Have we replaced our animal instincts?

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Have we replaced our animal instincts?

We are also creatures “prone to anxiety, extremely helpless in his natural state, almost entirely devoid of instincts.” Therein lay the paradox. ”Instead of remaining free and broadly adaptive, the new symbolic animal immediately became ‘symbolically re-instinctivized’ almost as solidly as the other animals were physio-chemically instinctivized.”

Sapiens evolved into creatures with symbolic structured modes of behavior. Human consciousness extended wo/man’s reach to infinity—wherein infinity is within the extended reach of human imagination. We are creatures with the ability to create symbolically a virtual reality that extends out to the limits of our imagination.

Evolution has programmed the animal world to act automatically in certain ways under certain conditions. Humans have lost a good bit of these programmed responses because we have an ego that places our responses on hold until we have had time to reflect and construct a non-programmed response.

Humans create the world we live in; it is a virtual world constructed principally because of the neurosis we have developed in the first five years of our life.

If we try to think about a virtual world I think we must start with a natural world so that we have a starting point, something with which we can compare. What is a natural world? Is it what we ‘see’? Is it the ‘thing-in-itself that Kant tells us about? Depending upon which is a natural world I think we can begin to realize that the world we live in is a virtual world. We are creatures who create symbolic worlds that are more important to us than the world we ‘see’.

Water boarding is a good example of what we feel about death. Being sentenced to death for a crime is a good idea of what we think about the importance of death. The things people do to prolong their life one more day is a good example. We have been very successful about hiding these anxieties from our self that we have created an inferior culture in our pursuit after something that we do not allow our self to think about. Self deception is our greatest enemy and our closest companion.

I am claiming that the reaction we feel when water boarding or claustrophobia is that very fear of death. If someone asks me what is the fear of death I will say that if they can imagine the feeling of being water boarded they are feeling the fear of death. Our rather blaze attitude that we say we feel about dying is our self deception.

This fear of death that we work so hard to hide from our self is one of the major reasons that we have created a virtual realty and this virtual world we have created is going to kill us. Now ain’t that ironic?

Quotes from Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker

Do you think that humans have replaced the basic animal instincts with symbolic type instincts as the author notes?

2

not even close

-Imp

3

I think the author has personally placed too much significance on death… and he thinks that everyone else has the fear that he does. While it may have been poetic, animal instincts aren’t even real… it’s just some word created by fear-mongering individuals… did you know that Japanese Samurais were imprisoned and starved to death… and they didn’t care or even try to get food? What about suicide bombers? Wow… afraid of death? I’m 100% certain that they weren’t afraid of dying… the samurais or the bombers. We aren’t replacing animal instincts… we’re inventing them.

The author sounds far too afraid of life itself… and of humanity. Obviously, the author needs to change from irrationality to rationality in his/her thinking patterns. Whenever this problem is fixed, hopefully his/her thinking will also be fixed. But, I personally don’t care… the author can live the rest of his/her life thinking in a fearful way… it’s not going to change reality. Unfortunately, it’s possible to accept reality. So…

LOGICAL LEAP ALERT!!

Premise: I’m gravely afraid of death.
Conclusion: EVERYONE is afraid of death.

END LOGICAL LEAP!!

That’s a pretty big leap of faith, wouldn’t you say? And his entire work was a waste of good time, with leaping logic and desperate attempts to link his own fear to the entire human race.

4

Jeff

Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.

We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.

I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.

5

Are you telling me I’m wrong or uneducated? Whether I’ve studied this or not is irrelevant when unsound logic is presented as “fruitful thought”, so to speak.

True.

When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge.  I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time.  One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.

So based on the fact that I disagree with the author’s opinions, you draw the conclusion that I’m uneducated, which is a logical leap. And, this so-called “expert” is just as important as any other random person talking on the subject. What makes him so special? While it may be true that he has been tagged an “expert”, it is also that he’s writing about the “fear of death”, which most people are familiar with and able to write about. I am a psychology student, and I was analyzing not only his writing, but why someone’s mind would produce such irrational things. No, I wouldn’t say that he’s mentally ill… only delusional. And delusions don’t make you crazy, so to speak.

But, on the other hand, if we accept logical leaps, then that would probably stunt our intellectual growth. Since I follow the laws of sound logic (on most things, anyway), I don’t find comfort in making logical leaps, because that leads to a state of irrationality, ultimately, which puts your intellect on hold, so to speak. After irrationality manifests itself, you consciously push these unwanted thoughts away and into your subconscious mind, which will (figuratively) break the irrational fears into pieces and smear them all over your conscious mind. Ultimately, logical leaps damage the psyche. Therefore, I have no desire to make them, regardless of the subject.

