Humans seek to transcend nature via culture

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Humans seek to transcend nature via culture

But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement.–Yates

“What will come of my whole life…Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?”—Tolstoy

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker suggests that we all create an artificial world to avoid confronting the hopelessness of the human condition.

The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism.

Meaning is number ONE. What wo/man fears most is extinction, which includes insignificance.

Wo/man wants assurance that their life has somehow counted; if not for her or his self then at least within the overall scheme of things. If there is some kind of “judgment day” then I want to be in ‘that number’ that matter. While alive I want to know that “I am somebody”.

Religion is our primary means for responding to that basic need to be somebody. Otto Rand says that all religions spring up “not so much from…fear of natural death as of final destruction.”

“It is culture itself that embodies the transcendence of death in some form or other, whether it appears as purely religious or not…culture itself is sacred, since it is the “religion” that assures in some way the perpetuation of its members.”

Our dichotomy of sacred and secular aspects of social life is an egregious error. There is no such thing as a distinction between sacred and secular in the symbolic affairs of sapiens. Sacred is that which transcends the natural world while secular is that which is of the natural world. In the world of symbolic affairs such distinctions do not hold.

“As soon as you have symbols you have artificial self-transcendence via culture. Everything cultural is fabricated and given meaning by the mind, a meaning that is not given by physical nature. Culture is in this sense “supernatural” and all systemizations of culture have in the end the same goal: to raise men above nature, to assure him that in some ways their lives count in the universe more than merely physical things count.”

Self-transcendence, i.e. transcending nature via culture, does not provide a simple means to deny the primacy of death; the terror of death still lurks beneath the veneer. We have shifted the fear of death onto a new level of anxiety; we must “now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which we live…a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.”

In our attempt to deny evil, i.e. death, we bring a new and grotesque form of evil. “It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter fate.” Wo/man has, through ingenuity, heaped great evil on the world; far greater than could ever be created by our animal nature.

Quotes from Escape from Evil—Becker

2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg88rTAFKe0[/youtube]

3

What is a wo/man?

4

politically correct group think garbage to give liberals the feeling of sticking it to the man

-Imp

5

I use the term often, this is the first time that I have encountered someone who did not comprehend its meaning. It is a term used to indicate both men and women rather than the sexist way of indicating only men.

6

I have never, ever seen that word anywhere else in print, nor spoken. Which places, other than your posts here, make this a legitimate word of common use?

And I must ask, do you think that there is actually harm done by saying the “normal” accepted words to refer to people? That it is worth it to use such a distractingly made-up word, rather than just saying “people” or something like that, assuming that the word “he” or “she” is too heartbreaking or horrifying to you?

In terms of your OP here, I wonder if you have ever lived “in nature”, without the “evil” “ingenuities” of men. Glorifying a return to nature attitude, and condemning “culture” is nothing but empty platitudes and hypocrisy, unless you actually live in and prefer these conditions of extreme lack of culture, i.e. no technology, law and order, systems of government, production, healthcare, clean water, plentiful food, commerce, etc.

I do understand how men seek to avoid death unconsciously, and that this element of distraction and denial is a part of our collective psychology and of our individual unconsciousnesses. But that certainly does not invalidate the basic premise of “culture” itself, nor does it mean that it is the SOLE or even PRIMARY motive behind our drive to “transcend nature”.

Granted, there is nothing wrong with exposing the flaws in our systems, which are many. Culture tends to dehumanize, stereotype and conform man into common unthinking molds. More and more we become a blind undifferentiated mass, as culture tends to push down individuality. We are bombarded by countless psychological warfare we call advertizing, which has huge negative impacts on our minds. We live with the threat of constant nuclear destruction. Such things are rightly examined and critiques of society may be formed based around the principles acting in society which allow for such things to exist. However, such broad hatred of “the mind”, of “ingenuity”, of progress and culture in general is blatantly hypocritical and reveals nothing more than a sentimental emotional reaction; a bitterness and revenge taken out on “culture” in general, which paints such a wide brush that it fails to distinguish between good and bad elements of culture, between desirable and undesirable forms of civilized societies.

