable outcome. Existence is whatever works. I mean you haven't even tried to argue against the evolutionary points I've made. You already accept the basic logic of pragmatism. Your claim is instead that you can transcend reality in romantic fashion to scoff at its illusions of doing anything worthwhile. — apokrisis

So you present a straw man? I never said that we can transcend reality- you characterized what I said that way to present your argument a certain way. I only said we can self-reflect on our situation and prevent future suffering. The knowing and discussing of our situation can be a catharsis. How does that translate to "transcending reality"? Is it because you need a straw man to set up and knock down; you clearly rehearsed the "Romantic vs. Organic" spiel, so you need to pigeon-hole my argument in your scheme so you can lazily fit it into your usual anti-Romantic routine and not have to look at it at face value. I never stated that we can transcend reality- simply cope with our situation and prevent future suffering. Coping does not mean flinching or sugar-coating though.

Ah, now back to harms again. We speak of the negative values that themselves demand the counterfactuality that which would have been the good. We are doubling down on the self-contradiction so that first existence is meaningless, now it is structurally black. Yet if we are weighing harms in the balance, we have already admitted the issue is about balance. And for normies or zombies, the phenomenological truth is that pain and pleasure are intwinned in the way I describe as the desire to "live hard".

Your failure to argue back I took as acceptance you had no useful counter. And now we are back to just repeating assertions about existence being obviously meaningless and obviously bad. — apokrisis

Again, the straw mans are flying out of your metaphorical mouth so profusely, it is exasperating to correct your errors. What do you mean by "structurally meaningless"? Instrumentality is the empty feeling after all pursuits... That is the underlying dissatisfaction and restlessness of animals with complex self-reflecting minds.. If that's what you mean ..ok. "Structurally black".. If you mean by that the contingent harms that we encounter, then obviously I don't think everything is agonizing pain at all moments nor can it be since there is always a counterfactual imagining to contrast our feelings. So, two straw mans there..

Also, the only positive claim you made "to live hard" has NO justification.

It smacks too much of wanting a socially acceptable excuse for not engaging in the gift of life that has been given to you. — apokrisis

And here we can see your bias poking through.. Life is a gift.. there we go. No justification.. just experience for experience sake.. Non-existence does not need gifts though- that does not even make sense. A gift is not something that is forced nor can it be said to be "good" for anyone, since that is a circularity; you would need to exist prior to existence for it to be good.. Non-existence was never "bad" for anyone to begin with.

But you can't diagnose or correct imbalance unless you have a workable theory about a life in balance. — apokrisis

I thought I said I in fact value pain as part of the deal. But I also made a careful distinction between accidental pain and pain that is indeed part of some valued deal.

These are the kind of subtleties of my position that you hurry past so as not to be disturbed from your dogmatic slumbers. — apokrisis

Why do you keep insisting on the naturalistic fallacy.. Your secular Taoism, though charming, has no justification. It is trying to say "the world needs us to do A and we need the world to do B." No one needs anything in terms of being the purveyors of being. We do not owe the world, nor does it owe us. We may be wrapped up in the course of events, but we do not need to be worshippers of the events because that happens to be what is. This seems like religious thinking.. magical thinking actually. Let's not tempt fate.. the universe can always be worse.. it happens to produce butterflies and books by Gregory Bateson.

But your angry language shows you do in fact care. As does your endless reposting of the one argument. Your actions give the game away. In your own words, you are a paid up member of another of those social institiutions performing some meaningless sub-contract.

There...is...no...escape. Heh, heh. It is all quite natural. — apokrisis

So you think I have trapped myself in a self-refuting argument.. The pessimist argument, if you want to cast it as an institution (which is contestable in itself), has the goal of broadening people to the idea that they are forced by other institutions for the sake of nothing. That in itself is nefarious. Pessimism simply shows it for what it is.. cast into institutions that self-perpetuate for its own survival cause.

The only question then is what pragmatic goods does it deliver to its cult followers? It has to be beneficial to their lives in some practical sense. — apokrisis

I mean c'mon apokrisis- are you picking up a playbook from the politician's book of strawmen and red herrings? How many can you commit in a post?