P.S. Don’t worry if my statements are offensive, and I won’t worry if yours are… but, if you wish to prove me wrong, and you succeed, then I’ll admit it. I’m not that stubborn. I look forward to your response(s).

After posting this, I’ll make another post… and… I’ll try to ignore the severe logical leap the author made.

6

He’s talking about the conscious mind feeling restrained and overburdened, so it then pushes the unwanted thoughts back into the subconscious mind, which breaks up the thoughts into pieces and smears them all over your conscious mind. This part is very true.

I’m not going to lie. I don’t truly understand this part. Frankly, the language here is quite vague.

I don’t believe that these programmed responses exist, or else the “logic and reasoning” section of animal/human brains wouldn’t be there. Decisions are made based on induction, deduction, and sometimes blind prediction… nothing is “programmed”. This leads me to agree that humans have constructed “non-programmed” responses, because that it true. It’s just that the premises have no foundation. Same conclusion, sound vs. unsound logic.

This is unbelievable. Life, in Earth, isn’t virtual, unless your use hallucinogens or inhalants. It’s reality. Dreams, video games, fiction movies, anime shows, etc… those are virtual.

Everything except the last sentence: bull. Why? Because this is a semantics argument about what reality is. Just because there’s a semantics dispute, there isn’t an actual change in reality.

As for the last sentence… it is 100% true. And, this is the subconscious mind at work, creating disturbances for the conscious mind in order to bring attention to the issues. 3rd year as a Pyschology major… but it’s dumb common sense, I guess.

Water boarding is a good example of what we feel about death.

Here’s where it begins to go “off the wall”…

Candy Land - 5 miles ahead

The things people do to prolong their life one more day is a good example.

Candy Land - Next Right

We have been very successful about hiding these anxieties from our self that we have created an inferior culture in our pursuit after something that we do not allow our self to think about.

Welcome to Candy Land!
Assumption Land - 1 mile (left turn)

Self deception is our greatest enemy and our closest companion.

Welcome to Assumption Land!
False Claims City - Next Right

I am claiming that the reaction we feel when water boarding or claustrophobia is that very fear of death.

Welcome to False Claims City!
…analyze the sentences that I gave the fantasy analogies for…

I want to bring attention to this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In the above quote. ~~~~ “The” fear of death assumes that it’s something that every human possesses, which is a ludicrous generalization. “Our” is not a correct way to start quote sentence #2… “My” replacing both “our” would be more appropriate. Not only that, but it would be logically sound, because he would be speaking from a self-perspective, and not arrogant enough to presume to know an ENTIRE race.

What is this “virtual world” he speaks of? In the entire document, he fails miserably to define it. Really… this is actually a story-writing technique. An unknown threat doing something that 60% of people fear (rough estimate, but it’s further from 100% than this pseudo-psychologist thinks)… death. This virtual world is pretty unknown to the readers. Maybe he should elaborate? Or, is he assuming more than I originally thought?

“Escape from Evil”… should’ve known. “Evil” is a subjective thing, much like morality. So, this should’ve given it away… the title, man. Watch the title before you read things.

P.S. There’s a new movie called “Jennifer’s Body” coming out in theaters in the USA. I personally have no intention of watching it… due to its title. The title can sometimes say everything you need to know.

7

Everything that we think, know, and perceive is subjective to one degree or another.

8

That is true. However, “evil” is highly subjective… and this is because what some would condemn, others would embrace.

9

Moral_Jeff

:laughing: :laughing: i agree with you…this was funny.

i think being sentenced to death points more towards what we think about the importance of life, its value, subjectively speaking - depending on what the crime is.

10

Moral_Jeff:

i agree with this quote above. i don’t think the author was speaking of “virtual” as in virtual reality. we do construct our own kind of world which is not always built on reality - simply because of the experiences which we have, not only in the first five years of our life, but even past that. children will concoct a kind of coccoon that protects them, built with all kinds of lies and fantasy, that allows them to deny the truth of their early experiences because they might be too harsh or too painful to look at and to accept. later on they will find out that the same coccoon that hid them and held them safely in, was also their very same prison. that is a neurosis. at the same time, it can be that very same thing, if paid attention to later on in life, which can cause healing. it’s like a writer concocting a fairy tale. there is some hidden truth in a fairy tale, though there is much myth there too. and what is myth but facts that cannot be proven.

do you really think that it is only with hallucinogens and/or inhalants that we human beings maintain our very own perception of what we see as subjective or objective reality? we do it all of the time because we do not want to examine ourselves, what is really happening, what is real. we are capable of living in every bit as much of a fantasy world sometimes as is this ilp. have you ever watched a video, or a movie, or read a book - have you ever found yourself getting lost in them, completing forgetting that they are not reality. humans do this all of the time. it’s an escape into what is unreal.

