Abstract: There
have been many attempts throughout the history of philosophy and
psychology to denote the essence of the human condition and what
motivates us as human beings to do the things that we do. Nearly all
of these sentiments have been orchestrated as a “will-to-
(something).” This essay will briefly examine Freud’s “Will to
Pleasure”, Freud’s later revision of the pleasure principle (Will
to Live), Nietzsche’s “Will to Power”, and Frankl’s “Will
to Meaning.” The foundational premise for this essay is that these
previous adaptations are valid and significant, yet lacking the
encompassing effect which they were postulated to attain. I suggest
that we are driven by a will to suffer in pursuit of awe. The
tensions between sublimity and malevolence are directly begotten in
awe and angst, thus, the human condition is one profoundered by a
pursuit of suffering in spite of angst and in pursuit of awe. We
live better through agony.
Introduction:
Humanity
is a driven race. We are motivated, passionate, and stubborn.
Various psychological and philosophical theories have attempted to
explain what precisely drives humans throughout their existence. An
early theory, simple enough in its nature, was that humans'
motivations lie on a continuum of pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding
behaviors. This theory was later expanded to deeper roots to be
restated as a pursuit of life and avoidance of death or cessation of
life. A less biological and more existential approach was then
developed to state that the human life is one motivated by a desire
for power. Moving strictly into the metaphysical realm, a more
recent theory supposed that man is propelled by his personal search
for meaning. While these theories still hold substantial ground in
today's world I disagree with their comprehensiveness. The following
is not an objection to the validity of these theories but a
supplemental meta-lense from which they can be observed.
At
first glance, from Webster’s Dictionary (Agnes, 2002, p. 42), “awe”
is defined as “a mixed feeling of reverence, fear, and wonder.”
It has not taken long to find that language has already failed us
within this work. While this brief definition is sufficient in most
contexts, it leaves a great deal unspoken and unaccounted for. A
2009 Interview with Kirk J. Schneider is much more suiting as he
states; “Awe is the adventure that we’re all on. We’re all
hurtling through the depths and darkness of space and time... that’s
fascinating as well as a little unsettling, but the combination is
very powerful because I basically define awe as the
humility and wonder, or adventure of living.”
What, then, is the importance of wonder and awe? “Wonder doesn’t
teach so much as it evokes, and what one senses and stores from such
experiences leads to an altogether different experiencing of reality.
It moves us to discern the patterns hidden within and behind our
society’s accepted vision of reality” (Powell, 2011, p. 132).
It
is from my experience and observation that I suggest human beings are
motivated by an eternal struggle, an ambivalent tension, between awe
and angst. The foundations of these motivations are what I can only
describe in our limited language as sublimity and malevolence.
Sublimity and malevolence are begotten to the world by the very
nature of human existence. This existence is one that is procured
and conditioned by suffering. The tensions of our lives, of our
condition, simultaneously tear us apart yet hold us together at the
core. We live in a state of ambiguity and friction of which there is
no remedy. Suffering is both mitigating and exacerbating. However,
we are driven by suffering towards the the nostalgic wonder of awe in
spite of anxiety. We live better through agony.
Part One: Love and
Will
“Love
and do what you will.” Rollo May quotes St. Augustine in Love
and Will (1969,
p. 216). This is where the motivations of our human condition begin
to take hold. Our condition is a state of loving and doing. This
state is closely related to our being (ie: “state of being”).
However, what we love and what we do are only the mere expositions of
“who” we are. The repository for these expositions is a matter
of will. Will, then, is the manner in which our being presents
itself to other beings and things. There are a vast number of
psychoanalytic assumptions pertaining to the actions' reflection of
will. For the purposes of this essay let us say that those claims
hold at least some validity and that our will is inevitably
expressed, be it consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously.
The
next point of issue is the question of, “What do we love?” As
May and Augustine reference love, the question does not accurately
portray the word. As proposed by May, the question is not a matter
of willing or doing what we love, but of loving and doing what we
will. Doing our will is a simple enough procedure, identifying it is
a completely different matter that will be explored throughout this
essay. Loving our will is not a matter of willing our love. It is a
struggling process of coming to terms with our being. It is a
reconciliation between the domains of ourselves. Loving our will is
a simultaneously vindicating self-forgiveness and realist humbling of
expectations.
