Life Instinct, Death Instinct
For myself, the life-instinct itself has died. It amazes me, from this cold vantage point, how readily people are able to accept 'life' as a given. Nourishment of the body, its pleasuring, the generic love of husband and wife -- how do they maintain it? I would always find myself asking this question. Then it became quite, quite obvious. They do not answer the question, 'Why this life-instinct', because they never got round to asking it.
Without taking the life-instinct for granted, there is the possibility of becoming absolutely still, of starvation, and thoughts of void. Nothingness. A wise man once told me, “Philosophy is something you do. Then you go home and have your dinner.”
Well if only it was that simple! Dinner itself is the life-instinct, something which should be so obvious, but humankind is not so simple. There are some people who starve themselves for emotional guilt, or to reach a certain artificial ideal. Yet not all such starvers are bound by emotion, for we need only look at religious fasters, or the scientist,who is too engaged in her discovery for anything other than caffeine (caffeine, caffeine!). This is philosophising beyond the basic needs. They have done their philosophy, but they are not having their dinner. Still, these people, with their grumbling bellies, are saying yes to life in other ways. The death-instinct is something different altogether. It is emptiness for its own sake.
When one struggles even to exist for a day, let alone longing for eternity, it becomes obvious that there is nothing substantial after this life; for dreams of after worlds and reincarnation are themselves just the continuation of the life-instinct. It is so obvious a child might see through it. So, why are we so carried along by the stream of life if it is fundamentally futile? Challenging the life-instinct can be quite a frightening prospect; like putting a violent political ideology in a newspaper. It will not convince everyone, but it will convince someone. To even ask the question might lead to the possibility of danger. It is better for people to remain ignorant of such decisions and let the basic drives of the human body answer the biggest philosophical questions for them.
A man once asked me, “Isn't the point of it all to bring new children into the world?” As if it were so obvious, like two and two making four. If we took him for his word, then the mere reproduction of humankind would itself complete us, and answer all of our questions. Yet it is ridiculous logic, for it never reaches any end point, nor does it provide us with any conclusions. The goal is to recreate, and the offspring’s goal to recreate, and so forth, and so forth, forever. No. Besides, human kind is never just satisfied with the physical creation of its offspring. There is always more to do, more to get, and more to be. This is, naturally, entirely self-deception, yet still it demonstrates how ludicrous it is to suggest that procreation alone is enough to provide anyone with purpose. The life-instinct does not take us anywhere except to the life-instinct.
The death-instinct can only be self-destructive. A murderer is not taken by the death-instinct in my definition. Murder is often premeditated, it encourages the body to be filled with emotion and energy, it has a purpose very much of this world. The murderer often intends to live after the act, and tries to conceal what they have done. In contrast, the death-instinct has no such purpose but death itself. Nothingness and slow decay is the death-instinct, and it is solitary, indifferent to the people around it, never causing harm to anything.
The conclusion of the death-instinct is always eternal nothingness. In this, it has more of a solid argument than life. Yet do not think that just because something has a more logical argument that this means anything at all. The argument is more valid because it reaches a conclusion, but whether or not it is acceptable or desirable is up to you to decide.
There is fundamentally nothing out there, we all know it, deep down inside. However, we cannot accept it. You might say, “There is no meaning except that which you create,” but this is greatly problematic. For it is advocating self-deception. Every idea needs a starting point. A humanist will want to end suffering, for instance. Yet in order to validate themselves, they must prove beyond doubt that there is a reason to sustain human life, and that it is of universal value. Human rights are the result. This document objectively declares the value of all human beings.
Yet if this document were objective (that is, true outside of the ideas of an individual’s perception) then all who looked upon it must be convinced of its validity. I am not convinced. It is a great idea, and better that it exists than it does not. This does not mean it is true. Something that feels good does not give it weight. To go back to our example, humanism is grounded in nothing. It begins with an assumption. This assumption cannot ever be challenged for there is nothing to weigh it against, except the bleakness of a meaningless cosmos. In this light, it can only be maintained by self-deception. It is a guess like any other.
To conclude, what would you be without other people around you? Strip the layers away from yourself, one after the other. The names of people and places, of gods and masters, of possessions and creations, dreams and purposes, and then of your own titles. You are left with nothing but raw experience, without a hole in which to bury your head and without the possibility of continued self-deceit. We need other people to actualise ourselves in this world of philosophical shadow (that is, philosophy which is useful, but ultimately meaningless).
Without the fleeting goals of our fleeting cultures, we are faced with the yes or no of pure human freedom - life, or death. This is what separates us from all of the other creatures. For whilst creatures may lie to one another (just think of the cuckoo, or the camouflaged snake, or the orchid mimicking a fly's mate), no creature has yet been able to lie to itself. And no creature doubts that it ought to continue existing, to strive and try as it might to maintain itself. Yet we humans -- at the pinnacle of reason and intellectual power, inheritors of such incredible bodies and capable of so much -- are prone to one fundamental weakness. Questioning whether we should even continue to exist at all; I wonder, is this the source of all our freedom, and all of our creative power?
This is the death-instinct itself, the temporary absence of any life-instinct.
By St.Zagarus
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open Topic' Issue 43