…and have we replaced our animal instincts. i certainly hope not. they are what allows us to sometimes keep ourselves safe, to run from danger. as soon as we sense danger, they can kick in, activating that adrenaline. they are what has allowed humanity to survive all of this time - despite the job we have done of it. they also allow us to feel passion and to procreate. they are a very important part of what is both primitive and beautiful about us. we do not want to replace them but we do need to work hand in hand with them not allowing them to be our master but not completely allowing ourselves to have mastery over them. at the same time, it can be a very challenging dance to learn this.

11

Ok, I’m beginning to grasp a more vivid understanding of what was stated.

children will concoct a kind of coccoon that protects them, built with all kinds of lies and fantasy, that allows them to deny the truth of their early experiences because they might be too harsh or too painful to look at and to accept.

This is what I was agreeing with in the OP: How the conscious mind will push away what is an overload, and that overload will land in the subconscious mind, which will nag at the conscious mind until the overload is actually addressed.

Thank you for that explanation… it had much more clarity and was so much more direct than the author’s rambling statements.

I’ll get a little personal, if you don’t mind, here. My own cocoon is within my ideas concerning life in general… particularly, my nihilistic ideas keep me safe from things that, in the past, prevented me from living fully.

do you really think that it is only with hallucinogens and/or inhalants that we human beings maintain our very own perception of what we see as subjective or objective reality?

Well, when put in clear words, I’d have to say no to your question. But, I didn’t comprehend what the author intended to say… the message that he was trying to convey was much too vague compared to the way you put it.

we do it all of the time because we do not want to examine ourselves, what is really happening, what is real. we are capable of living in every bit as much of a fantasy world sometimes as is this ilp. have you ever watched a video, or a movie, or read a book - have you ever found yourself getting lost in them, completing forgetting that they are not reality. humans do this all of the time. it’s an escape into what is unreal.

Yes I have found myself doing such things. However, I must testify that fantasy cannot be compelling without temporarily assuming that it’s actually happening.

...and have we replaced our animal instincts. i certainly hope not. they are what allows us to sometimes keep ourselves safe, to run from danger. as soon as we sense danger, they can kick in, activating that adrenaline. they are what has allowed humanity to survive all of this time - despite the job we have done of it.

This is where my disagreement comes strongest into play… I believe that instincts aren’t real, but a word invented to describe common reactions to things. Alternatively, most decisions are made based on intelligence, and, whether from the conscious or from the subconscious mind, those hasty decisions are not “instincts”, as they are always based on something… intelligence is the root of all decisions, even those that are called “instincts” by some.

And that is my argument against the author’s assumptions.

Since I think “instincts” don’t necessarily exist, I’d have to say that this is like fighting against “the boogerman”.

12

Emotion equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

13

If emotions are instincts, which is what was suggested here, then please consider that different people have different emotional reactions to different things, and that “instinct” is a word pegged to common reactions, which doesn’t even suggest that a set of humans will react the same in a particular situation.

Ok.

I don’t think emotion is unconsciously triggered, but subconsciously and consciously triggered. We can discuss the subconscious mind as well, if you’d like.

If the role of emotions is to assist the organism in maintaining life, then why do some people have social anxiety? Obviously, social anxiety, which is a result of emotions, doesn’t assist people in maintaining life, but actually assists them in maintaining loneliness, which is linked to heart disease. Heart disease assists the organism in dying early, which has nothing to do with maintaining life, only destroying it, as in self-termination.

These “automatic” reactions aren’t the same for every individual. And another thing to question would be… if emotions are a “necessity for survival” and they drive all our decisions, then that would render the logic/reasoning portion of the brain rather worthless. So… why does the logic/reasoning portion of the brain exist?

This is true.

The 1st sentence is another example of the link between the conscious and subconscious mind. Sentence #2, however, seems to be untrue, based again on the fact that people react differently in different situations. And, the same can be said of the reactions of other animals.

This suggests that, if the person is paying very little attention to “self”, then that person is more free from experiencing emotions. I would have to agree with this.

Ok…

Please explain what this segment means, exactly.

And there problem is a relevant connection. However, this does not suggest the existence of “instincts”.

Obviously, because we are experiencing lives from our own bodies, and not from everyone else’s bodies. I can easily accept this proposal.

In other words, we’d have to pay attention to an emotion in order for it to have its effects… am I correct in my interpretation?

