Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

self destruction

02:52 / 02.02.02

I think we tend to assume a couple things that don't quite fit with reality.

1. Everybody wants to be happy. I wouldn't argue that if you asked any given person, they would probably tell you, "yes, of course I want to be happy," but we go beyond the assumption that they simply desire happiness and say that they will actually pursue it. This is the basis of a free market economy, the criminal justice system, government elections, and a number of philosophical discussions. But I see way too often to discount as a fluke the art of self destruction. People I know who get themselves in trouble with the law, drink more alcohol than has ever been enjoyable for them, start smoking cigarrettes, sabotaging their own job opportunities, social life, love life, grades, and just about anything else. And I hear things like "I KNOW I shouldn't do this, but...."

2. People genetically act for the sake of propogation of their own genes. Take all the examples above and add a few more.

Why does there seem to be such a discrepancy between these fundamental beliefs and what we can observe so often in others and in ourselves? Are they both still generally true? What delimits their truth? Can we establish a working theory to explain these exceptions, and what consequences might this have? Can we re-organize or change altogether punishment, economics, politics, and peronal social interaction?

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]

[ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]

20:14 / 02.02.02

I can nt remembr if it was Reich, or one of the freudomarxists, that said that self-destructive and agressive tendencies (which he agrouped under the wored Thanatos) were a result of the repression of the creative/love/sexual tendencies (Eros) generated by the societal values of the dominant class.
I do not think it explains the whole phenomenon you point, but it might be one of the causes

03:02 / 05.02.02

I'm almost certain that repression of various forms causes self-destruction, but even acknowledging that it's incomplete, it still seems to me to clash considerably with the other principles mentioned above.

And I'm not sure what it does to answer the question why this happens, despite answering when it does.

[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]

Molly Shortcake

00:43 / 08.02.02

Point number one: Sounds like you've been listening to Industrial music.

Point number two: You're assuming that happiness is primarily a state of being, it isn't, it's a monetary term, capital.

[ 08-02-2002: Message edited by: Lord Rugal Ultimate ]

12:23 / 08.02.02

Sorry?

15:50 / 08.02.02

Who's to say someone isn't *enjoying* being self destructive? I mean, there is a type of degenerative joy to be had in it, after all. We always do what we enjoy, that's just how we're programmed. Even if we go against what feels good, we still get some joy out of the action, even if its masochistic.

16:52 / 08.02.02

Yours is a very epicurean argument - that happiness comes in the removal of pain and the good treatment of the self.

But another model might be that desire and necessity are two very different things and that what you WANT (sex and power) might be necessarily restrained in the individual by society.

Basically I'm saying that fundamentally desire isn't about what makes you happy at all - desire is about what you feel compelled to do even WHEN it makes you unhappy.

But desire throws up the possibility of 'happiness' as its end result. I honestly believe that I would be happier if i could afford a house. Do I know if I would be? No. Would I feel completely content at that stage? No, clearly not.

23:28 / 08.02.02

I wasn't making an argument about happiness, exactly, but against what I think is a commonly held view that, given that we have a true understanding of what will lead to happiness, we will pursue it.

My personal view of what happiness is isn't really relevant. I meant to include 'happiness' as part of that view, so what matters is the commonly held view of happiness.

Actually, the common notion of happiness isn't quite the only important one. In addition to the arguments being wrong, I argued that they were the foundation of a number of institutions and philosophies. So if another definition of happiness can be found to justify these philosophies and institutions, that would work.