it is certainly built in, according to Schopenhauer everything is either will or representation. the bouncing molecules you mentioned are driven by will, as are all the animals, as are we, even a rock is a manifestation of the will to persist. the will also creates out of itself representations such as rock, molecule, ego, sister, mother, child, etc. the important thing to see according to schopenhauer is that the will is propelled forward by suffering, it is a blind force that goes endlessly in circles. nietzsche, in response to schopenhauer, would say that if the will is all there is we should give in to it completely, and maximize our will to live. so just recognizing that everything is will does not necessarily tell you what to do, but it does show how representations, which are merely manifestations of the will, could lead away from the truth of the will. it really wouldn't make sense for me to try to convince people that renouncing the will to live is the only way to overcome existence, because for one thing who says its necessary to overcome existence at all? only buddha. i'm just trying to show that the search for truth can often lead directly away from life.

i figured i'd post a picture too, this tries to show all the stages of life, and how they all revolve around suffering

http://www.thubtenchodron.org/Gradua...heelOfLife.jpg

That's interesting ..

How can he say that suffering drives the wheel? Pleasure/Suffering just a biological reward/punishment system that tells us what to do. Pursue rewards and avoid things that cause suffering .. Just like training a dog with snacks for reward and a gas-horn that scares it with a sound if it screws up.

Since most people are motivated by pursuing rewards rather than avoiding suffering, you would think that pursuing rewards in some way was the driving force.


Anyways, in the little education I've had in philosophy, it seemed quite obvious to me that while many old philosophers had many interesting thoughts on reality, you shouldn't take them too seriously. I think most of them were very much into their "subjective realities", not to mention the time when they were living. In many topics, also ones that debate topics like morale or social politics, I think they have a lack of understanding of the human nature which is not surprising since it's only been pieced together in modern times.

I've found that reading old philosophers has shown me how little human thought has progressed. Most people when they get fed up with philosophical reasoning and rely on "common sense" are really just accepting Aristotle's teachings. That's why I love the pre-Socratics and Eastern philosophers/mystics, because they tend to go the opposite direction of the Greek philosophers and end up with conclusions that seem completely alien to us.

Wrt suffering: the reason Buddhists will say that suffering turns the wheel of life is because suffering is universal, everything comes into the world suffering and most things go out of it suffering as well. The question of pleasure becomes a question of minimizing suffering, the pleasure of eating is just the absence of hunger, the pleasure of human contact is just the absence of loneliness, etc.

It's all a matter of perspective, but I don't really think our perspective has improved. It's just shifted... again.

The idea that pleasure is merely the absence of pain makes half-sense, but not completely. For example, I don't believe for a second that people desire sex because it eases suffering.

I think of pleasure / suffering as adaptations that help us survive and procreate. I wrote that I thought the philosophers of old did not really understand human nature. I believe that in order to really understand it, you have to know our evolutionary history. When you do, you can start to explain why you may feel sorry for a starving child on your television or why we may become jealous when we see our partners with someone else. A lot of philosophy on topics like morale or social politics, without this knowledge at it's base, often seem to me like buildings without foundations.

I can only voice an opinion and I'll state again that to me, it seems like a lot of people are not being critical with what they believe in. As you know very well by now, I believe in a lot of science .. But one of the things about science is that you don't have to accept everything it says. The scientific "truth" emerges from questioning everything and that includes already established scientific ideas.

People desire Sex ultimately because the flesh is weak. It knows it only has a limited time on this earth and it want's to be sated as much as possible, so you could quite easily argue that people do desire sex to ease their suffering- mentally because they want and need reassurance and love and physically because flesh desires flesh. I have never studied any philosophy, it's only my view rightly or wrongly.

I understand the arguments, but I don't like them very much and I'll try and explain a reason why ..

I don't think they relate well to human experiences. If I want to have sex, I do not think in my head that I want it because I want to ease my suffering. The reason I want sex is because of the rewards. That means that if I want sex because I want to ease suffering, that thought or motivation is not concious and must take place in the subconcious or some other level inside our outside myself. While it is possible to argue that suffering motivates us this way, it is extremely hard to prove and I would say that there's a lot of evidence against this argument. Proving that the act is motivated by reward is relatively easy. You can just relate it to human experience, like your own - or you could ask someone else.

(I'm talking generally here, I guess there could be some very special individuals who have possibly had a hard time and really do use sex as a concious way to ease suffering.)

I just walked into this thread...but that is very signature worthy...walking out now :p:

Science can't explain reality, it can only describe it.


I agree....

nice