You frame the argument as if "pragmatic goods" are already the default goal! Anyways, if there is a "pragmatic goal" it is what I stated earlier.. catharsis.. Not just for me but for anyone who is caught in the harms of this or that situation of life. The challenges and "pragmatic solutions" are necessary because we were put in the situation in the first place. But we see that the harms of life, the striving-after-nothing underlying it, the survival for survival's sake, damned be the individuals who maintain the Project.. is not NECESSARY.. It is bringing to the fore what the existential situation is.. It need not pragmatically do anything. It is simply what the case of the matter is. Now, by talking about once you SEE what is going, by living your day out with this in mind, you can CONSOLE with others and have more understanding about the harms that befall us all.. The institutions which are necessary for survival, but which also harm us all, the self-inflicted pains, the other inflicted pains, the biological, social, and all the rest that befall individuals. It consoles us of the fact that we are presented with challenges which we MUST overcome in the first place.. It is not a given, it was FORCED on us.. and has no reason of its own other than we have gotten in the habit of continuing the project.

However, I see you as in fact the callous one. Here you are.. prophet of the SYSTEM.. professing to know what it wants.. it wants perpetuation by strengthening through challenges presented to the individual and individual's collectively coming together to strengthen society to create more individuals etc.. Whether the individual experiences harm in all this challenge strengthening does not matter to you.. Who is the cult leader here?

Schopenhauer, for example, is ambiguous on this point. — Thorongil

Using Schopenhauer's metaphysics, the Will's nature is to strive for nothing- no telos. Although, I think your interpretation is that the phenomena is Will's teleology of trying to satisfy itself, but of course, never succeeding, and we are but one aspect of the collateral damage. Thus, ascetic denial of Will, somehow breaks the cycle for the will-less hero.. Even if his metaphysics was true.. do you believe someone has the ability to deny their will to such a degree? Would you say a yogi in India or the truly enlightened Buddha? What does that even look like? Is this Ego-Death? Is it truly not caring about anything or anyone? That is the most ambiguous.

Nope. I'm asking what is consistent about claiming existence is essentially meaningless and then getting so het up about people who don't appear to believe your truth. How could it matter if you are being true to your own professed belief here? — apokrisis

I really don't have to give a shit about whether people see it or not.. It is a catharsis more than anything. It is staring it face down.

Why is the questioning important if your answer is that nothing matters? — apokrisis

Right, I'm just the meany pessmist over here while the sweet innocents are procreating and living without any concern. I'm the serpent tempting them to doubt their very reason for doing anything >:) :-} . They were living in an ideal state of pure bliss, until this dark notion came along.

I don't see it as adding discomfort. Rather it is pointing out our existential situation. Perhaps, initially to those who have not given it much thought, but what comes out is the consolation that the harms of life are not necessary. It is an act of rebellion. We have seen through the facade of the institutions given to us.. That being to be, is all that is going on here, nothing more.. All else is an edifice of obfuscation pointing to anything but this fact. It is the core of the problem- the limit of it as far as our own existential striving is concerned. Why shouldn't people see this for what it is? Are you advocating for Plato's Noble Lie?

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?

Because people are going to procreate whether you like or not. It's all well and good to point out the contingency of civilization and our existence, but it's also objectively pointless. I agree with you, but the agreement changes nothing, for there isn't a live option between continuing and not continuing as a species that this thread is going to settle. The best we can do is make peace with this fact and try to live accordingly. — Thorongil

Yes but it's the questioning that is important. Getting people to at least see beyond what we tend to do, and question why we do it. It is to see it as the striving-but-for-nothing that it is. In other words, to get to the bottom of all pursuits. Again, the efficacy is not the issue I care about as much. As you point out, procreation will continue whether one likes it or not.

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.

