ValyrianJedi t1_isas4zd wrote
This seems to have a whole lot of thoughts that go from point A to point C without any B putting them together. And makes a few just straight up faulty analogies...
The entire point about evolution is based on a foundation of not seeming to understand how evolution works. Fish didn't will legs on themselves. Carnivorous plants didn't will the ability to trap flies on themselves. The author is attributing desire and action to raw happenstance on that front...
Then as things relate to people they make a fairly massive leap between "people have a will to live and have things they want" and "this IA inherently combative/violent/etc, and they always want to do so at someone else's expense"... And the part about optimism being a moral outrage just seems like someone being petty and wanting the rest if the world to be as miserable as they are.
SpacelandSam t1_isd9o2j wrote
I think the author makes a distinction between the mechanical view of evolution, which he accepts is correct, and the emotive view which he acknowledges is neither accurate or logical, but stems from a desire to attribute will to nature. Obviously fish don’t will legs on themselves- he’s using this to introduce the spiritual idea of Will as a concept, a will-to-life not necessarily rooted in anything mechanical. I see it less as anything tangible and more as an idea used to explain Schopenhauer’s argument. Tbh this part didn’t make a ton of sense to me either.
As for the leap connecting will and violence, he’s saying possessing a desire to live, in a natural setting with limited resources, inherently puts you in competition with other beings with a will-to-live, leading to violence and suffering. Optimism (the author argues) denies this reality, while pessimism accepts it- it’s not miserable so much as realistic, and is the starting point for the “enlightenment” Schopenhauer talks about. Once you accept the reality that suffering is caused by Will, one can begin the journey to temper their Will and reduce the suffering it causes.
That’s how I understood it, at least.
ValyrianJedi t1_isdbwkq wrote
We aren't in a natural setting with limited resources, and haven't been for an extremely long time though... That just seems like a massive stretch to me.
SpacelandSam t1_isdj3ub wrote
That’s the point though. We still have the will-to-live mentality despite having transcended that survival state. It’s not possible for most animals to deny their Will, because they still exist in that state; humans alone have that freedom, yet we don’t use it. Many of us still exist with a will-to-live- not necessarily “kill or be killed,” but with the goal of instant gratification.
The author is arguing we have a responsibility to control our desires (will-to-live) BECAUSE we aren’t in that natural setting.
iiioiia t1_ish383g wrote
>The entire point about evolution is based on a foundation of not seeming to understand how evolution works. Fish didn't will legs on themselves. Carnivorous plants didn't will the ability to trap flies on themselves. The author is attributing desire and action to raw happenstance on that front...
That is one form of evolution, but there are others.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments