The Denial or Affirmation of the Will to Live?

[mabts]

Realizing that the thread I made this post under was started numerous months ago, I decided to start a new thread altogether. This post was in reply to Xenolar's statement in which he argues that sex is no longer necessary or needs to be acted on. From there, I began to rant about philosophy of life...

Allow me to chime in if I may... I just recently discovered this message board and am quite intrigued to see so many like-minded fellows. I'm not sure if this thread has died out already but I guess I'll post regardless.

Anyway, going back to the beginning post, I sympathize with your position Xenolar. Many of my reflections have come to similar conclusions. The INTJ personality type, coupled with a high IQ, can easily lead to such ways of thinking. Finding yourself detached from the world, feeling as if no one is remotely objective except you, and being disgusted with the trifling relationships between most men and women can put one down such a path (the denial of sex and other pleasures).

Because of these circumstances, I originally saw the point of life as to deny the will to live in a Schopenhauerian sense. Reject sex and all the traditional pleasures our natural instincts strive for so dearly. True enjoyment will come from renouncing the world and the asinine drives of the body.

But I think eventually one must come full circle and to the opposite of this view. Denying the desires of the will does not actually bring salvation -- rejecting sex and basic pleasures may give one a feeling of exaltedness over the world and one's fellow men, but ultimately it isn't that satisfying.

Instead of rejecting sex and such, I think one should do just the opposite. The only intrinsically good thing I know of is pleasure. After much reflection on the matter, it has become clear to me that I feel pleasure from just a few things, namely: sex, great food and drink, art (all forms of art), intellectual/philosophical triumphs, ethical actions, and intellectual respect from fellow humans.

Instead of rejecting sex and similar pleasures because of your disgust with how pathetic the sexual drives of the ignorant masses can seem, rise above it. Rise above it. Make the world play to your game. Don't let the world control your prospects and deny it's seeming foolishness; you make the world. Discover how to maximize pleasure, sex, money, ethics, etc. and I think this limited span of life we get will be much more worthwhile.

[thod]

Enjoy the dance for when its over you die. There are no winners.

[acyckowski]

The only intrinsically good thing I know of is pleasure.

Pleasure is the result of neurochemical impulses to your brain. It is neither good nor bad, it is the result of several million years of trial and error in the game of survival.

Denial of immediate pleasure can lead to discipline. Discipline can lead to honorable action. The sublime rewards of honorable action transcend the petty pleasures of flesh. This is not a message of afterlife and salvation--it is a message of the here and now.

Immediate gratification is the path of animals. Many men are satisfied to live as animals. Real men reach for better.

[Homini Lupus]

We are body and mind. Mind comes from the body (mainly the brain) and processes sensations from all the body. Misrespecting the body is misrespecting the mind. I think the best is look for balance, wich means the mind governing the body in a self-respectful way. Mind pleasures are great. But body exercise makes you feel alive (it's natural drug and trains also the mind).

Wich is not to say I'm the most balanced man in the world; I got my many faults like anybody else. Maybe one day I'll be ready for denial of will, once i'm sure it's just not anhedonism and I'm getting more and more schizoid personality disorder.

[mabts]

Pleasure is the result of neurochemical impulses to your brain. It is neither good nor bad, it is the result of several million years of trial and error in the game of survival.

Denial of immediate pleasure can lead to discipline. Discipline can lead to honorable action. The sublime rewards of honorable action transcend the petty pleasures of flesh. This is not a message of afterlife and salvation--it is a message of the here and now.

Immediate gratification is the path of animals. Many men are satisfied to live as animals. Real men reach for better.

Intrinsically good, in the philosophical sense, means that I desire "it" in and of itself and not as a tool for something else. Your point is incoherent.

You're understanding of the term pleasure is confused. You seem to equate pleasure with nothing more than just bodily pleasure or immediate gratification. I never made such a claim.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Pleasure is the result of neurochemical impulses to your brain. It is neither good nor bad, it is the result of several million years of trial and error in the game of survival.