One problem I see with your argument is the false dichotomy of Romanticism and your version of systems theory. If there was a benefit of the influence of Existentialism, it is the idea that people do not have to play the role social institutions have already preordained as proper. No one has to play a role for survival's sake, for their country's sake, or for an institution's sake. One is as free as one can be within the bounds of one's encultred environmental context. In other words, one has the free will to choose an avenue of action and belief but must deal with the consequences of those choices within the framework of one's socialized and cultural setting. You can say that it is not "wise" to lash out against certain roles due to a likelihood of negative consequences, but nevertheless, there is no obligation to follow preordained social roles. One is free to fulfill a role if they so choose or not to if they so choose. There is no obligation to keep the institutions going, the system going, or nature going (whatever that means).

Now, what you do, is a clever sleight of hand. Instead of focusing on the individual human's choice, you focus on the inevitability (or at least your theory of inevitability) that life will always persist. This is not the question- whether nature will eventually form complex organisms again or in parallel to us before the universe dies in the Heat Death. Rather, the question is what we, the individual experiencing human with choices, are going to choose to do in the face of the situation we are in. Do we keep the project that was bequeathed going? The Maintenance and Continuance of the Human Project is the largest contract- the political social contracts are a major sub-category, and the civil society of daily life are the numerous sub-sub-contracts. You can question the need to continue each of these categories- whether they are here as a result of human's need for survival using linguistic-cultural reasoning or not. It does not matter that institutions, the human project, the sub contracts are here due to survival- we all know that is the origin. It is the decision to continue them that the question demands. Why are we choosing to be part of the maintenance crew?

have to laugh as life is interesting because it is complex, both in terms of its responsibilities and its delights. Yet you choose to be as crudely reductionist as possible so as see it as structurally black.

This is the actual philosophical sin here. Mistaking absolutism for profundity. — apokrisis

Yet you don't address the solution to the problem of the vicious circle.

Also, the slipperiness of "nothing" gets entangled in this. When comparing existing vs. not existing at all, what do we get? Well, it is impossible to describe nothingness; it eludes all description. Yes, antinatalists are still doing something to the system, if by subtraction (subtraction of experiencers for the sake of having them not suffer). It is not the fact that something somewhere may suffer, but the idea that one is rebelling- denying that which causes the suffering in the first place.

You focus too much on the efficacy of antinatalism, and not what it provides as consolation- that one can at least do one thing to prevent future suffering. It is a change in perspective. Rather than take for granted that institutions are just "here" we see it as simply a self-perpetuating process; you can call it "The Human Project". This project causes 100% causalities, and 100% fatality, 100% guarantee of harm for all, is something forced on 100% of participants, and is only around due to a viscous circle (surviving to survive, maintaining to maintain, experience to experience).

Stick around, act helpless, be a drag on the rest. Then the whole thing might indeed collapse (only to be reborn much the same - sorry, nature and the second law are relentless like that.) — apokrisis

This is not a very relevant argument- it does not have an immanent enough impact on the current situation. If we focus on the current situation, then we would care more about how the procreation and the continuing of institutions (which is necessary but harmful to individuals) are affecting humans. If in some impersonal distant future generation, some unknown species has negative experiences (that seems to always correlate with life), then unfortunately it will be their problem. I guess it could be a bonus if we could also predict and prevent future suffering in some far off distant species, but just because we cannot predict this, does not mean that the goal of ending future suffering for the current situation is negated as useless. But, I'm sure you already knew that, you just like having a diet of red herrings :D.

As for the Protest Work Ethic, what the Protestant agitator himself (Luther) said was:

…the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic laborer in the field or the woman going about her household tasks…all works are measured before God by faith alone.

All work is holy work, and it is through our work that we care for each other--love one another.

This is ONE VIEW of why we are here. I recommend it only to the extent that it beats whatever you've got. — Bitter Crank

The context of this was to ask why we perpetuate institutions. Cavacava mentioned the Protestant Work Ethic. I explained how this is not self-justifying. In the common interpretation of the Protestant Work Ethic (one less close to its origins perhaps as you point out), it is simply about working for the sake of work. This is about as appealing and self-justifying as surviving for the sake of surviving. It is NOT self-justifying and does NOT address why it is good to perpetuate these institutions, especially with negative experiences involved in both related activities of work and survival.

