THE NATURE OF LIFE
Contents:
If you care to exist at all, you must value your own life. But what is your life, what is its nature, what is important to it? Answering these questions is key to understanding what must be your ultimate value and the integrating purpose of your existence.
The necessary context is drawn from The Standard of Value.
LEXICAL NOTE: “Purpose” can mean either “goal” or “goal-driven behaviour/orientation”; when used with an article (definite or indefinite), it means “goal” (examples of use: “the purpose of the text”, “to have a purpose”, “to act toward a purpose”), and when used without an article, it means “goal-driven behaviour/orientation” (examples of use: “the value of purpose”, “to have purpose”, “to act with purpose”). Also note that “purposeful” and “goal-driven” are synonymous. I shall use both sets of terms to avoid leaning into any connotations each set of terms may carry.
The essential characteristic of life is the existence of an alternative between life and death; a living being is always faced by the alternative between its own existence and non-existence. Only a living being faces such an alternative since only a living being can have goals with respect to which the potential for success or failure exists. Conversely, if an alternative with respect to some potential does not exist for an entity, it means that none of the entity’s action has any effect on the success or failure of reaching the potential. Hence, here, reaching the potential cannot be a goal of the entity’s actions, since its actions do not serve to achieve it and thus necessarily serve to achieve something apart from it. Hence, we see that the concepts of “goal” and “alternative” refer to two aspects of the same thing, namely the self-generated action of an entity with a self-sustained orientation toward some potential. In other words, a goal is necessarily conditional. Hence, since life is necessarily goal-driven, life is necessarily conditional.
To clarify, let us consider a broader view of a life, namely a purposeful, i.e. goal-driven state of existence. Hence, consider a being that is goal-driven yet whose life is unconditional, i.e. consider an indestructible yet goal-driven being. Evidently, its goal cannot be to sustain its own existence, since its existence is unconditional. But drawing again from conclusions in The Standard of Value, life (i.e. the self-generated, self-sustaining action of an entity) is the only source of goals and goal-driven behaviour, which means such an indestructible being can have no goals. To further justify the point, consider: what goals could an indestructible being have? Perhaps it has the goal of changing its unconditional existence in some way. But note that there is no purposeful way of changing something that is unconditional, since purpose presupposes a standard of success or failure, which in turn relies on a goal; but a goal cannot be unconditional. Hence, the indestructible being can have no goal with respect to changing anything about its own existence since there is no “better” or “worse” way for it to exist; “better” and “worse” with respect to what? The capacity to exist? But this capacity is unconditional and thus has no standard for “good” and “bad”. Hence, we see that the goal of the indestructible being has to be based on something apart from its existence, because there is nothing that is relevant to its own existence as a goal (i.e. as a need, want or motive). Note that one’s “self” is the core of one’s existence, which means that if the indestructible being can only have goals apart from its existence, then it can only have goals apart from its own “self”, i.e. the integration of things that makes it what it is. Hence, since its goal should be based on something beyond its existence, then its existence itself is a means to some end beyond itself. Evidently, for such an end to be purposeful, it would have to originate from another goal-driven entity, since the indestructible being has no basis for purpose in its own existence and self. In other words, a “goal-driven” indestructible being is essentially an automaton, goal-driven only in a derivative sense (i.e. as an instrument for achieving the goals of a fundamentally goal-driven entity).
Keep in mind that consciousness and volition are functions of life; they have no meaning apart from life, since they are extensions of goal-driven behaviour, and hence, they are extensions of the process of sustaining one’s own existence, i.e. extensions of the process of life (which is the basis of goals and goal-driven behaviour). Hence, we see that without the alternative between life and death, there can be no life, no consciousness, no volition, and thus, no self. In effect, you — as a volitional being — would cease to exist if your “life” were unconditional. This is an absurd statement for a reason: it is impossible for “life” to be unconditional, and thus, it is impossible for any sort of “self” (i.e. experience of existence or “consciousness”) to exist as an indestructible unit. Incidentally, this also dispels the notion of an “eternal soul” (which is essentially the notion of a goal-driven indestructible being).
Reinforcing a key point made: Consciousness and volition are extensions of life due to the facts that (1) life is the source of purpose and goal-driven behaviour, i.e. the only end in itself, and (2) consciousness and volition are both types of goal-driven phenomena and forms of existence. In other terms, I show that consciousness and volition are functions of life by linking them to the broader concept of goal-driven behaviour, which originates from the nature of living beings.