Part
Two: Will to Pleasure
The
“pleasure principle” has deep roots in western culture and
psychology. Its foundations can be derived from as early on as Plato
and the ancient Greeks. This pleasure principle was brought into a
psychological light by Sigmund Freud who asserted that we are
motivated by a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain. The
effects of this principle can be seen in relative validity through
the example of reinforcing behaviors. For example, corporal
punishment is a means of inflicting physical pain towards the end of
negative reinforcement. Wherein a negative additional behavior is
the repercussion brought about by a person's initial behavior in an
attempt to deter future occurrences of the initial behavior. The
converse, then being positive reinforcement, is something rewarding
an initial behavior to encourage future occurrences of the initial
behavior.
The
primary deficit of this example is that it loses its effectiveness
once a person is capable of higher-end cognitive and mental
functions. That is to say they become aware of the fact that certain
behaviors will elicit certain rewards or punishments. In the case of
rewards, a child may cognitively become capable of manipulating the
rewarder in an attempt to achieve a disproportionate distribution of
rewards. This still lends credence toward the pleasure principle,
but its counterpart does not. What is to be said of the person who
makes the decision that a certain amount of suffering or pain will be
worth the desired end-achievement of a pleasurable behavior? Perhaps
I find I am allergic to animal dander, but I love my dog nonetheless.
I certainly do not enjoy the effects of my allergic reactions, but
nevertheless they do not stop me from pursuing the pleasure I find in
my canine companion. “Contrary to loss aversion, predicted
pleasure is greater in magnitude than predicted pain, and experienced
pleasure surpasses experienced pain” (Mellers, 2009, p. 369).
On
a different tier there is a problem with the intrinsic provocations
of the pleasure principle. It has become far too common for people
to mistake pleasure for happiness and satisfaction. The examples of
this are numerous, the wealthy stockbroker on Fifth Avenue who
commits suicide, the teenager who presumes satisfaction in listless
sexual promiscuity, or even in a technological realm where the latest
application for my smartphone is pleasurable in its own right but has
little lasting effect on how existentially satisfying I find my life
to be. It should be noted that happiness and pleasure may be
satisfying, but they are not always so. If taken in appropriate
context of our will and our being, satisfaction implies fulfilled
happiness without complete regard to, but unregulated by, pleasure
and pain.
In
a similar vein, pain does not always equal unhappiness or
dissatisfaction. The pet example above is one admission to this
case. Another would be a hearty morning stretch. Literally,
albeit in a very moderate sense, you are making your body do
something unnatural, pull itself apart. Nevertheless, stretching is
often relaxing and pleasurable. This is especially true in the
context of yoga (for example). Dissatisfaction encompasses
unhappiness and that unhappiness can sometimes result from something
painful. Dissatisfaction itself may even be found to be painful.
But the painful is not always the source of the dissatisfying
unhappiness.
Part
Three: Will to Live
The
Pleasure Principle was later revised in Freud’s work Beyond
the Pleasure Principle.
Pleasure and pain are thus revised to libido / eros and thanatos
(ie: life and death). Libido and eros vs. thanatos equate to desire
vs. destructiveness (Arundale, 2006, p. 454). This destructiveness
is also known as the Death Drive, of which the aim is “the
originary state of matter, a state where all forces are drawn into a
final leveling out” (Lapanche, 2004, p. 460). Libido, on the other
hand, is a drive to experience, love, learn, and grow (Arundale,
2006, p. 453).
In
this representation of will, we are failed by their linear
dimensions. Consider, for example, that the opposite of love is not
hate. Love and hate are merely two sides of the same coin, masks on
the same face. The opposite of both love and hate is apathy. Love
and hate are often considered opposing forces, however, this is only
true when the constraints of the scale which they are measured on are
limited by context. Here we find the intrinsic problem of this
argument. Libido and Thanatos are not opposites. How little would
we learn or love of life if we were not brought to terms with the
harsh reality of just how fragile and destructible life is. “...
as a result of this mass anesthesia, or you could almost say
hypnosis, we lose not only the uncomfortable part of us but it blocks
out our capacity to become exhilarated, to experience and express
great joy... We have fewer and fewer places that help us cultivate
that. We’ve become atrophied in terms of our ability to experience
the ranges of our thoughts and feelings about our life” (Schneider,
2009). If the Death Drive is, in fact, the totaling of everything
into a homeostatic void then its opposite would be every conceivable
sensation running full throttle at its red-line. Mellers (2009, p.
