Why are humans never satisfied? [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Why are humans never satisfied? [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvGUTtYMUco
39 comments
The entire argument follows from a single incredible, unsubstantiated assumption, that “creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.”
I think this is substantiated, we absolutely desire our needs. I can't think of one single desire that does not demand satisfaction. Perhaps I am not understanding something.
It is not substantiated that all desires arise from an associated, achievable need.
I need food so I desire food and I eat to satisfy it.
I desire to have perfect love and relationships, but can’t seem to achieve it.
But if I cannot find a perfect slice of pizza, g-d exists and another world follows this one where the pizza is truly satisfying?
Believe whatever you like, but realize Faith is required for this to follow that. Logic won’t do it for you alone.
I need food so I desire food and I eat to satisfy it.
I desire to have perfect love and relationships, but can’t seem to achieve it.
But if I cannot find a perfect slice of pizza, g-d exists and another world follows this one where the pizza is truly satisfying?
Believe whatever you like, but realize Faith is required for this to follow that. Logic won’t do it for you alone.
I see, the objection is specifically levelled at the mystic side of what he's saying. That's fair.
In the case that Lewis is alluding to (an unsatisfied yearning for spiritual fulfillment), the argument is tautological. If God is real in the way he imagines it, the presence of this spiritual yearning is a kind of evidence. If God is not real in the way he imagines, the presence of this spiritual yearning is evidence that the assertion is false.
Also: spiritual yearning can in fact be satisfied by spiritual practices. So the conclusion doesn't follow even if you accept his premise.
The context is that CS Lewis was a devout christian and evangelist, and is referring to spiritual desire.
I read "The Great Divorce", and interpreted it as metaphorical, in the "kingdom of heaven on earth" way. How honest work, faith, and openness are uplifting, vs getting trapped in psychological prisons.
But this quote refers to a literal afterlife. I don't know what to make of that.
I read "The Great Divorce", and interpreted it as metaphorical, in the "kingdom of heaven on earth" way. How honest work, faith, and openness are uplifting, vs getting trapped in psychological prisons.
But this quote refers to a literal afterlife. I don't know what to make of that.
Being attributed to CS Lewis I’d hope it’s more metaphorical than theoretical.
As an atheist, I'm mostly glad I never met the man. I think that if I had, remaining an atheist might be more difficult than it is. Even reading his works seems risky at times.
Not that his arguments are particularly rational, mind you. He was just that damned good.
Not that his arguments are particularly rational, mind you. He was just that damned good.
Funny: as an atheist, I have no a-priori goal to remain an atheist. In fact I would love it if someone could come along and convince me that their religion was correct. Imagine how comforting that would be: the surety of an afterlife! Alas, it is not to be, because even written in C.S. Lewis's flowery language, it's all obviously bullshit. Reading Tolkein may make me wish I lived in Rivendell but it's never going to convince me to worship Eru Illuvatar.
I was a former atheist for over 10 years, and I also had a strong desire for Christianity to be true. I would humbly suggest that you simply ask God to give you the gift of faith. You might be surprised.
It does actually sound like you do have this a-priori goal. Additionally, it seems that you might have bad taste in literature.
> It does actually sound like you do have this a-priori goal
I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself "I sure hope I continue to believe that the Earth is round by the end of the day!" That's crazy: I have no vested interest in that belief. I believe the Earth is round because the evidence is overwhelming and the contra-evidence is unconvincing. I'm not worried that someone is going to come along and erroneously convince me the world is actually flat -- I trust my own judgement more than that. Unless, of course, the world actually is flat, in which case I'd want someone to convince me of it! It's the truth I have a vested interest in, whatever that truth actually is.
> Additionally, it seems that you might have bad taste in literature
It sounds like it's important to you that you make sure to not like mainstream things, so that you can look down on people who do. I encourage you to get over this. The more things you let yourself enjoy, the more fun you have in life. And you'll like yourself more too, knowing you're not being as much of a condescending prick. Trust me; I've been there.