Thanks to ChatGPT for making this clearer to me by analysing my arguments.
Note also that volition is an aspect of self-aware consciousness, and consciousness is essentially the faculty of awareness, and awareness is essentially purposeful interaction with the environment; hence, the link becomes even clearer.
You are not and cannot be eternal; this is not a damnation but an inherent fact about a wonderful phenomenon of irreplaceable value. To hold that there is a self beyond life is treason to your own self — your own existence — since it disregards how superlatively precious your life is while also disregarding that which makes your existence possible, namely the unique, conditional integration of parts of reality. To a human being, mind and body, spirit and matter — these are aspects of an inseparable whole, none existing nor capable of existing without the other.
NOTE: It is not valid to say “life needs death in order to have value”, just as it is not valid to say that “health needs disease in order to have value”. The fact inherent in life is that it is conditional; death is merely the failure of that condition, not the basis of it, nor — of course — is it fundamental to the success of that condition.
Life is, in essence, the self-generated, self-sustaining action of an entity. Evidently, what the particular nature of life is, depends on the particular nature of the “self”, i.e. of the entity whose existence is being sustained. Hence, when we — as humans — identify the essential characteristics of ourselves as the fact and faculty of awareness (i.e. consciousness) as well as the capacity for self-directed focus (i.e. volition), these characteristics are what decide what “life” means in our context.
It is crucial to note that the characteristics of consciousness and volition cannot exist in isolation, since they are ultimately attributes of an integrated whole. Hence, in the case of any conscious, volitional entity, there is no mind without a body and no body without a mind. Also note that volition is an attribute of consciousness, being the result of self-awareness. Hence, when I say “volitional”, I also necessarily mean “conscious”.
Hence, we observe that the essential characteristics of a volitional being are inseparable from physical life. But we also observe that these characteristics are integrated with physical life, i.e. “life” to us is an integrated whole such that physical and mental goals are ultimately (i.e. in final effect) the same. Hence, sustaining our mind and its capacity to function is an extension of sustaining our body and its capacity to function in a sufficiently broad context — and vice versa.
It is key to note how exactly this is the case. Volition is the basis of reason, i.e. of the faculty of integrating the material provided by direct perception so as to grasp truths in a broader (i.e. longer-range and/or more extensive) context. How is volition the basis? To integrate particulars, we need to abstract (i.e. mentally isolate certain characteristics while omitting others, i.e. leaving others variable) — abstract from a certain context with respect to a certain purpose. To do this, we need the capacity to focus selectively and according to our knowledge of reality. To do this, we need the capacity to direct our focus on our own, so we can make sure it does in fact adhere to our knowledge.
Hence, reason is a function of volition. Now, grasping truths in a broader context is the means to acting effectively to sustain our life in a broader context, i.e. in the context of our life as a whole, not just in the moment. Hence, volition is the means for us to sustain our life as a whole, which means the capacity for volition is tied to the capacity for life as a whole, not life only in the moment but life that integrates its actuality and its potentiality. It is key to note that life’s potentiality gives life’s actuality greater significance since we know it to be geared toward its fullest self-driven continuation.
Now that we see how the aspects of our life are tied together as an integrated whole, we also see that what we are — i.e. volitional beings — decides what our “life” is and can be. Volition is fundamental to our identity (i.e. it is the characteristic that integrates all the philosophically relevant characteristics of a volitional being), which means our consciousness is self-driven on a fundamental level (i.e. not entirely but fundamentally self-driven). Everything that exists has a particular identity, i.e. a particular nature that it cannot contradict; the same applies for volition. Hence, not only must we succeed in sustaining our life in the moment, but we must also succeed in sustaining our capacity for volition.
By extension, a crucial part of sustaining our life and volition is to succeed in sustaining the capacity of our volition to orient itself toward a conscious, self-driven (i.e. volitional) existence. In other words, not only must we be able to sustain our life but also find life worth sustaining; worth, here, is the recognition of potential that is favourable to our life as volitional beings. In other words, it is the recognition of potential for the continuation of the necessary conditions for the successful functioning of the physical, mental and volitional aspects of life. To put it more concretely, your life is worth living if you see a potential for health, mental capacity (cognitively and psychologically) and agency; the more the potential for each, the more the “worth”. Note that the cognitive and psychological aspects of the mind are also integrated; we shall later explore what these aspects are and how they are integrated.