Perhaps the nuns were attempting to justify their own “impure thoughts”? But anyway, there is nothing in Damasio’s evidence that deems certain thoughts as “impure”, is there?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system.  These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism.  The brain itself is just as radically changed.  But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, [b]before the emotion becomes known[/b], two additional steps must occur.  The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena.  “[b]Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.[/b]”

Ok, so basically, paying attention to the emotion will morph it into an actual feeling. Correct?

~Jeff

14

Jeff

The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

“What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

Ideas and quotes from Birth and Death of Meaning—Ernest Becker

15

I thoroughly understand the Freudian “id”, “ego”, and “superego”. {{By the way, you didn’t mention the “superego”.}} However, I still reject the belief that “instincts” exist. Furthermore, I don’t believe that all people have a fear of death.

The absence of a fear of death in some humans can even be proven based on Antonio Damasio’s findings. Maybe the suicide bombers, for example, were not paying attention to the emotions pertaining to death…? Anyway, if emotions can be ignored, then “instincts” can also be ignored, because they’re pretty much based on emotion. Likewise, evolution, which I thoroughly disagree with regarding the social so-called “findings” (e.g. alpha male and natural selection), asserts that instincts exist… I think it’s a false claim to state: “Instincts exists.” … But it’s even worse to assume the existence of instincts because that can dig pretty deep into the most irrational concepts ever created by the human mind.

The assumption of instincts excuses the intention behind behaviors by claiming that some emotionally reactive behaviors are involuntary. I doubt these claims and assumptions should be regarded seriously.

Take strippers (or, “dancers”) for example… based on evolution, these women are dancing in a showy fashion in order to demonstrate their sexual worth to so-called “mates”. Based on reality, however, these women are dancing in a showy fashion in order to gain financial “wealth”, which helps them to survive in a comfortable fashion… but it’s not necessarily mandatory for survival to be a dancer, is it?

Of course not.

Even blinking the eyes isn’t an “instinct”, because it’s your subconscious mind in operation, telling your eyes to blink… not a hidden feature in the brain. When your eyes open after you’re born, you blink because you’re testing to see how to combat the pain of dry eyes. Once the “test” is complete, you consciously blink on a regular basis, and eventually your conscious mind pushes the action back into your subconscious mind, which does the job from there on out.

Your thoughts and opinions?

16

I want to make two comments. One about the thread and its arguments and then one about the topic.

Becker wrote about an entirely unconscious fear of death. (Most of the conversation and ensuing arguments on both sides of this thread have been about a conscious fear of death.) What Becker was analyzing was the basic death anxiety revealed by centuries of philosophical and psychological analysis and culminating in the work of Kierkegaard, Freud, and Otto Rank – 3 important thinkers in modern times. I won’t summarize Becker’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Denial of Death here, but I do recommend it if this thread has captivated and energized you, because it is quite remarkable.

N.B. In the 80s, social psychologists took up the mantle of scientifically researching to determine whether Becker’s assertions held any water. I encourage you to investigate what is known as Terror Management Theory and in particular the work of Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszczynski who have been researching death anxiety phenomena for over 25 years. Their work, along with the work of many others since has confirmed the pervasive, universal, and cross-cultural nature of unconscious death anxiety. These 3 decades of work by hundreds of researchers on 3 continents was singly inspired by Becker’s book.

That having been said, I want to put my own idea forward for consideration – it is at least one which I have never heard before. If you believe in the death anxiety that we are discussing in this thread, it should make sense to you that there is a set of phenomena associated with it. One such phenomena is a common, if pitiable, reaction that we have to the sick, infirm, dying, and diseased among us.

When we see someone who is nearing death, our own unconscious anxiety about death causes a discomfort which manifests in a backing away, a distancing, an aversion if you will, to anyone who is in a state of mortal peril. An alcoholic, a cancer patient, someone who has had electroconvulsive therapy, a street person, you can pick your example. When we see such people, we are unconsciously reminded of how fragile life is and that sets up in us an inability to focus on them. This is why we so revere the Mother Theresa’s and other samaritans that carry the difficult work of hospice for the infirm. And it’s why we back away, don’t know what to say to someone who used to be a dear friend, get that feeling, “I just didn’t know what to say to him; I was just weirded out by the whole situation seeing him like that,” when we go see someone sick in the hospital.

Now, of course, Becker had much more to say about it than this, claiming essentially the whole of personality and much of society is built up upon it. My example is the lower hanging fruit that may make it sink in with you if you are not a believer yet. Don’t you feel the way I described sometimes?

17

izmo

Our death anxiety is the cause of many bad things and perhaps good things that we do. Until our citizens become sophisticated enogh to understand this they will remain under its influence.

Join me in the effort to convince people, via the Internet forums, that they must become more intellectually sophisticated.