I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself "I sure hope I continue to believe that the Earth is round by the end of the day!" That's crazy: I have no vested interest in that belief. I believe the Earth is round because the evidence is overwhelming and the contra-evidence is unconvincing. I'm not worried that someone is going to come along and erroneously convince me the world is actually flat -- I trust my own judgement more than that. Unless, of course, the world actually is flat, in which case I'd want someone to convince me of it! It's the truth I have a vested interest in, whatever that truth actually is.
> Additionally, it seems that you might have bad taste in literature
It sounds like it's important to you that you make sure to not like mainstream things, so that you can look down on people who do. I encourage you to get over this. The more things you let yourself enjoy, the more fun you have in life. And you'll like yourself more too, knowing you're not being as much of a condescending prick. Trust me; I've been there.
I've read some of CS Lewis' writings on religion. I'm an atheist married to a person of faith, so I'm interested in what the people I love find so compelling about their faith.
He's a very charismatic writer, but sneaky in his arguments. For example, my rebuttal to the above would be: "Humans are evolved from apes who are social animals. No matter what we achieve materially, we will always crave social recognition, status, and love from other humans. And because other humans are imperfect, we can never get to a state where we are perfectly loved, content, and free from the fear that these things will be taken away."
He has a similar argument in "Mere Christianity", where (I paraphrase and over-simplify) he says that whatever goodness there is in humans proves there must be a God, because otherwise why would people ever want to do anything "good" rather than just what immediately benefits them? But I feel like that has a similar response to the above - we know that evolution exists, we know we evolved from apes, and we've watched apes exhibit the same social behaviors that we do. There are many times when it makes sense to act pro-socially (to do "good" things as CS Lewis would describe them) in order to get a greater benefit (from your community) than you would by acting purely selfishly.
This doesn't make humans bad, or make it any less "good" to do good things! I don't understand the idea that these behaviors are any less good or meaningful because we do them for natural reasons rather than supernatural ones.
He's a very charismatic writer, but sneaky in his arguments. For example, my rebuttal to the above would be: "Humans are evolved from apes who are social animals. No matter what we achieve materially, we will always crave social recognition, status, and love from other humans. And because other humans are imperfect, we can never get to a state where we are perfectly loved, content, and free from the fear that these things will be taken away."
He has a similar argument in "Mere Christianity", where (I paraphrase and over-simplify) he says that whatever goodness there is in humans proves there must be a God, because otherwise why would people ever want to do anything "good" rather than just what immediately benefits them? But I feel like that has a similar response to the above - we know that evolution exists, we know we evolved from apes, and we've watched apes exhibit the same social behaviors that we do. There are many times when it makes sense to act pro-socially (to do "good" things as CS Lewis would describe them) in order to get a greater benefit (from your community) than you would by acting purely selfishly.
This doesn't make humans bad, or make it any less "good" to do good things! I don't understand the idea that these behaviors are any less good or meaningful because we do them for natural reasons rather than supernatural ones.
I’ve yet to watch the video, however I’ve always assumed that people are never satisfied because satisfaction would not be very useful in our natural environment. Given that resources will almost always be constrained, satisfaction serves no purpose. Striving for more food, more status, more connection is always more useful practically speaking than being satisfied with what you have.
In fact, the question “why aren’t people satisfied?” Assumes that there’s any particular reason why people would be happy. Fully Satisfied people lose their strongest motivations. There’s not much evolutionary pressure to ensuring that people can stay happy or stay satisfied.
In fact, the question “why aren’t people satisfied?” Assumes that there’s any particular reason why people would be happy. Fully Satisfied people lose their strongest motivations. There’s not much evolutionary pressure to ensuring that people can stay happy or stay satisfied.
[deleted]
The most successful life form on a planet will probably always ask themselves this.
Because if we'd been happy remaining primitive then we wouldn't have become advanced.
We were not happy after inventing technology (not with technology either, but we thought we would be).