369) states that “people value giving up a good more than they
value getting it.” This, in turn, makes the case that we are more
concerned with avoiding death than we are pursuing life. However, as
far as I am concerned, living is merely a biological process, being
alive, rather, is a matter of idio-hermeneutic-phenomenology. “Life
comes from physical survival; but the good life comes from what we
care about” (May, 1969, p. 290).
Part
Four: Will to Power
The
next consideration is Nietzsche’s “Will to Power.” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “Will to power is
the fundamental character of life and the world... life is will to
power, and thus degree of power constitutes the standard of value”
(Leiter, 2004). This brings a new element into the discussion and
that is “value.” Value is something mentioned earlier in the
discussion of pleasure and pain with regards to satisfaction. Here
we are getting closer to the source of our desires and furthermore
our will. What we desire is control. We desire power over our will
so that we can manipulate the will to our defined satisfaction rather
than molding our satisfaction to the will. Perhaps Nietzsche is onto
something here. We may desire pleasure or life, maybe even pain and
death, but it is only because of the power we hold over the
attributed value of those things.
I
fear that the efforts of this form of will are indeed in vain. We
are chasing an impossible feat. Our desire invokes our will and the
will evokes desire. That is, the desire is a function of our will
and thus will remains the primary and desire the subordinate.
Nevertheless our desire is how our will shows itself to our outward
world and to our conscious mind. Nietzsche leaves us pleading for an
unattainable control of the untamed will. Yet we will onward, but to
what end and with what value?
Part
Five: Will to Meaning
“Man’s
search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a
‘secondary realization’ of instinctual drives. This meaning is
unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by him
alone; only then does it achieve a significance which will satisfy
his own will to meaning” (Frankl, 1984, p. 105). Frankl
illustrates some very important concepts here. Firstly, there are
what he is calling instinctual drives. Drives such as death and
pleasure have been historically analyzed and acclaimed causal in
retrospect. Thus, any attributed will or motivation is merely an a
posteriori
relationship rather than an a
priori cause.
Secondly, what can be said about the fulfillment of meaning and
power? Power is a self-gratifying meaning. It presupposes that
control is gratifying because we then have the capability and
resources to exude an unadulterated will and quasi-personal value to
that which we dub “meaningful.”
Frankl
is off to a good start in his argument. Pleasure, pain, life, death,
and power have meanings which are attributed momentary insurmountable
significance through hermeneutical observations of phenomenological
existences. Unfortunately Frankl betrays himself in the above
statement, revealing that we are ultimately striving for
satisfaction. Frankl presumes that a fulfilled meaning will be
satisfactory. Out of sheer stubbornness I am forced to ask; “What
if I am satisfied in my contention in meaninglessness?”
Frankl
also writes that “What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of
life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life
at a given moment” (1984, p. 113). But momentary satisfaction is
just that; temporary, passing, and ultimately insignificant.
Constant analysis and meaning seeking becomes a neurotic compulsion
for the existential. This compulsion to attribute meaning is riddled
with angst and underlying, constantly itching, desire for ease. This
is followed by a subliminal motive for peace of mind which propagates
a willingness towards stimulation. Thus the cycle continues, without
end, and in loathing scorn of fateful value. Yet man is always
searching for something; shelter, food and water, safety and
security, social relationships, power, meaning, etc... We will
constantly be reminded of our dissatisfaction once the moment of
attributed meaning passes into a nuance of re-imagined
meaninglessness.
Part
Six: Will to Suffer
I
do not presume to be more right than any of the other theorists
previously described. However, I feel that their statements are
lacking. They have become isolated and fed the products of their own
factories. They have become narrowly constrained to the vision they
project on the world. I propose that there is a sense of wonder
beyond any of the previously stated concepts. There is a something
that has been missed, ignored, or intentionally omitted by the
previous theorists. We are, in fact, motivated by an ambivalent
tension between sublimity and malevolence. The conflicting feelings
create an existential friction which, in succumbing to its own
captivation, propels us onward.
