AndyDaBear t1_ir1qiqm wrote
Supposing, for the sake of argument, the world really has absolutely no meaning in any transcendental or religious sense as is assumed here. Then indeed the desire to avoid suffering seems to fit very well into the role of a survival mechanism evolved in animals. Just as the desire for food, the desire for sex, the desire to protect one's children, the desire to protect one's tribe and so forth.
What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?
Perhaps it can be argued that this need for meaning is actually an evolutionary advantage. Or perhaps it can be argued that it is not an advantage but an unfortunate by-product of other traits that are an advantage. But prima facia it seems to be something that is more than a mere side effect and not at all generally advantageous to evolutionary selfishness.
Before we make a bargain with ourselves to humor what we think a false desire in us, how about we make sure it isn't pointing to a real object?
Thin-Pop5996 t1_ir2w93a wrote
First of all, i Hope u ll understand me: english isn't my first language and talking about philosophy Is not that Easy for me. I see a pretty big fallacy in ur argument: if, Indeed the world has no meaning, u cant talk bout some "survival mechanism": ur trying to give meaning to something that ur saying doesnt have meaning (even the mere purpose of survival Is a meaning: the world exist in order to continue existing). When u say something dont have any meaning u cabt Say anything else, because u Will inevitably end up organizing that thing (Kant explain this really really well, prolly u know that better than me, judging on the terminology u used) and, doing so, giving a meaning to that thing only becouse in some way It appears ti u as a phenomena. As I said earlier: that thing exist in order to continue existing. That Is a meaning. Because of this to do such argument as yours u have to suppose not that the world doesnt have a meaning, but that It has and u cant possibly know It. I really Hope u explained myself at least a bit, but i lack of all english philosphical terminology, so i dont think so: if u think what i wrote doesnt male any sense probably ur right.
VitriolicViolet t1_ir2w6jo wrote
>What does not fit is a hunger for meaning. It is bizarre that we would have our survival instincts that were finally tuned by evolutionary advantage sabotaged by a desire for imaginary vague notions of some non-existent thing?
sabotaged? in what possible way? between our curiosity and imagination and our need for meaning we have built the world, in terms of evolution we have won the game.
in terms of animal success we have dominated the earth more completely and successfully then any other species in lifes history and we did it in some million years, a blip in the earths lifetime.
without question its had negative effects but in terms of evolutionary success (ie domination of the environment) its hands down been an advantage.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments