Awareness subverts survival

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I sometimes wonder whether lifestyle of a theist (Christian) is healthier than a lifestyle of an atheist/agnostic. Life process is self-referential, the priority is given only its own (efficient) continuation, that is, life strives to continue life, as efficiently as possible. It is blind to the quality of it in general, but we can assume (and you can prove me wrong) that if the quality of life goes to the point where it jeopardizes the continuation of itself it can longer be considered a “good” quality of life.
In the animal world, one of the simplest ways to tell if an animal is healthy or sick is to observe its behavior and the main observed reaction is its will to its own survival and well-being. A healthy animal will flee a predator, take care of its body, and if its a social animal, it will be an active member in its community. A sick or dying animal will show general apathy and disregard to its own survival and well-being. It won’t flee an approaching predator, will not eat or take care of its body. The animal will become withdrawn and unsocial (if part of community).

In this respect, although Christians do display certain unhealthy (as I would call them) behaviors, such as lack of self-critical analysis and a friendly disposition to their “enemies”, they are still more likely to survive and thrive as a group. They are more social, more likely to remain positive through life ordeals, more likely to procreate and stay communal, and more likely to help each other. Nihilism (which often accompanies atheism) has an effect of weakening one’s will to well-being and survival. A person who has no purpose or greater meaning in life is more likely to become depressed and isolated (apathetic). He is more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, and is less likely to reproduce. The existential coping mechanisms of both groups are different, and it can be said that Christian coping mechanism is well superior (more efficient) because of survivability criteria. I know there are exceptions, but I am speaking in general terms. I am interested in hearing others’ thoughts.

2

I can personally identify with a lot of what you’re talking about. The last few years of my life have been more or less more bricks in the wall (if you can understand the pink floyd reference). My studies into religion, world politics and world finance have driven me to an absolute conclusion that the human species is one that need not exist any longer. And through that opinion I’ve fairly quickly and efficiently moved through most of the relationships in my life and severed them. My personal interest in survival has downgraded into one that is of obligation rather than interest. My fear of death is now restricted to the actual event of dying and how painful and lonely it must feel to go through such an experience. However, being dead seems like an incredible release at this point. Liking setting your bags down at the airport for the last time. The journey is done and thank-fucking-god for that.

Survival only matters when there is some worth surviving for. In general terms it seems obscenely obvious that survivial is the most important thing on the list. But when you take a situation of continuing existence resulting in continuing destruction, why bother? I watched a Survivor Man episode recently where he did a show about being lost at sea. It was horrible, mostly in the emotional sense. Staring out into the empty oblivion, staring right into the eyes of your own mortality, so incredibly alone in a body of water that simply does not care. It really impacted me and made me understand why I am so uncomfortable with pictures of astronauts in space. For me, on a conceptual level, to truly understand how insignificant we really are, would break the will of the human psyche. So instead of addressing that truth, and thereby crippling our need to survive, we pile on bullshit like reality tv and political discourse. Go to college to get your degree so that you can be a good little robot that perfectly fits the empty cog space. Keep the economy rolling, cast a vote or two so that you can make a difference. Speak your mind, be considerate of others, make your mark, live a good life. Get married and have a couple kids so that you can live for something that will continue on, because you’re not gonna and either are your friends. Maintain the illusion, keep playing the shell game, don’t wake up from the dream. Slowly but surely the sun will destroy the planet and all life on it, there is no real point to any of this bullshit.

True awareness, in my opinion, is true self destruction. Everything comes to an end. Everything. Survival is irrelevant.

3

In the grand scheme of things we may well be an electron inside an atom in the puss of a boil on the side of the arse of the universe. That wouldn’t be bad if we didn’t know it. But we do. And it’s not hard to see how the resulting angst can have a negative impact on survival. But it’s also not hard to see the positive impact self awareness can have on survival. Without imagination, an idea of self, the ability to question and describe reality (as we understand it) there would be no tools, no medicine, no great scientific endeavour, no possibility that one day we may escape this blue and green rock we’ve tried so hard to poison and venture to the stars. So doesn’t it works both ways, self-awareness can have a negative impact on survival and also a positive impact.

On a personal note No-body, how do you know you won’t contribute in some way to the future survival of the human race? How do you know one of your comments won’t spark an idea in someone reading causing a chain of events that lead to some positive outcome you can’t foresee? How do you know what the effects your personal relation ships and actions will have a thousand years from now, a million? If a butterflies wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world, what might the ripples you make in the stream of life cause in the future? You may not be able to see them but the ripples of causation are there, unless of course you do everything humanly possible to isolate yourself and dampen them to nothing, which could be a shame for all the people you may have enriched.