The
importance of this tension between sublimity and malevolence is that
the two are irreconcilable. They can not become equalitative. They
cannot reach a compromising equilibrium. Equilibrium is a state in
which something integral is lost from the individual sides. By
definition, a compromise suggests Party A giving up something in
exchange for an offering from Party B. In this trade both parties
confidently hope that the exchange received will be of more
satisfying value than the projected loss they are giving up.
Equilibrium is boredom. Boredom gives fertility to angst and
existential dismay. “The existential vacuum manifests itself in a
state of boredom” (Frankl, 1984, p. 111).
Furthermore,
what we are avoiding is not pain or death, but angst. In terms of
death, what can be said of one in which I would be satisfied? What
if I am satisfied with my life (inclusive of its pain, pleasure,
power, meaning, or meaninglessness) and thus not merely content with,
but satisfied in my dying? Angst is a feeling of anxiety,
apprehension, or insecurity thus encompassing the avoidance drives
and motivations previously mentioned. There is something tragic
about paradise, tragic to the human condition. This condition is one
that is in agony yet revels in the presence of its being no matter
how it is procured.
Suffering
is part of humanity. To presume our perfect state of being would be
one of pure joy is quite pretentious of our vainglorious ego.
Perhaps we fear suffering. I must disagree. I suggest we fear
undirected and task-less suffering; which is descriptive of angst.
One may ask, “Why, then, are we not motivated by an avoidance of
fear?” Fear’s ultimate end is crippling catatonic paranoia.
Fear is the tool of angst, not its commander. The lack of fear is
ignorance which plants the seeds of anxiety in the fields of boredom.
Our
motivations therefore lie in the pursuit of awe. It is such because
in awe “you are able to occupy parts of your being that you
wouldn’t have even thought about before, especially if you’re
world hadn’t been shaken. And through reoccupying those places you
have greater access to the ranges of your feelings, thoughts,
sensations, intuitions. You’re really more open in a lot of ways
if you can work with that turmoil” (Schneider, 2009). Consider the
terms “awesome” and “awful.” The two are typically thought
of as antonymous. Yet both can be defined as “inspiring awe”
(Agnes, 2002, p. 42). The second entries under each respective word
in Webster's New World Dictionary are “wonderful” and
“terrifying” (Agnes, 2002, p. 42). The clear root of both
“awesome” and “awful” is “awe.” From which we can only
assume that awe is something that is strikingly wonderful and
terrifying. Thus we see that the vehicle towards awe is a world
shaken by turmoil, perfectly efficient its utter suffering.
Earlier
I stated that awe and angst are the manifestations of malevolence and
awe. Let me first make clear why this essay is not directed at a
will to sublimity or avoidance of malevolence. This relationship is
similar to that of will and desire. Our will is the part of our
being which can be used to look but can never be seen. It is the
unspoken voice which is always heard. Our desire is the mechanism
that associates value to the message of our will. Malevolence and
sublimity are unshakable, predominate, primordial forces instilled in
us and brought to prospective by awe and angst.
Malevolence can be defined
as wishing evil or harm to another (Agnes, 2002, p. 385). However,
this should be expanded to include the intra-personal realm. Angst,
thus being, the ultimate self-malevolent provocation. Malevolence,
then, manifests itself in angst and is evoked towards others and the
self as a defense mechanism of our will voraciously asserting a
dissatisfaction with the self. Sublimity, on the other hand, is
manifested in awe. Awe is an encompassing fruition of our maximum
emotional, cognitive, and metaphysical capacity to feel, to mean, and
to experience all that this life has to offer; all in a single
unforgeable experience. “We are simultaneously worms and gods”
(Maslow, 2009, p. 72).
As mentioned before, the
relationships between pain-pleasure, power-powerlessness, and
meaning-meaninglessness are severely limited in their ascriptive
ability because of their linear scale. This scale is merely a
one-dimensional continuum which implies that one end of the spectrum
is dependent on the other (or at least a deficit of the other). The
relationship between awe and angst is not causal. This relationship
breaks the dimensions into an altogether different spectrum. A
second dimension of intensity does nothing to improve the scale.
Even a third dimension does not do the relationship justice, but it
does help illustrate the point. The spectrum of awe and angst is one
in which we relate to ourselves, our past, other people, and other
objects.