Denial of immediate pleasure can lead to discipline. Discipline can lead to honorable action. The sublime rewards of honorable action transcend the petty pleasures of flesh. This is not a message of afterlife and salvation--it is a message of the here and now.

Immediate gratification is the path of animals. Many men are satisfied to live as animals. Real men reach for better.
This sounds like alot of puffed up human superiority stuff. I'm always intrigued by the fairly common desire to elevate the human species above all others. Why do people feel the need to be superior?

[Homini Lupus]

An italian Ethologist (I don't remember his name) wrote that what make us different from the other species is that we understand we are going to die while other animals, even when they have logical abilities or understand death, are not able to think that.

Not clear how he got that conclusion. Interviewing many species can be quite hard.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Different, but not superior.

[Homini Lupus]

I agree. Life in general deserves respect (proper and proportioned, I'm no vegetarian). And since we are part of it, it's good policy too.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree. Life in general deserves respect (proper and proportioned, I'm no vegetarian). And since we are part of it, it's good policy too.
I'm no vegetarian either so I may be called a hypocrite for saying that humans are not superior to other species. However, I look at nature minus humans and I see animals eating other species without the moral need to feel superior. Now, of course, I realize that they are unable to feel morality, but my point is that I can eat a hamburger and also understand that just because I am willing to do so does not necessarily mean that it makes me morally right or superior.

[Homini Lupus]

Not to say that the fact that salad doesn't cry when you pick it up, this doesn't mean it has no life or perceptions. I was born omivore and stay true to my nature.

[eMachine]

I think that moderation is key. I think that it takes a more intelligent, willful, and attentive person to moderate themself than it does to simply swear off something altogether. In my perspective, completely giving up something that one enjoys is to admit that one is not strong enough to moderate oneself. In fact, that is the basis in such groups as Alcoholics Anonymous, they believe that if they take one drink they will not have the will to stop there. They think they are not in control of themselves. Whereas, I believe that we can always be in control of such choices.

I think that things that can be enjoyed should also be respected, rather than exploited and misused to the point that they are no longer enjoyable, when a person depends on such things more and more for their personal happiness and self-image. There is always a healthy balance to be kept. But to feel that one cannot moderate oneself and keep a healthy balance, to me, seems erroneous. I think it limits and undermines the potential of the human mind.

[Homini Lupus]

I don't think burning the bridge behind yourself is bad policy in some occasions, expecially when you have to give up something in order to concentrate on other tasks since it stops you from thinking and desiring something you shouldn't desire and helps you focus on future. Willpower is also increased by such small tricks.

But yes, moderation and balance are the basics. Otherwise you're torn apart by your own impulses.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Balance and chioces are key.....I agree. However, the belief that we have a choice has come up on other threads.

I ask you this, "Do we really have a choice or is our conscious mind percieving as choice what is really a biologically programmed response?"

[Homini Lupus]

I think that we are bound to make choices even if we perceive this as freedom. Choices are based on what we are and what we experienced. Every single moment we make a choice (moving a finger a way or another is still a choice). When we make our first choice we have no experience so they are just based on what we are and what we perceive, both things that we don't choose. Subsequent choices are based on the ones you already made. That's the way I figured it out, but i'm always open to new points of view.
In practical terms I use the "natural" common meaning of freedom since it's more useful; otherwise you wouldn't have responsibilities and criminals would be the same that those who spend their efforts in helping the others.

And yes, there is probably enough space for discussing a new thread on its own.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think that we are bound to make choices even if we perceive this as freedom. Choices are based on what we are and what we experienced. Every single moment we make a choice (moving a finger a way or another is still a choice). When we make our first choice we have no experience so they are just based on what we are and what we perceive, both things that we don't choose. Subsequent choices are based on the ones you already made. That's the way I figured it out, but i'm always open to new points of view.
In practical terms I use the "natural" common meaning of freedom since it's more useful; otherwise you wouldn't have responsibilities and criminals would be the same that those who spend their efforts in helping the others.

And yes, there is probably enough space for discussing a new thread on its own.
This sounds right to me. However, I wonder just how much choice criminals have, as well as, those who spend their efforts in helping people.