4

I’m not a believer in the ideas of butterfly wings creating hurricanes. It’s nice for get well cards and the like, an idea to reach for, but not much else. In terms of everything else, you’ve mostly missed my point. My point being that there is no real point. Enrich the lives around you should you choose, or destroy them, it makes no difference. All things that matters today are irrelevant in the end.

5

Well that’s my defence mechanisms coming into play. The ability (and perhaps tendency) to add positive spin, helps my pysche remain in a state conducive to survival. As opposed to becoming angsty because my useful, but accidental, self awareness gives me the wherewithal to conclude nothing really matters. That wouldn’t help my genes propagate. So that nagging sense of futility at the back of my complex little brain is nullified by what, in my opinion, is a biological imperative to believe in a positive and meaningful outcome, despite material conditions to the contrary, i.e. to hope. That’s the “bullshit” I think you mentioned. Whether thoughts produced through hope are in fact bullshit remains to be seen, but bullshit or no, it helps keep me viable as a gene sack which, in evolutionary terms, is the most important thing. That answer kind of sucks I know, but only because we are predisposed to liking patterns (of which meaning is perhaps the ultimate form). Going back to the OP, I think self awareness does subvert survival to a degree, but also increases it’s likelihood. Which perhaps explains why we are capable of photographing galaxies and worshipping in churches. One counteracts the effects of the other. If neither gives us sufficient meaning, then we are suffering as only self-aware creatures can. That is the pathos of the human condition. To escape the yearning for meaning we would need to transcend our biology. I wonder would that make us greater or lesser human beings?

6

A great many assertions and denials, however, I do not believe that anyone can be called a Christian, or a Jew, or Republican or Democrat, we are a human mind with a particular job to do. Now, Let us take a dozen computers and load various operating systems on them, we do not say the computer is the operating system. We do not say that a computer is Russian, because that is its geographical location.

What we predicate of anything is determined by that things definition. It does not matter where it is at or what has been done to it, its history, this includes man himself. This idea was actually one of the main thesis, which seems to have escaped noticed , of Phaedo. The relative difference between terms cannot be said to belong to either term. It is part of class mechanics. A thing is what it is only because it is a member of a class, and membership to a class is determined by definition.

Such talk of grouping people into false categories is a valid as talking about a Christian digestive system versus a non-Christian digestive system. We call a thing by the wrong name when we do not actually know what it is and even when we have a mind to formulate a faulty argument for some kind of self-gratification.

The human mind is responsible for the actions, and reactions of the human body to the environment. We use language to do that job. Along the lines of language, a metaphor in a religious book often only says the same thing an article in a scientific treatise may. Yet one will prefer one over the other only because it offers a means of expressing one’s mental ability.

To give you an example, the dead shall be resurrected on judgment day. Now that is a pretty metaphor, but it is scientific fact when you realize that until man learns judgment, it cannot be said that his mind is functional, i.e. alive. We use the same metaphor ourselves when something does not work, we say it died, or is dead. Therefore, only a fool would discount the same metaphor because it is written in a particular book, at a particular time. Until the mind of man functions in accordance with a particular job it is evolving to perform, it is not, by definition, alive. Was it not Plato who preserved the saying, that it does not matter if a thing was said by an oak or a rock, the only thing that matters is if it is true or not?

7

I think there’s a lot in what you say, but even if everything you say is true, atheism may still be superior to theism if atheism is a fitness indicator.

8
9

“I sometimes wonder whether lifestyle of a theist (Christian) is healthier than a lifestyle of an atheist/agnostic.”

When asking a question, one should first try to resolve it to its most basic elements.

“Life process is self-referential, the priority is given only its own (efficient) continuation, that is, life strives to continue life, as efficiently as possible.”

You are using one term “life” in two different senses, and thus you become unclear as to what you search for. The self-referential is in fact inadmissible.

“It is blind to the quality of it in general, but we can assume (and you can prove me wrong) that if the quality of life goes to the point where it jeopardizes the continuation of itself it can longer be considered a “good” quality of life.”

Quality itself has the extremes of good and bad, your not really saying anything.

"In the animal world, one of the simplest ways to tell if an animal is healthy or sick is to observe its behavior and the main observed reaction is its will to its own survival and well-being.

You could simply have said that functional is health, dysfunction is lack of it.

A healthy animal will flee a predator, take care of its body, and if its a social animal, it will be an active member in its community. A sick or dying animal will show general apathy and disregard to its own survival and well-being. It won’t flee an approaching predator, will not eat or take care of its body. The animal will become withdrawn and unsocial (if part of community).

“In this respect, although Christians do display certain unhealthy (as I would call them) behaviors,”

Now here you reveal your own psychological dysfunction-there is no “Christian” environmental acquisition system of a living organism.

“such as lack of self-critical analysis and a friendly disposition to their “enemies”, they are still more likely to survive and thrive as a group.”