Evolutionarily: The people who were happy without children, or another child, or a second wife to make more children, were not as successful in propagating their genes.
Why were peacocks not satisfied with a small slightly less colorful tail?
Because if we'd been happy remaining primitive then we wouldn't have become advanced.
We were not happy after inventing technology (not with technology either, but we thought we would be).
Evolutionarily: The people who were happy without children, or another child, or a second wife to make more children, were not as successful in propagating their genes.
Why were peacocks not satisfied with a small slightly less colorful tail?
> Why were peacocks not satisfied with a small slightly less colorful tail?
This is a weird analogy for all kinds of reasons. Not the least of which is that the extravagant tail (among other things) makes the bird highly specialized to a few environmental niches. Compare this to the humble rat that has been successful in just about any environment on the planet.
This is a weird analogy for all kinds of reasons. Not the least of which is that the extravagant tail (among other things) makes the bird highly specialized to a few environmental niches. Compare this to the humble rat that has been successful in just about any environment on the planet.
> The most successful life form on a planet will probably always ask themselves this.
I wonder what answer the dinosaurs had? Perhaps they were happy becoming the fuel of our technology millions of years later.
_Most successful_ begs the question on what scale that would be?
I wonder what answer the dinosaurs had? Perhaps they were happy becoming the fuel of our technology millions of years later.
_Most successful_ begs the question on what scale that would be?
Dinosaurs didn't become oil. Marine plants and animals did.
Some humans live in a state of satisfaction because they have dispensed with desire. This is one of the principles of buddhist enlightenment.
I thought so too, but it makes more sense to me that "stop desiring things" is a koan, and not a literal instruction.
A koan is like a little paradox, a word problem that a student needs to solve before being allowed to the next "level". The solution is that you cannot stop desiring. Even if you try very hard, you will still have, at the very least, the desire to stop desiring. Source: I've been listening to Alan Watts
> Even if you try very hard
This is the paradox, while you are "trying" as you have observed, you are still desiring. Letting go of desire is effortless.
This is the paradox, while you are "trying" as you have observed, you are still desiring. Letting go of desire is effortless.
Thats so paradoxically cryptic haha
It's zen meditation stuff.
You have to accept, but detach from, the feeling of desire. You're not trying to fight it; you accept but cease to identify with it.
The monk feels the flames consuming his flesh, but he ceases to identify with the sensation, allowing him to sit there, motionless, before dying. (Granted, that's some hardcore non-identification.)
You have to accept, but detach from, the feeling of desire. You're not trying to fight it; you accept but cease to identify with it.
The monk feels the flames consuming his flesh, but he ceases to identify with the sensation, allowing him to sit there, motionless, before dying. (Granted, that's some hardcore non-identification.)
What happens if you were to be satisfied? You have sex once and then roll over into bliss, until a bear comes by and eats you. Thus all satisfying things must be fleeting.
What are the consequences of never being able to be satisfied?
You desire greater and greater things to please you. Eventually you must throw people to the lions in order to satisfy the masses. Eventually you find yourself on reddit watching people die. The other way exists as well. If sexual desire you're looking at porn on reddit. If food there's food porn as well. You're always seeking the next best.
What are the consequences of never being able to be satisfied?
You desire greater and greater things to please you. Eventually you must throw people to the lions in order to satisfy the masses. Eventually you find yourself on reddit watching people die. The other way exists as well. If sexual desire you're looking at porn on reddit. If food there's food porn as well. You're always seeking the next best.
Because we have the ability to think counterfactually; that is, we can always imagine better worlds.
Satisfaction is inversely correlated with the propagation of genes.
[deleted]
Probably because there are other people you are always comparing yourself to.
[deleted]
we can learn to be though.
That would be a waste and a shame. We should be satisfied with certain things like stable and equitable sharing of limited resources. Other things define being human in that we need to have pursuits, learn, build. A society without those is losing to machines by becoming them.
an amazing POV from Agustín Fuentes
- CS Lewis