Hermann Hesse and Biology

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Saludos,

This is my first time posting in this website so I apoligize in advance if I am breaking any of the rules (Though I read your consititution and I seem to be abiding by the rules.)

I would like to read some of your opinions about this observation of mine.
This is for all those philosophers out there as well as everyday thinkers. As I was reading Hermann Hesse’s “Demian” I came across a theory of his, about will power (told through the character Demian) that wasn’t quite clear to me.

“You see, we don’t have free will even though the pastor makes believe we do. A person can neither think what he wants to nor can I make him think what I want to. However, one can study soemone very closely and then one can often know almost exactly what he thinks or feels and then one can also anticipate what he will do the next moment. It’s simple enough, only people don’t know it. Of course you need practice. For example, there is a species of butterfly, a night-moth, in which the females are much less common than the males. The moths breed exactly like all animals, the male fertilizes the female and the female lays the eggs. Now, if you take a female night-moth - many naturalist have tried this experiment - the male moths will visit the female at night, and they will come fom hours away. From hours away! Just think! From a distance of several miles all these males sense the onle female in the region. One looks for an explanation for this phenomenon but it is not easy. You must assume that they have a sense of smell of some sort like a hunting dog that can pick up and follow a seemingly imperceptible scent. Do you see? Nature abounds with such inexplicable things. But my argument is: if the female moths were as abundant as the males, the latter would not have such a highly developed sense of smell. They’ve acquired it only because they had to train themselves to have it. If a person were to concentrate all his will power on a certain end, then he would achieve it. That’s all. And that also answers your question. Examine a person closely enough and you know more about him than he does himself.”

I was trying to analyze the analogy he presents about the night-moth from a biological point of view, and I don’t think nature works that way. It is a general assumption in biology that insects behave mostly by instinct. Many insects only mate because of certain chemicals they can percieve. Thus, the male moth isn’t born knowing that he must procreate, nor does he learn it. He simply follows his instincts. In other words, he simply picks up a scent, flies to the female and acts as he was “programmed” to act. Therefore, he does not see the female as a goal. He doesn’t have to train to acquire this “sixth sense” because he was already born with it. This is thanks to natural selection. This means that at one point there were moths that had this “sixth sense” (due to a mutation) and moths that didn’t have it. Obviously, the ones that had the “sixth sense” were able to pick up the scent of the female at a far distance, mate with her and procreate offspring that have a high probability of having this gene of “sixth sense” passed down to them. Thus, the male moths never had to toil themselves to death to acquire this “sixth sense” because they were simply born with it.

If this observation is true, doesn’t that make Hermann Hesse’s example invalid? I’m not trying to prove him wrong or ridicule him it’s just that after having Natural Selection drummed into my head I got this itch in my mind when I finished reading the aforementioned quote. As though something is wrong with it. I highly respect Hermann Hesse as a writer and philosopher even though I just started reading his books and I’m not sure if he wrote that paragraph in that manner on purpose. What are your opinions about this?

Edher

2

Welcome to the boards Edher. And thank you for this very interesting post.

It seems to me that what you say is correct, from an evolutionary perspective, and hence, your criticism does not seem to be unjust. But as I was contemplating these ideas, a few thoughts occured to me, and I would like to share them or open them up for disscusion.

Are all insects just pure, instincts? Or do they have a consciousness that allows them to operate or function? For example, moth’s (I think) are attracted to light. Yet, they also have reproductive instincts. If a moth was to be faced with both variables (a source of light, and a mating partner) would the moth be able to choose which instinct to pursue (as human’s are capable) or would they be determined to follow the more dominant biological instinct/drive? (Not that this refutes your ideas, I’m just curious, I guess). Any insights?

3

undergroundman: Maybe the mating partner would be the same, so they both go towards light and procreate. Lets just say the lights the bar they go to, to get acquainted. Cake and eaten.

You can turn this into a human analogy, we “evolved” and possibly still are - though Harry Kroto (Biochemist Noble prize winner) who i unbelievably managed to get a email off once, doesnt think we will evolve anywhere near the development we have been - though he bases this on his studys of snails… yep… Anyways, not to get side tracked (im talking to myself here, and typing it!) We percieve, interact, and well -move also by a huge volume of chemicals we are only just beginning to correlate in genetics. We walk upright because our ancient ancestory (which wasn’t necassarily the strongest, largest brained, most sentient anthropoidian creature out there at the time) lived in a really warm climate with little shade. Natural selection through natural disasters usually determines the course of things, and we were no different in our own little altruistic gatherings.