NOTE: Observe what the essential aspect of life is, in our case: volition. Volition does not and cannot exist in isolation and is the attribute that integrates everything that makes us alive, aware and self-aware, i.e. everything that makes us what we are. Why? Observe: volition presupposes consciousness, which presupposes awareness, which presupposes purpose, which presupposes life, which presupposes a particular physical form, etc. Fundamentally, it is the fact of volition that is the identifying aspect of our form of existence.
Note a key implication of the above points. A volitional being literally cannot live range-of-the-moment; the self-driven nature of volition will not allow it (note that here, “live” means “live as a volitional being”, i.e. “keep one’s volitional faculties”). Remember: volition is not beyond causality. It has a certain nature, and thus, certain conditions that sustain and/or advance it. To live long-range in some way (even if in a diminished and/or disoriented way) is a necessity for a volitional being to even sustain its own life in the moment. Potential has to be recognised, pursued and realised to some extent for a self-driven consciousness to drive itself; willpower is not unconditional. Naturally, the extent to which potential is recognised, pursued and realised decides the extent of one’s capacity for life in the moment. Hence, note that for a volitional being, living long-range is essential to its life not just in the future alone but in the here and now, by the very nature of his existence. The only way a volitional being can avoid living long-range in any form is by destroying his volitional capacity and turning himself into an automatic consciousness, i.e. an animal. But by doing so, of course, he in fact ceases to exist and something else takes his place, i.e. he in fact destroys himself.
Volition is the faculty that integrates the actual with the potential, and a volitional life requires the success of such integration. Ultimately in practice, there is no divide between the present and the long-range; both are and must be parts of an inseparable and interrelated whole that is volitional life.
NOTE: The pursuit of life requires our focus on the relevant concretes that are part of our existence, including the particular facts about our mind, body, abilities and circumstances as well as our psychology, physiology, anatomy, biology, etc. However, when I talk of what the pursuit of life requires as a volitional being as such, I am talking about the broader essentials that underlie and form the foundation for any individual volitional being’s pursuit of life. These broad essentials are not sufficient to the pursuit of life, since they omit many relevant details. However, they are necessary, since they integrate any possible relevant detail to a broader context — remember: reality is non-contradictory, so a given context cannot contradict the broader context that subsumes it (it is for the same reason that no work in physics can invalidate causality, no work in psychology or neuroscience can invalidate volition, no work in mathematics can invalidate arithmetic, etc.).
Supporting observations:
I have realised, time and again, that the value for my own life is neither automatic nor guaranteed, and that willpower is finite and has a definite nature (i.e. it is not omnipotent even within my own mind). There have been times when I literally could not care about the bad consequences of my actions or inactions both in the present and the future despite being sufficiently aware of the consequences, i.e. I lost the value for my life on some level (a chief example is how I ruined my eyesight over many years of indulgence-based habits despite knowing how I was ruining it and knowing how to avoid it or at least slow it down). Looking back, it feels surreal how aware I was about my destruction of my own life on some level yet at the same time how apathetic I felt even in the face of my awareness. For example, (1) when faced with an overwhelming examination that I thought as very crucial to my life yet also insurmountable, and (2) when feeling forced into a potential career I have no interest in and no desire for, and (3) when feeling incapable of dealing with the world around me and having no confidence in my ability to gain such a capacity. I also realised that whenever I had been driven to improve my life, it was always due to a sense of efficacy in the present and confidence in such efficacy for the future. Here are some examples: certain longer periods of quieter times where I felt less overloaded or overwhelmed by work or interactions, certain periods of effective and engaging study and/or project work (often before examinations or deadlines, but sometimes also apart from it: my study of philosophy, computer programming — especially C programming — and some topics in mathematics and statistics are key examples from my past), etc. I saw that I could only enjoy the moment if my life was geared toward a positive or at least tolerable future; hence, I could enjoy my life only either in happiness or serenity — both these states presuppose efficacy in dealing with life and reality as it is and as it could be.