Such complete lack of discrimination shows a loss of value or meaning in life, which does not seek to raise our species up and overcome our hardships and struggles, but to lower us back to the dirt; it does not recognize the noble and heroic in man’s spirit, but sees him as nothing more than a mere beast, a sacrificial and worthless animal whose proper place is scrounging a bare living off of fields and rocks, dependent on every natural disaster or accident or disease or predator to come by. Such is the view of humankind, a fundamental self-hatred, which lies at the heart of ideologies such as those in your OP.

7

Seems like the only one making a big deal out of the word usage is you. I don’t see the issue with using the best choice words you want to use when you write. I mean, if it illustrates his message more efficiently, let’s drop the whole alternate liberal motivation. Acting like a tough prick because the patriarchal roots of the English language don’t bother you is kinda retarded.

Did the pilgrims have to live in America before they knew the freedoms they could have without their British rulers? Do communists have to move to China to hold a political preference? Isn’t it interesting that this is the easiest, most overused illogical comeback to any argument?

This is like saying despite all of the evidence that our culture is pure shit and it continues to get worse, it’s ok because we have nice names to call it like ‘progress’. Tell me, exactly, what a desirable form of civilization is, and when it’s ever existed in history without causing more problems than solutions?

Loss of value or meaning in life? How so? Don’t you think it’s a little delusional to think overcoming our ‘hardships’ and ‘struggles’ has been reached even in the smallest way? We still have struggles with modern society but in completely different ways- mental & physical. We can’t get away from suffering…it exists, no matter how our sophisticated, above-it-all culture likes to believe it can cover it up.

You are a pawn of the cosmos, and destruction is inevitable. This culture will one day end. Look at history.

8

Hm? Do I need to point out the irony here? All I asked is why use a made-up word, and where it came from. You seem to be the one who is bothered here, not me.

If I decided to use the word “blarthe” in place of “society”, you would probably be distracted while reading a post where I use this word many times over again. If you had never seen this word before, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask what it is and why you use it.

But apparently, I am not allowed to ask for clarification on such things. Ah, such tolerance, such diversity.

Actually no, your examples do not hold water. For someone to rail against “culture” in general and praise the merits of “living with nature”, yet they choose to live in culture when they could be out in a tent somewhere in the rockies living on their own, is hypocrisy. Practice what you preach, or your preaching is BS.

Pilgrims desired freedom, and when they had the chance to get it they did. Likewise with communists who desire freedom, they would come to America if they could. The reason your examples are illogical is that those people have or would obtain that which they desire IF THEY CAN; whereas the writers of and quoted in this OP here could choose to forgo modern culture and live in nature if they wished, yet they do not.

I never said this, this is a perfect example of how your type paints with such a wide brush that you are incapable of analysing specifics or differentiating good/bad elements within a whole. Culture is not “pure shit”, it is part shit, part not. Seriously, how do you expect to be treated like a rational human being when you spout stuff like this?

Freedom is good; safety and security are good; individual rights are good; minimum intrusion by others into your life is good, the ability to determine your choices and earn and keep what is yours without being robbed is good. These are desirable things which therefore make a society desirable when they are in effect. As they are abstracts, they are never “reached” perfectly, but that society which has the most of these things, is the best society.

Conversely, that society which robs its citizens money and freedoms, oppresses them, seeks to control them and limit their choices, is a bad society. And as before, such abstracts are treated in a properly subtle manner, where we work to establish that which is good for man while preventing that which is bad for man. It is never perfect of course. Yet this fact does not mean there is no difference between a society which grants freedom and rights and safety, and a society which does not.