Not all the time, it eats, works to find food, adapts (educated though time and evolution) has distractions such as lights and other smells as such, and considering theres more males then females its wholley likely that the vast majority want even procreate. Distractions, mortalitys etc. How does this differ from us? And is it really the insects were talking about here? Or am i just tired?

4

Saludos Underground Man,

  Thank you for welcoming me into what seems to be a great and active forum. 

 Do insects act solely by instinct or are they also conscious organisms? Excellent point. I post the original question of this thread in a different forum and one of the participants sort of had the same question as you Underground Man. The only different was that Instead of calling insects conscious, he defined this state of mind as having a soul. This is the dialogue.

[i]Beto (A German everyday thinker)

I Agree with you in terms that is not easy to undertand what Hess explain and propose.
I beleive it was written in times he beleived on that. But not any more.

But talking about the animals. When I lived without animals with me, i had certain criteria and perception about dogs. I though thinks like."They don´t have soul or feelings, they have only instinct like you say. Now i have 3 dogs and i have lived with 2 of them by 4 years, my mind has changed a lot about the soul and feellings from them. Sofia the female is very special, also REX and Morucha. We can´t understand and feel since they can´t speak, we, we, we can´t get in touch with them because we are not capable, because we only talk with somebody like me. Is not easy to accept or understand that plants or animals has something inside more human like us.[/i]

[My response]

[b]Hola Beto,

I’m glad someone answered, I began to think this was an obsolete forum.

Actually, I do understand what Hesse is trying to convey with his example, I just find the analogy to be conspicuously imprecise, something that I wouldn’t expect from Hermann Hesse. I admire Hesse not only for the depth of his philosofy but also the was he presents it. And in this case it was rather disappointing.
Basically, what he is saying is quite straighforward, if you really want something, you can get yourself to do it as long as it is within your limits (limits being the obviously impossible) if you concentrate all your will power in whatever specific task.
However, Hesse uses a butterly. An insect, not necessarily a complex mammal like a dog (as you mentioned.) An insectl that has no more than a month for a lifespan. I’m not saying they don’t have a soul, I’m simply saying that they pay more attention to their instincts. I don’t think there’s been a person that has been able to tame and train a butterfly to follow his orders. A dog in the other hand could be trained because it is of a more reasoning animal. Thus a more reasoning animal could be more aware of his existence and thus be able to direct his will power. With a butterfly I find it really hard to beleive. Specially after working with fruit flies and observing how instinctive they are.
I cannot picture a butterfly actually sitting down one day and telling itself “today I am going to train myself to be highly perceptive of the females odor.” And even to do that, they would have to have a female around constantly to be training. And being as instinctive as they are, instead of training, they would probably just mate with the female. HAHAHA. Can’t blame the male butterfly for that. And again, they have such a short life span, it would take them quite some time to be able to percieve the scent from miles away.
I’m not saying either that they don’t percieve the smell from miles away. I’m quite sure they do. But that’s because they were born like that, with the right organs capable of doing that. Not because they trained themselves. Simply because a mutation occurred that favored them in this manner.

I completely understand the types of feelings you have towards your dogs. When I used to have a dog I felt just like that. I thought of my dog as an old wise man. HAHAHA. I still remember. I would always talk to him as though he was a person. And my family would treat him just the same, except when he would still my toothbrushes or urinate all over the house, HAHA. But they are different beings. I do believe everything with life was a soul. But that doesn’t mean that they think the way we do, that doesn’t mean that they have the same desires as we do. For after all, isn’t mating one of the most instinctive activities of animals in general? I don’t think trees have that type of a drive, I haven’t seen any humping each other.

Make sure you say hello to your dogs on my behalf.

Edher[/b]

To get back to your question Underground Man, this is a rather complex subject to come up with a simple answer. Especially after having the following experience. One day, as I was reading a book in my back yard, I saw a butterfly fly near me. Just to be silly and playful with it, I decided to stick out my hand to see its reaction. I was amazed of the butterfly’s action. Like a trained hawk, it perched on my forefinger and I felt as though it was just gazing at me as it would playfully or perhaps symbolically flap its wings slowly. It stayed there for about a minute as though it knew exactly what it was doing. Then a breeze came and along with it went the butterfly. To my surprise it was still flying around me. I decided to stick out my finger once again, and once again it perched on my finger. Not as long as the first time but nonetheless it was an amazing experience.

Like I said before, I do believe that every organism with a brain is conscious to some level, but the fact that its conscious, however, doesn’t mean that automatically they have to have the same inquiries we do, or the same desires we do.

My opinion would be that it would follow the more dominant and persistant stimuli.

Edher