[vkut79]

If you take the objective analysis to completion, then nobody has any choice. We do what we are compelled to do by our nature and our past experience. Freedom is just an illusion that keeps us motivated. Would you really want to live if you were convinced that you had no freedom to choose, that all of your actions were predetermined? Fortunately this "illusion" of freedom feels very real to us, as it should.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

If you take the objective analysis to completion, then nobody has any choice. We do what we are compelled to do by our nature and our past experience. Freedom is just an illusion that keeps us motivated. Would you really want to live if you were convinced that you had no freedom to choose, that all of your actions were predetermined? Fortunately this "illusion" of freedom feels very real to us, as it should.
I agree with you up to the point where it seems you're saying that people wouldn't want to live if they knew that they didn't really have a choice. If I'm interpreting you correctly? I think the will to live would supercede even this knowledge.

[vkut79]

Yeah you are right, in most cases people would still desire to live even if they were somehow completely convinced that freedom was an illusion. It seems so apparent to us that we have choice and are able make free decisions that even we were able to reason correctly that we actually have no freedom and that it's just an illusion, we would just put that knowledge aside and continue to act naturally, as if we believe that freedom is real. This makes me realize that reason on its own is really not that strong of an influence on our behavior. Natural, biological tendency, on the other hand, seems to be much more dominant.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

We do seem to be slaves to our biology.

[The Many]

We do seem to be slaves to our biology.

To some extent we are, considering that, when combined, there is nothing more to us than our bodies (of course this could be discussed, but the mind does to me at least seem to be created through biology, even though we have yet to understand exactly how - no other idea than this seems plausible).

But also, we must remember that our minds are able to conquer more primal biological instincts, so we are not fully enslaved by our instincts - yet still, I do believe that they are to be acted upon. I definitely agree with the original poster in this thread, and in fact I have reached quite similar conclusions myself. For me personally, the one important existential value is Revelry; as I would define what he describes as The Will to Live (I have some issues with the Schopenhauerian use of this term, which will be mentioned below). I used to see the world in a strictly Darwinian sense, seeing pro-creation as the ultimate value, but upon further consideration I reject it. I simply do not see any reason for why acting upon something which may, or may not, be beneficial. The theory of evolution is perhaps good to describe how we came to be, but it is far from an ethical standard in itself - in Revelry lies the only true value I have ever found.

As to The Will to Live, though, this notion, and also The Will to Power and Freud's Libido/Destrudo, are misinterpretations of what is today usually discussed as male power struggles. We cannot fully interpret these notions in terms of these ideas, but rather as distinct psychological phenomena, especially if we take neuropsychology and more modern experimentation in account. I do, however, believe that a certain Will does exist and cannot be discussed in another way, at least not until our knowledge of the human brain grows even more intricate - there is no use going fully into details here, since the subject deserves a book or at least a large part of one itself, but suffice to say, turning this Will inwards and towards fulfilling rationally established values, in my case the above-mentioned Revelry, is to me what makes existence worthwhile.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think that the will to live exists in all animals (and perhaps plants). I would describe it as an intinct to survive that is so powerful it supercedes all other instincts. I would further suggest that people who commit suicide have a defect in this 'gene' and that those people who continue to struggle on through the most adverse conditions have a 'supercharged' gene.

[The Many]

I think that the will to live exists in all animals (and perhaps plants). I would describe it as an intinct to survive that is so powerful it supercedes all other instincts. I would further suggest that people who commit suicide have a defect in this 'gene' and that those people who continue to struggle on through the most adverse conditions have a 'supercharged' gene.

I take it you adhere to the Schopenhauerian notion, which is intereting enough in itself, even though quite flawed when considering modern genetic research, and in that what he mentioned was far too elaborate a phenomenon (or perhaps "were far too elaborate phenomena", considering that there are quite a number of them) to describe as a 'Will'. This also goes for reducing it to one single gene.