Happiness is the state of consciousness that is the result of the non-contradictory achievement of one’s life — non-contradictory implies that the present and long-range are an integrated, harmonious whole. In other words, happiness is the result of one’s full, i.e. non-contradictory pursuit of life. To pursue one’s life to the fullest is, in essence, to sustain one’s life as a volitional being without undermining or undercutting it in any way; it is not something above and beyond self-preservation but full self-preservation. Hence, the pursuit of happiness is, in essence, self-preservation; happiness is not an optional benefit or even just a desirable end result but the most vital long-range need of a volitional being.
In ethics, we identify the values and principles that arise with respect to the standard of life as a volitional being, which means ethical values and principles apply not to particular species of life forms but rather to all volitional life forms. Ethics, hence, does not derive from particular physical facts or features (e.g. facts in anatomy or biology) but from the broader fact of volition that abstracts from any set of particular physical facts. Of course, when applying ethical principles in more concrete contexts, the more concrete facts (e.g. physical facts or features) can become relevant. However, for fundamental ethics, such facts are omitted, i.e. not denied but made variable, i.e. generalised over. Why is ethics defined in such broad terms? The reason is that ethics is meant to show us how to make choices from a fundamental level; hence, the very fact of volition (i.e. the capacity to choose) is the basis and starting point of ethics.
When I say self-preservation, I mean specifically the preservation of one’s own existence as a volitional being. Evidently, what our “life” means in the context of a volitional being — objectively — is not mere biological survival or even mere conscious survival, but rather, a self-driven (i.e. volitional) survival. Hence, as volitional beings, our survival depends on not only us being able to sustain our lives but also on us seeing our lives as worth sustaining. “Worth” in this context should not represent a subjective wish or desire but an objective judgement of the potential of our existence. It is for this reason that reason, purpose and self-esteem are fundamental values, as they are the means by which we identify, strive for, realise and enjoy our potential for life.
I would go even further and say that death by itself has no relevance to a human concerned with living, because it is — literally — nothing, a zero. A rational, self-interested person would only care about life as he lives it with all its actuality and potentiality; what he would fear is not death itself but the degradation or destruction of his life’s potential, because what does he care if he is dead? He would not be there to experience it, so objectively, i.e. by the very nature of his existence, it is not the end of his life to which he can tie his interests but rather his experience of it and his efficacy in sustaining and advancing it as he lives it. In this light, it is clear that there is a lot a self-interested person would risk his life for, not out of selflessness but precisely out of a profound selfishness rooted in the nature of his existence; it is not death he avoids but life lived to the fullest that he seeks.
He may give his life for his loved ones to save them because their value in his life is so great that his life would be reduced to a shadow of its former self if he does not do everything he can to save them. He may lose his life fighting for his rights or the values he upholds because by giving them up he would be resigning himself to a life of hopelessly degraded potential. In essence, the idea is: only that which makes life worth living can be worth dying for. A human’s own life as a volitional being is indeed his standard of value, and self-preservation means sustaining a life fit for a volitional being. So, I hope I have made it clear that what I mean by “self-preservation” in this context is not “survival at any cost”; if the cost involves the very things that makes life worth living, i.e. that makes a self-driven conscious existence possible, then paying that cost would be anti-life objectively, by the nature of a volitional being’s existence.
Additional points…
This is an extension of “Life as a volitional being”
To care for our own future is to value our own life as we live it by recognising and concretising its potential. To care for the future beyond our life, not at the price of values in this life but on top of them, is to affirm two things: (1) the metaphysical view of causality and the efficacy of life, consciousness and volition, and (2) the non-contradiction in values by recognising the way the values in our own life extend beyond our life. In this light, to care for the future beyond our life (provided it does not involve the sacrifice of any value in our own) is not to care for the future in and of itself but to affirm our own life as we live it, objectively and profoundly. It is not primarily “for the sake of the future” but primarily for our own sake, as a logical extension of our own life as we live it.
NOTE: By “sacrifice”, I mean giving up something of objectively greater selfish value for the sake of something that has objectively lesser selfish value; it is the basic act of selflessness. The following are not examples of sacrifice: giving up comfort or immediate indulgence for long-range purpose or efficacy, giving one’s life in pursuit of that which makes life worth living, risking one’s values in the confidence of potential gain or at least of one’s ability to accept the loss without losing the essential worth of one’s life, etc. To make my moral position clear, I am for pure, unrestricted selfishness and regard selflessness as a grave treason to my life and my values.