Your interpretation of the Protestant Work Ethic that you provided which is that we work to care for each other, is also not self-justifying. It is merely a mode of survival. I would say it's better than stomp on your neighbor to get ahead or simply "work for the sake of work", but it is still not answering the question of why perpetuate institutions through which we work to care for each other in the first place?

Your interpretation runs into other problems as well. Care or love for each other is a tricky thing anyways.. People's idiosyncratic personalities can make "caring" look very different. If someone was an asshole to me, but fed me.. I wouldn't know how to take that. Are they actually caring for me? How can people even begin to care for people in the way they want to be treated if their own version of how they want to be treated is way off? Someone raised in a "tough love" environment and directs people like a bully may think they are caring. Besides, the institutions THEMSELVES may force otherwise "nice" agreeable people to act like assholes due to the context of their position or how they have to work with others. Again, we are harmed by these institutions that we perpetuate.

We can all agree that material goods are good.. but we are forced into relations with people who don't necessarily have our view of how relations with others should work or simply have to act a certain way in order to conform to the institution.. We all may agree that it is not good for people to go hungry and be completely destitute. However, it is the actual minutiae of working with different personality types that strains human relations. This is compounded with the fact that often times we cannot get away from these negative relations since society demands of us to keep its institutions going and thus work with all different sorts and in negative scenarios that make life not that enjoyable.

Anyways, the bigger question is why perpetuate the cycle of work in the first place? If you say through it we care for each other, then why are we working so that through it we care for each other in the first place? It does not seem self-justifying. In fact, through work, often times I am confronted with why humans are not that great.. even if somehow the end result means an increased welfare from the product/service. What makes dealing with other people's negative idiosyncrasies through the forced institutions of life worth it? Why do we agree to continue being the maintenance crew on for the institutions and perpetuate them?

We are beings that are never satisfied for long, frequently harmed, and we keep institutions going that help us survive and keep our complex mind entertained . We are the maintenance crew for these institutions. We maintain these institutions simply to maintain them, just as we survive to survive.. But that is not a justification of why we continue to do it.

The point is you are discounting the very thing, and only thing that, from a person's point of view, makes anything worthwhile. To be pressured or moved is how we care. When one project finishes (be it competed or not), we need our minds to drive us in another (even if it is only basking in the glory of what we have already done), else we are caught in a world where nothing matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But I am not discounting it. I very much know that is a motivation factor along with survival itself.

What they need is a new project, with its pressure to "be" something, its obstacles to overcome and (in some cases) pain and suffering which have to be endured to achieve the goal. For their misery to end, they must will and be content that such willing itself is the point. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am not sure about that last part. You don't necessarily "Will" yourself to be content from existential empty feelings. You may will yourself to start another project, true. My point was the implication of this feeling. What this means. It's not hard to say, "well fill your time with more projects"..Of course, that is a temporary solution.. but it does not solve the problem that nothing is justified to keep the human project going in the first place.. Why there is this emptiness there in the first place. Why we humans can even have this self-reflection.

Of course pessimism thrives on the claim that misery (for us, in this era of history, due to the way we live) is inescapable.

But that is what makes it superficial as philosophy. — apokrisis

Not really.. How is instrumentality being the core of the existential issue superficial? It may be ignored, or distracted from, but it is there. Society building social relations that cause conflict for the maintenance crew who keeps it going to but for no justification is a related problem that is not superficial. Quite the contrary, it gets to the heart why we are motivated to continue the human project in the first place. Systems theory is nothing without more humans willing to buttress the whole edifice so that you can entertain systems theory ideas.

Only if you don't have anything you care about. For many, the mind craving something to care about amounts to the destruction existential emptiness. More specifically, it quite literally the only reason to do anything. If one wasn't driven to care, it they were caused to not care, they would not act as they do. "Reasonless" they would be, for the mere fact of their existence would mean an absence of motivation or any worthwhile outcome in their mind. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I wasn't quite sure what you were saying here. I already stated that our complex minds crave SOMETHING to care about, so you are preaching to the choir there.