[DeadSpace]

To OP: There is a balance mabts, stray to far either way in those things you seek, and cost begins to outweigh benefit. The things you seek can become obsessions, and other parts of your life will suffer. Our primitive natures need controlling...there are those who seek the things you listed...with a pure animalistic intensity. They're usually written up as psych case studies in personality disorders >.>
Pleasure is fleeting if you care not for it's quality, leading you to want more and more, becomes a cycle. Same with sex, money, and drugs. Stimulating yes, addictive...yes. Balance is a much wiser approach, quality over quantity. Stability better than constantly searching for the next 'fix'. Long term satisfaction is always better than a short term rush. Maximizing the things you want...without getting caught in an endless loop, without giving in to base instinct.

As to will to live, instinct built in is a major factor, secondary...it's painful to die. Only humans have a method of offing themselves that limits, or nullifies the pain (drugs) for all other creatures, their options are much more limited...it hurts to starve to death...get eaten by a predator. Pain is a great motivator for survival. Though conversly, suicides tend to be caused by pain...what a tangled web humans are.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I take it you adhere to the Schopenhauerian notion, which is intereting enough in itself, even though quite flawed when considering modern genetic research, and in that what he mentioned was far too elaborate a phenomenon (or perhaps "were far too elaborate phenomena", considering that there are quite a number of them) to describe as a 'Will'. This also goes for reducing it to one single gene.
I don't know who Schopenhauerian is.

I placed 'gene' is in parentheses ..... to indicate this simplification of a probably more complicated process.

[mabts]

When I'm speaking of not rejecting pleasure, I am not suggesting we should accumulate anything and everything that feels good as much as possible.

My original post was mainly a rejection of Xenolar's rejection of sex. From there I intended to show why I disagree with Schopenhauer's denial of the will.

Just some stuff I jotted down a bit ago while reading Schopenhauer...

Schopenhauer argues that the consequence of his view that we are made up of will logically entails a pessimistic outlook on life. To argue for this view, that because we are made up of will life consists of suffering, he begins by saying that striving and wanting make up the fundamental nature of our lives and activities. This is because we are made up of will. This constant willing cannot be suspended permanently or for most of our lives because the will is what we essentially are. The basis of this will is need and lack and a never ending striving to satisfy these needs. Need and lack are painful because they are things we do not have that we want to have and this lacking leads to suffering. So in essence the very nature of willing is destined to be painful and all the actions of the will are made up of suffering.

On the other hand, if we lack objects to will and need and have nothing to strive for, we become bored. This boredom is intolerable and not something we enjoy. So basically life “swings like a pendulum to and fro between pain and boredom, and these are in fact its ultimate constituents” (Schopenhauer). Schopenhauer further expands on his view, claiming that all willed action toward a goal is experienced as a type of pain. And not only is this striving and action toward a goal painful, but there really is no actual satisfaction in goal accomplishment. The satisfaction, according to Schopenhauer, is only apparent and isn’t real. This is because pleasure is just the absence of pain or want and is not something that really exists or has a positive quality to it. Additionally, no attained object of willing can give us satisfaction that lasts because a lasting and real satisfaction is one that never ends. But all satisfactions do come to an end and we have a constant thirst to will and strive which is never satisfied. Furthermore, even when we do accomplish our goal, numerous other things we lack and need emerge for us to strive for.

But it seems clear to me that Schopenhauer’s pessimistic attitude toward life is a flawed view. Schopenhauer argues that we are always lacking and that this lacking causes suffering. But this doesn’t seem to be true. We can desire and want what is already the case and not be needing of something else. People often say they are “just where they want to be right now” and they do not desire something else from what they currently have. It seems people can be happy or content with their current situation. Schopenhauer may respond by arguing that we are still lacking or striving to “be where we are” in the future. But it seems clearly possible, and most of us have felt this way, that we are enjoying where we are right now but don’t wish to continue to be in this state in the future. The present we are experiencing is enjoyable and in the future we may want to do something else. Even when we do not want to continue what we are doing in the future, this does not have to arise from a lack. A healthy person may want to continue to be healthy – he or she doesn’t lack anything in terms of health.