I see you wish to turn this argument onto me and discredit me by creating the implication that there is some sort of burden of proof on me to demonstrate specific examples from history, as if I were some sort of perfect encyclopedia of historical world knowledge. I am not. Further, no burden of proof lies upon me that does not also lie upon you, if you wish to turn this discussion in that direction. I know generally what is good for man, and therefore what a good society consists of. These ideals are to be achieved as best as possible within the confines of a practical and imperfect world. Substitute your own values as you wish, or argue that there are no societies which match my ideals here. I do not care really.

Let’s call it as it is, ok? I see your motives here, and they are ugly.

Youre right. As you sit there in your safe home, protected from the elements and ravages of nature, warm and comfortable, plenty of good food and water at your easy reach, material comforts such as the internet at your fingertips, no practical survival worries of any kind, medical products and support at your convenience should you become sick in any way, I can definitely see what you mean. Its not like our standard of living, health, or longevity have been immensely extended by industry and technology. Oh wait, yes they have.

Once again, you cannot think in subtleties. You see all or nothing, black or white. Which is typical of your kind’s thinking.

Just because something will eventually end does not mean that it is meaningless. That you are alive and do not commit suicide this very moment, is testimony to that. There are things in your life worth living for, you value your life, even though someday you will die.

Your point here is not an argument at all, just an emotional outburst of anger and hatred.

But thank you for illustrating my points here better than I ever could.

9

We think in images and when required we occasionally convert these images into words to facilitate communication. The creative thinker needs often to create new words or to use standard words in a non standard form. Our Western history has been a patriarchal dominated culture but our present culture is beginning to recognize the error in this narrow minded world view. I try to call attention to cultural inadequacies when they come to my mind.

10

That is of course your prerogative. I too agree that there is a lot of potential for danger within linguistic conventions, but I see political correctness as far, far more of a grave threat than the habitual use of the masculine pronouns over feminine. To the extent that we are aware of the cultural history behind such conventions the habit itself is harmless. It does not reflect an active bias or prejudice within the speaker in any way, and follows the purpose of language itself which is to effectively and accurately communicate ideas on the individual level, from one person to another. To the extent that this effective communication is accomplished, language is serving its purpose. Of course I do not condone the preferential use of the masculine pronouns if it results from a conscious and deliberate need to “put down” women. Certainly bigots have their right to speak as they wish, even though we would disagree with their motives, yet I do not feel that this is the intention, conscious or otherwise, behind the common use of “man” to refer to “all people” generally.

But the over-reaction to such conventions, in my humble opinion, it a reflection of a dangerous shifting in the human psyche. Political correctness and the obcession with “not hurting anyone’s feelings” or not “offending” anyone reflects a shift in focus, in the purpose of language. . . . in that language is being used more to guide, limit and contain thought itself along political lines, rather than to merely communicate as accurately as possible an idea or meaning. Culturally, the implications of growing political correctness are terrifying, especially to those of us who have read 1984 or other similar literature; and the use of “wo/man” cannot be denied as a reflection of a politically-correct attitude, regardless of your intentions specifically - and in that sense it represents a dangerous trend.

11

The phrase “political correctness” was created by the Republicans in order to disguise their constant intolerance of others.

12

war is peace

-Imp

13

…freedom is slavery.

And to be completely serious here Coberst - are you kidding? You cannot seriously be so unaware of such a mass psychological phenomenon as political correctness. Can you? I thought you were a psychology person by your posts here; political correctness is a widely identified phenomenon, especially within psychology. It is studied all the time.

Then again your complete denial even of its existence and your unsubstantiated attack on “republicans” as an explanation for your ignorance is very, well, politically correct.

14

I know ‘over’ liberalization has its faults, too.
But that doesn’t have to do with you condemning him for his word choices. I mean…so what? I think it sounds better, anyway. At least in the context it doesn’t look like men are taking all the blame, right? So it’s not as bad as it seems. It avoids that womanizing extreme feminist stuff that the West is all men’s fault etc (lol although that’s debatable).