Obviously not a student of history, people claiming the christian faith have done some of the world’s greatest atrocities.

The human mind is responsible for human will, human expression. It is still quite young biologically and cannot be said to be wholly functional. At one point you started to be pulled in the right direction, what is better and worse as far as expression goes, but then you drifted, as if you knew something you did not, to focus of those who profess a doctrine, when hardly any of them actually have a doctrine regardless of what they call themselves.

A doctrine is not responsible for human behavior, the mind of man is. The mind does it’s job through language, both branches. What can be predicated of a thing, can only be predicated of a thing through the standard of its definition.

Man qua man is not different from man qua man. What effects human expression is the same in every human being on the planet. Thus, you could not even agree as to what your topic was, for you created the self-referential fallacy that man qua man is different from man. Thus, you assumed your answers before you laid your fingers to the keyboard.

Now, I do not profess any religion whatsoever. I did take up lucid dreaming even before it hit the market, and I learned. What I learned does not mean a damn thing unless it can be taught. Only a fool would think it is about teaching someone to profess a faith or a doctrine, when it has always been about human judgment, the function of the mind itself. That means teaching one how to think, and before one can do that, one has to learn it themselves. The beam is certainly in our own eye.

Now, the original title implies that the human mind is evolving to destroy the life of the body, when a very wise man once said, “I came so that you can have life and have it more abundantly.” Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism has the same purpose, so that we can have life and have it more abundantly. Therefor, it is not in denouncing or subverting the function of the mind that is man’s salvation, it is what was once written, we shall know in truth, and the truth shall set us free. This one statement itself only reaffirms that our path is to learn judgment, and we do that by learning how to think, and how to employ language correctly so that what we do say is true.

10

If theism is so persistent (worldwide, and throughout history) and if more theists than atheists reproduce, then it can be said that theism is an indicator of fitness. If there was a global catastrophe and only one man survives, the chances are this one man would be a theist.

11

But the notion of theism as a fitness indicator is at odds with your thesis. And all the great religions are relatively nihilistic.

12

I don’t see religions as nihilistic.

here, look:

You don’t see meaninglessness and existential despair in believers, in fact it is religious belief that alleviates most of people from it. Although nihilism may be the initial cause of religions, the believers are no longer nihilistic because, through their religion, they now have a meaning and purpose in their live. It’s not fair to say that a person is nihilistic even after he has adopted a dogma that allows for meaning, as that way you can call everybody a nihilist, regardless of what they believe in.

13

Transcendentalist religions, like Christianity, are nihilistic with regard to this life, this world: according to them, this life and this world only have meaning in relation to the afterlife, the afterworld; not in themselves. The only reason modern atheism is so often accompanied by nihilism, as you say, is that that atheism simply strikes out the afterlife and the afterworld; it does not fundamentally disagree with the transcendentalist religions about this life and this world.

14

What a terrible world view.

Don’t have children because they’ll eventually die.

Don’t build anything because it will decay.

Life means nothing because it ends.

If you truly think all is meaningless then at least enjoy the journey, I say.

Though I don’t think all is meaningless.

Something being small, like a man in a universe doesn’t make them worthless.

15

In essence, it does, as atheists do not hold a conception of linear time

There is no ideologic reward factor or superlative meaning, which logically triggers nihilism automatically. Nihilism is a this-life phenomenon accompanied by certain behaviors

16

this is a good example

17

They don’t?? Note that I’m not talking about Nietzscheans here.

The sigh or cry “There is no meaning or purpose!” implies a comparison of this life with an imagined life in which there is meaning/purpose. As Nietzsche puts it:

“A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 585.)

The difference with, say, Christians is that the latter judge that the world as it ought to be does exist; and if they do not judge that the world as it is ought not to be, this is only because it’s regarded as some kind of test for the afterlife.

18

The point was that with linear conceptions of time one is left with the cyclic despair of nihilism. “Why do this, the whole universe will soon be destroyed and all history wiped out soon”, etc.

I have noticed the individuals who are able to function off nihilism are the ones who tend to be intellectually dishonest to this reality

19

I still don’t see it as nihilistic.

When a theist says, “My life is a test (a dream, or cycle, or whatever) that will determine the next life” he is not being nihilistic. The word “nihilistic” is not an appropriate term to describe this behavior because the meaning is present.

What one can say is that theism has an effect of making this life somewhat less poignant, as it takes some of the focus off of it. So, I could say, for example, that theistic beliefs are really self-induced forms of (mild) psychosis. I would compare it to a mental buffer that is often used by children when they are unable to cope with the intensity of reality, as in “Oh, this is just a game! So, it’s not really that bad”. Mental buffers are used on everyday basis, and by adults also, (in varying degrees) and their main purpose is to facilitate functionality.

20

He is being nihilistic inasmuch as said “next life” is nothing…