It's not about obstacles either or the "ideal society." Frequently, obstacles are what the mind cares about. People love them, so they can care about overcoming them. A lot of the time people even care about them more than what's given to them without conflict. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I can agree with this. However, some feel the acute feeling of emptiness- the instrumentality. Perhaps not everyone sees it.

ing Kierkegaard and Heidegger - I don't think of a sense of absurdity as a barrier to action, but a leap to made over a chasm. That's just how I am. One commits. Then, plonk, here one is. — mcdoodle

But when one is forced into a negative situation due to social challenges of the existing structure, and then when one realizes that at the end of these challenges there are only vague notions of entertainment experiences- this is not very consoling. Maybe you really do have a magical life of flying into the abyss with abandon and enlightenment.. Many people are just trying to get over enough obstacles, whether they be self-caused, other-caused, or existential-caused.

You wrote early in the thread of 'an ideal society'. But your criticism of what I put forward seems to be a criticism of anyone who attempts any kind of social change. Are there any social changes you admire? What is your ideal society, since you say you have one, and what would it take for it to be achieved? I take that sort of question as my starting-point. I don't know if you saw Mongrel's thread on 'slave morality', or have read any Nietzsche: it seems to me that to focus one's philosophical attention on irremediable injustice is a pointless circular exercise. — mcdoodle

To be fair, my ideal society is a non-starter. First off, I frequently bring up the concept of "instrumentality". This is an immovable existential problem that does not change with differences in social arrangements. Instrumentality, as I define the term, is the emptiness felt at the end of enterprises. It is essentially the feeling of "doing to do to do" because one is alive and one needs to keep his/her complex mind entertained with things other than purely survival-related activities.

Any activity X only gets you so far before you question why any activity really matters other than your mind craves SOMETHING to care about at a particular time. With this as the core tenet, when this is taken to the social level, where we are confronted with disagreeable people, coworkers, managers, neighbors, and otherwise, where the social arrangements of work, consumption, and government provide negative experiences on top of the existential concept of instrumentality- you can see how the problem becomes a vicious circle. We have the existential emptiness, but we prop it up with all social institutions we are forced to maintain, and perpetuate.

Hence positive psychology. Once you realise that it is all about contextual framing, then the obvious next step is to take charge of your own psychosocial framing. You stop belly aching about the life that has mechanically been forced upon you and take charge of creating a life as you want it. — apokrisis

Who is to say that this is not just one more manifestation of self-correction from the system- there to deceive me into future harm, and more future people into harm? Positive psychology is not a panacea, if it was, everyone would literally be promoting it all the time. It's like the 19th century cure-all.

Of course then if you think you can have a life of untroubled bliss, you don't understand the point of life at all. So there is no point making romantic transcendence your goal. The nature of nature is pragmatic. Suck it up. It ain't so bad once you do achieve that kind of harmonious flow. — apokrisis

The nature of nature is pragmatic? You are nature's prophet now? Even if this is so, you are an individual self-reflecting being who CAN see that there is no justification to keep the system going. Again, you have failed to provide a solution except to say that systems don't care about individual preferences. This I understand, but why do we actively have to WANT to perpetuate what already exists just because it exists? We are not here FOR life. And what is that anyways, that you bring up? Dynamic balance, and that gibberish does not really console the individual.. Positive psychology reminds me of "Serenity Now".. Should we gloss over the fact that there is no justification to keep institutions going? Again, you have provided no solution to the question and the bring up this "goal" of life. Besides the fact that you bring up a goal that probably does not exist, besides the fact that you put yourself in the place of a prophet translating for nature its goals to us misguided folks, besides the fact that you provide no solution as to why the system is justified..

So yes, if you think about this philosophically, it may seem weird. But only because you are framing the situation mechanically and not organically. You are treating humanity like a mindless maintenance crew perpetuating some giant machine that exists for no apparent purpose.

But nature is organic, not mechanical. You are applying a model of things that has the fundamental flaws I've outlined often enough. — apokrisis

I don't think you really stated a solution to the circular argument here. To rephrase harm as "a requirement for this kind of quick switching between sharply different responses to circumstances. We are made to be unstable because that is the source of a system's power" does not make harm any less harmful to the individual. Just because humans respond to a system in dynamic ways, does not mean that this dynamism is not painful/harmful/negative for the individual involved in this negative dynamic reaction. In other words, you cannot "jargon" your way out of people experiencing negative experiences by simply switching the language to one of systems theory.

