When we consider the meaning of life, as humans we are drawn to optimistic and positive interpretations. Stories that detail the importance of human relationships and the love we feel in life elicit deeply visceral reactions. Humans instinctively shun negative interpretations, because we don't want to think of life as hopeless and meaningless. However, in my experiences, many people are intrigued by negative interpretations of life's meaning, even if they are ultimately rejected.
I heard part of an argument against psychological egoism the other day that included the criticism that "good deeds don't need an explanation." In my opinion, good deeds and bad deeds do need an explanation. Even if humans aren't inherently good or inherently bad (in which case, the actions that are anomalies need explanations), actions of good and bad still need explanation. Acting for good in one instance and for bad in one instance is confounding - what is the motivation in each instance? Something motivates us to act the way we do, whether it is altruism or egoism. I think it's important to determine if we are inherently selfish or not, and the analysis of good deeds is imperative in this study.
How do those two paragraphs tie together? If psychological egoism is true, then it seems the world is a dark, selfish place. If humans tend toward altruistic acts, then the world doesn't seem so negative. So, is humanity actually good or bad?
Clearly I can't give a definitive answer in this blog post. But in my opinion, humans are egocentric creatures who have been conditioned to care for others. Our first instincts are what is good for us - this is evident from the cradle. We learn to function in society by caring about others, because otherwise society would fall apart. However, this does not change our basic nature: egoism. When you are asked to see a movie, do you not cringe at the thought of seeing a movie you thought looked dumb? Ultimately, you may defer, but your first thought was concerned with your needs. When you find out someone has a cold, our first instinct (though often made humorous) is to stay away from the other person to keep from getting sick. We occupy our thoughts with ourselves initially, and then with considerations for others. In Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilych, all of his acquaintances wonder where Ivan's death will leave them in the world. Tolstoy's dark impression of humanity is that we care for ourselves primarily.
Many would argue against this interpretation of humanity for the same reason they believe life has meaning: the alternative just doesn't feel good! Heart warming stories fill our minds with happiness, and we want to keep the negatives out of our minds. Nobody wants to believe that our life is meaningless. However, there is nothing outside of the earth that is provable or knowable. So, our lives on earth are defined only by our lives on earth. What is the point, then, if everyone ultimately dies? When the sun burns out and humans become extinct, what was the ultimate point? The argument of making the world a better place for the future will burn out at some point in time. And if we are all individually going to die, then what is the purpose of living? I can't claim to know. Maybe there is none. Maybe it's just hedonism. Of course, Aldous Huxley would disagree with that (read Brave New World!). You can't know. You should define it for yourself, I think. But the point is: think about it. Just because it seems hopeless doesn't mean it isn't the truth.
We don't like to think about the negatives in life. We don't want to think humans are egoists, and we don't want to think life is meaningless. But that doesn't mean these aren't facts. Hiding from the truth will not diminish it. The most important task in all of life is thinking through life. Don't hide behind rose colored glasses. Perhaps when we determine what really makes humanity human, we can better determine who we want to be, as I think Sartre and Nietzsche suggested. Take a walk on the dark side. It is lighter than you think.
1 comment:
We talked a lot in several of my psychology courses about altruism and whether or not it exists. That's what came to my mind when I read your post.
One argument against altruism is that those who appear to be altruistic and concerned only for the needs of others do so to fulfill their own need of helping others. It's an interesting twist, and one that, as you said, we don't want to think about because it doesn't feel good to think about negatives.
We want to believe that humans are good creatures, willing to put their own needs aside at times for the greater good or for the good of others or whatever it may be called. But does everything boil down to fulfilling our own needs? Do we only act in kindness towards others because it makes us feel good to help them, not for the more basic reason of helping them? And, furthermore, does the distinction matter?
Kind of relating back to the post on my blog "Stop Competing," could it be that we only cease to compete with others and instead help them to fulfill our own need to be "good people"? If that's the case, it seems like it's still an inherently selfish act.
This is a tough topic to me, but I think about it a lot.
Post a Comment