Awe is not the opposite of
angst, nor is that the rationale of this argument. Rather, awe is
inclusive of angst. We become awe-depleted when we begin to limit
this spectrum. When we focus too intensely on any one of the
dimension of this spectrum we become neurotic which, at least in a
temporary sense, is inevitable. Neurosis may be inevitable but it
need not be permanent. When neurosis becomes our defining
characteristic, when we become locked too deeply within or outside
ourselves, we give a lasting foothold to angst. Our deepest
avoidance drive is suffering without meaning, a state in which our
being has succumbed to a nihilistic agony and a crippling,
suffocating anxiety. “Awe based consciousness embraces both
anxiety and possibilities of living” (Schneider, 2009). Awe
embraces the suffering, the anxiety, and the agony as well as the
ecstasy, the prowess, the satisfaction, and the beauty of life.
Part
Seven: Will to Awe
We
have an innate will to awe which is achieved along a highway wrought
with suffering. When our focus remains on suffering merely for the
sake of suffering we are driven towards neurotic angst. Embracing
suffering, not merely acknowledging it, as an invaluable part of our
existent being leads to the full embodiment of our human condition
which leaves us, thus, in awe. We continue forward with an uncertain
end and certainly no foreseeable end to our suffering. We continue
nevertheless. We continue to suffer in spite of angst, in revolt
against it, in light of awe and wonder. Awe is the wonder and
appreciation of the majesty of life’s absurdly fateful suffering.
“Once wonder is experienced it can be sought because we rightly
believe it is attainable... in the thrall of wonder we do not feel
alone and our world has new patterns seen bubbling up within it”
(Powell, 2011, p. 132).
We
could not possibly be who we are today without having been who we
were yesterday. Concurrently, we could not have achieved all that we
value and find satisfying without having suffered through the past.
We would be completely devoid of any existential satisfaction in the
joys of our life if they had not been “earned” through suffering.
That is not to say that one must suffer, but that s/he wills it.
Suffering adds an ineffable quality to our state of being. Simply
put, we appreciate things to a much more intrinsic extent when they
do not come easily to us.
Frankl
(1984, p. 106) writes that “pseudo values” have to be unmasked.
Pleasure, power, meaning, pain, weakness, and void are all masks worn
by desire to deceive and distract us. When the masks, some even
approaching awe on their own, are stripped away we are left in utter
wonder of what lies behind the veil. We are left, staring our will
and our fate in the eyes. We are glaring at the very core of our
being, what has truly been there all along. When all the pollution
of our lives and ourselves is reduced to its complete raw and
authentic state, all that remains is awe. There is everything and
there is nothing, yet the beauty of the human condition rages
brilliantly nonetheless. Awe has never ceased to be present. Though
diluted and anesthetized by our desire, our will has never been more
clear. “We must continue to struggle” (Maslow, 2009, p. 138).
Works
Cited
Agnes,
M., & Laird, C. (2002). ambivalence, awe, awesome, awful,
benevolent, fear, malevolent, sublime. In Webster's
New World Dictionary and Thesaurus
(2nd ed., pp. 19-631). angst. (2012). In Merriam-Webster.
Retrieved November 27, 2012, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/angst
Arundale,
J. (2004). Eros and Thanatos in Context. British
Journal Of Psychotherapy,
20(4),
453-454. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0118.2004.tb00163.x
Frankl,
V. E. (1984). Man's
Search for Meaning
(3rd ed., pp. 103-136). New York, NY:
Simon
& Schuster.
Laplanche,
J. (2004). The So-Called 'Death Drive': A Sexual Drive.British
Journal Of
Psychotherapy,
20(4),
455-471. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0118.2004.tb00164.x
Leiter,
B. (2004). Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta
(Ed.),
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2011 ed.). Retrieved November
Maslow,
A. (1999). Toward
a Psychology of Being
(3rd ed., pp. 72-138). New York, NY:
John
Wiley & Sons.
May,
R. (1969). Love
and Will
(pp. 216-290). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Mellers,
B. A., & Ritov, I. (2009, August 4). How Beliefs Influence the
Relative
Magnitude
of Pleasure and Pain. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making,
23,
369-382.
doi:10.1002/bdm.662
Powell,
W. E. (2011). Wonder Happens and Then We Come Alive. Families
in Society,
92(2),
131-132. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4112
Schneider,
Kirk J. Interview by Michael Toms. "Awakening to Awe." New
Dimensions
No comments:
Post a Comment