Here is an analogy. You can simply talk about a disease in terms of all the chemistry and mechanics involved (dynamic or mechanical or other), and you can talk about disease in terms of the individual experience of the disease. You keep changing the from the patient's experience of the disease to the chemistry involved. Another analogy would be the Pangloss "Best of all Possible Worlds" fallacy that was lampooned in Voltaire's Candide. If 30,000 people die in an earthquake and you start going on about how this is just what you expect from being a part of an organic, dynamic, natural system, there is something off about this. If you do not see how this is the case, and simply deny that there is personal experience, or individual perspective, again, there is something off about this. You are denying the very experience you are using to postulate systems theory. You are not simply this mind on the internet pontificating on systems theory- you are an organic individual human that interacts with the world, has emotions, experiences a range of things and not just a cog (organic or otherwise) in some natural system. It is again, getting caught up in the map and never recognizing the humanness of being human.

Anyways, to go back to your systems approach to the circular logic, you seem to agree in a weird way, that the system is here despite the individual and not necessarily for the individual. Rather the individual can benefit from being a part of it, but any one particular individual is not necessary to keep the whole system going. Why should the human not be more than a bit suspect of keeping a system going that has no reason for it to keep going in and of itself (no self-justification, if there is such a thing), and that does harm to the individuals that are keeping it going?

Well-stated. The idea of the individual deceiving themselves, being manipulated by the institutions to keep it going through hope and progress and similar ideals of future betterment seems to be a part of the unstated or unconscious factors for keeping institutions going despite the harm it does to individuals.

They might say that they do, but the majority certainly don't act as they do. — apokrisis

Yes, I am aware of your interest in how we are going to consume the planet, especially through use of fossil fuels.

Given you are arguing that there is a general contract as well as these subcontracts, there is no reason individuals couldn't find society generally ok but problematic in certain regards.

Of course if you now deny your own thesis... — apokrisis

The argument is not that people don't currently find the contracts ok. Obviously they do, and indeed perpetuate it FOR others. However, I am providing a sort of change of perspective on our situation. In the OP, I suggest that institutions may be self-perpetuating and the individuals are simply instruments for the perpetuation of the institutions. They become a maintenance crew, but why the maintenance crew has to keep maintaining in the first place, is never really answered, especially in light of the possible harms on the maintenance crew. Thus, I provided two problems that arise from this perspective:

1) The absurdity of humans being toilers for institutions.. Our mission is not OURS, but some OTHER which has no justification in and of itself. Survival at the species level itself is not a justification either, as this is its own circular argument. Why keep the species going in order to just keep it going?

2) The harm that it causes to be the maintenance keepers.. the harm of dealing with the other maintenance crew, the harm we cause ourselves, the harm that existence itself causes on the maintenance crew.

In order to argue against the vital impulse of life, you have to use a vital impulse of life. — darthbarracuda

This is also Schopenhauer's view of suicide. In order to commit suicide, you must use the Will against itself, which would still be using Will.

Anyways, I think you are getting at the point when you indicate that life qua life really has no justification in and of itself. We know there is non-life from the view of already-living true, but this does not negate the fact that the continuance of life itself does not simply justify itself because we already exist. It still begs the question of why. Why keep the institutions going in the first place? If it is because we survive to survive, this only makes sense as an inidividual human. As for a species, it becomes an ideology- but an odd one, because when pressed, those who claim to throw away grandiose purpose (i.e. religion), have no real answer other than the circular argument to survive to survive. Or, they may run into the naturalistic fallacy or poor analogies to other animals.. other animals survive for no reason, so therefore we do the same. This would be a false analogy being that we self-reflect, make deliberate actions, and try to find reasons and justifications.

We are thrown into living or Dasein — mcdoodle

That's all you had to say. We are "thrown" into it. So, how is that good? Or rather, why is this good "for" somebody in the FIRST PLACE? Does this thrown need to take place? Why is this necessary? To continue what?