Schopenhauer argues that to lack is to suffer and that we necessarily suffer from lacking. While it is true that we can suffer from lacking, it is not the case that lacking always causes suffering. There are all sorts of things we may lack that don’t cause suffering. For instance, we may lack the ability to be a good basketball player and not care at all if we don’t like basketball or have any desire to play it. The lacking causes no suffering. Furthermore, there are all sorts of lacks that we are unaware of, and due to being unaware of them, we don’t suffer because of them. We may have forgotten to pay our health insurance and are currently uninsured. But as long as we never get sick or injured and are completely unaware of the fact that we don’t currently have health insurance, it seems this lack will not cause any suffering in our lives.

In Schopenhauer’s argument for pessimism, he assumes that the striving and process of attaining a goal is always painful and full of suffering. But oftentimes it seems that the process of striving for a goal is quite enjoyable. For example, we may take a road-trip across the country to visit our friend. And while our ultimate goal is to get to our friend’s location, the process of driving across the country and seeing the landscape is “half the fun.” Willed action toward a goal does not have to consist solely of pain as Schopenhauer appears to believe. Furthermore, as Nietzsche argues, we often enjoy accomplishing hard goals because we get to experience our own powers in the accomplishing of the goal. An Olympic weight-lifter may suffer in the hard-work his training demands of him, but he also may get great enjoyment about the process of getting stronger and realizing his ability to will and accomplish great tasks.

Schopenhauer not only argues that striving is suffering but that there is no real satisfaction in goal accomplishment. He claims that satisfaction is only apparent and not real and no attained object of willing can give us satisfaction that lasts. But Schopenhauer’s idea that a real satisfaction is one that never ends clearly seems too rigid and strict. It may sometimes be disappointing to us when satisfaction is fleeting or doesn’t last long but this does not mean the satisfaction is bad or not real. Schopenhauer thinks that because the accomplishment of a goal always leads to another goal that these accomplishments are not satisfactory. He is implying that the satisfaction of a desire should be permanently satisfying. But while satisfaction does not last forever, some satisfactions clearly do last long and are satisfying. The satisfaction would only be a delusion if we thought it would permanently end all of our desires, but no rational person thinks this. And even if we could satisfy all of our desires completely, it doesn’t seem that this would be anything we would want. Who would want to end their desire for food and eating permanently? We could never again enjoy the pleasures of these things without the desire.

While Schopenhauer’s argument presents many important issues to be considered, it doesn’t appear to hold up logically or empirically. Many people who are neither ignorant nor moronic do lead happy lives. And while everyone does suffer, there is also happiness and satisfaction to counteract this. It seems that if satisfaction is something real, contrary to what Schopenhauer thinks, and it is not just the negation of suffering, there is hope after all under Schopenhauer’s view of the world.

[The Many]

I don't know who Schopenhauerian is.

I placed 'gene' is in parentheses ..... to indicate this simplification of a probably more complicated process.

A "Schopenhauerian notion" is a notion thought of by Schopenhauer. :)

I believe we agree with each other, then, even though you will probably remain vaguely dissatisfied...













Please excuse my humour. I'm tired.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Please excuse my humour. I'm tired.
Your humor is entirely appropriate and appreciated.

[Haphazard]

If we take this back to the human want of sex and other things...

This is in fact assuming that sex is a pleasure, correct? Because, at the moment, all I can see is hard work (courting) and bad things (children) coming out of it. I just don't find it worth it to commit so much time an energy for a few endorphins firing in my brain.

I don't think of sex as a pleasure, so in a sense, I'm not denying myself anything. I may feel differently later, but is it denial if there was no desire in the first place?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

If we take this back to the human want of sex and other things...

This is in fact assuming that sex is a pleasure, correct? Because, at the moment, all I can see is hard work (courting) and bad things (children) coming out of it. I just don't find it worth it to commit so much time an energy for a few endorphins firing in my brain.

I don't think of sex as a pleasure, so in a sense, I'm not denying myself anything. I may feel differently later, but is it denial if there was no desire in the first place?
No.........not if it doesn't bring you pleasure. Why do anything unless there's something in it for you? I mean other than charity or goodwill, which is another kettle of fish.