We do however co-make culture, institutions, relations and society. They don't make themselves, and many idealists or pragmatists make new arrangements for themselves. — mcdoodle

Perhaps you are going too mico in your examples- the business structures, dwelling situations, consumption/production, government and organizational relationships are already baked in. Yes, over time this changes due to micro changes that add up, and yes, as you describe we have relative freedom "within" the civil society's already set framework, but by and large we are forced into certain relations with few exceptions, and even the exceptions are exceptions because the majority has to live a certain already-set way.

Even the "micro" examples you provide are not that independently chosen. Friendships, neighbors, coworkers, projects, social groups, are all phenomena created from the existing framework of civil society. These relations are really not of your choosing, but rather present themselves to you as if they are. What you think of as free, is really just a limited constraint that is very much what your society allows. Even the things that you think are opposite of your current society are opposite precisely because the society that is there is a certain way. This opposition will simply manifest as a tentacle of the current situation anyways. It won't even get subsumed, as it never was anything different than the current situation.

To sum it up with an analogy- you are the maintenance crew, but you can have some variety on your lunch break.. think of it like that. Anyways, why we have to maintain the social institutions simply to perpetuate them, is the question at hand, and it is a vicious circle. If you change the goal post to survival of the species (which along with entertainment are why institutions are there in the first place), the question remains.

One must point to beings within life to justify life, or take the Nietzschean route and point out the contradiction inherent in rejecting the vital essence by use of the vital essence, "life's vengeance" so to speak, the way life affirms itself by denying the validity of the opposition. — darthbarracuda

I am trying to interpret this correctly. Do you mean to say Nietzsche believed that life-denying beliefs affirm life, because you have to live to deny life, and this is indirectly affirming it?

Yes. So this subcontracted notion has evolved because it works and we naturally seek to perpetuate it - even if it doesn't always make us happy. — apokrisis

This is more than a bit vague.

But evolving to challenge elements of the subcontract - a conscious creation of variety that drives human cultural complexification - is not the same as challenging the contract at the general level. That would be unnatural and maladaptive. — apokrisis

Again, this is vague.. with undefined concepts of "unnatural" and "maladaptive". Even if I was to take this at face value, why do individual humans care about the species' survival- especially for a human lifespan of about 80-100 years.

Why should the human not care that the institution perpetuates individual suffering any more than they should ignore their own harm to keep the institutions going? You do not seem to have a justification.

What would or could possess the individual to have a different desire. — apokrisis

You are assuming that the individual cannot self-reflect on their circumstances and be critical of it. Survival is the original reason for the institution's existence, while entertainment/pleasure is the leftover that our complex minds crave (and also sustained by the existence of these institutions). - this I get. However, in the West at least, we have the notion of individualism and being our own person. But if we think of our job here as merely instruments of the institutions- maintenance, upkeep, and toilers for its continuance, really our mission becomes rather bleak, as it becomes a nihilistic circular argument whereby humans are keeping institutions going for the sake of institutions. This circular argument leads to many problems, but two are:

1) The absurdity of humans being toilers for institutions.. Our mission is not OURS, but some OTHER which has no justification in and of itself. Survival at the species level itself is not a justification either, as this is its own circular argument. Why keep the species going in order to just keep it going?

2) The harm that it causes to be the maintenance keepers.. the harm of dealing with the other maintenance crew, the harm we cause ourselves, the harm that existence itself causes on the maintenance crew.

Max Weber traces the source of Protestant Work Ethic back to the Reformation, which dignified the spirit of work....all work regardless of kind was dignified, made in service of salvation, to which one was chosen or not, it was very much in the service of capitalism. — Cavacava

Are we the individual, here to carry out some Protestant Work Ethic ethos? In more general terms, are we here to maintain institutions? To consume, to work, to live in a country is to maintain its institutions. Are we the maintenance crew of some sort of institutional perpetuation.

The 'Protestant Ethic' has proved itself valuable to our form of society, it keeps us going, striving and progressing toward, that shining city on the hill. — Cavacava

Indeed. Is it the Protestant Work Ethic behind why we perpetuate more people, and continued institution? Is work for works sake a reason to continue? Isn't this absurd?