All fears are the fear of death, all others are derivatives

[Veritas Aequitas]

All fears are the fear of death, and any derivative can be linked back to the primary fear of death. Your thoughts?

It goes further than that.

Empirically, it is evident there is a biological teleonomic drive to preserve the species.
To do do, all living species [so human species] are 'programmed' [DNA wise] with the following;
- the drive for reproduction of the next generation
- the fear of death, very strongly within reproductive age, tapering pass that,
this two primal drives are to facilitate the preservation of the species.

The above is such that each individual carry the responsibility to ensure the survival of the species which is very forceful, tsunamic so to say within the individual's psychic.

This fear of death is fundamental and it is one of the force that drives all human activities from the subliminal level.

With self-awareness and so awareness of inevitable mortality there is a potential paralysis of life from this very powerful tsunamic force -the primal fear of death. Fortunately, humans are adapted with inhibitors to modulate this forceful fear of death. That is why we don't hear of everyone fearing death all the time but only at times and when triggered by thoughts or sight of death.

As with human nature, there are degrees to the effectiveness of the inhibitors to suppress the fear of death. Those who have severe damage or weak inhibitors end up with thanatophobia a mental illness that need psychiatric help.

Point is, all philosophical views of members here are subjected to the fear of death; with theists highly influenced by it thus needing salvation to soothe the pains from the fear of death. Philosophical realists clinging to an absolutely mind-independent reality are also highly affected by the forces of these primal fear of death.
Wokeism is another lot who are highly affected by the fear of death to the extent some will kill those who do not agree with them [nb: Charlie Kirk].

Those in the know [many philosophical anti-realists] of the above facts strive to improve the efficacy of their inhibitors, so that they can be modulated to improve their well-being optimally.

[popeye1945]

All fears are the fear of death, and any derivative can be linked back to the primary fear of death. Your thoughts?

It goes further than that.

Empirically, it is evident there is a biological teleonomic drive to preserve the species.
To do do, all living species [so human species] are 'programmed' [DNA wise] with the following;
- the drive for reproduction of the next generation
- the fear of death, very strongly within reproductive age, tapering pass that,
this two primal drives are to facilitate the preservation of the species.

The above is such that each individual carry the responsibility to ensure the survival of the species which is very forceful, tsunamic so to say within the individual's psychic.

This fear of death is fundamental and it is one of the force that drives all human activities from the subliminal level.

With self-awareness and so awareness of inevitable mortality there is a potential paralysis of life from this very powerful tsunamic force -the primal fear of death. Fortunately, humans are adapted with inhibitors to modulate this forceful fear of death. That is why we don't hear of everyone fearing death all the time but only at times and when triggered by thoughts or sight of death.

As with human nature, there are degrees to the effectiveness of the inhibitors to suppress the fear of death. Those who have severe damage or weak inhibitors end up with thanatophobia a mental illness that need psychiatric help.

Point is, all philosophical views of members here are subjected to the fear of death; with theists highly influenced by it thus needing salvation to soothe the pains from the fear of death. Philosophical realists clinging to an absolutely mind-independent reality are also highly affected by the forces of these primal fear of death.
Wokeism is another lot who are highly affected by the fear of death to the extent some will kill those who do not agree with them [nb: Charlie Kirk].

Those in the know [many philosophical anti-realists] of the above facts strive to improve the efficacy of their inhibitors, so that they can be modulated to improve their well-being optimally.

WOW! EXCELLENT!

[MikeNovack]

Be very careful trying to apply thinking based on genetic theory valid for individual animals to social animals. In the latter case, you need to consider whether the individual animal is best off DIRECTLY maximizing passing on its genes or INDIRECTLY doing so by aiding a larger number of kin sharing those genes. The point is that social animals don't evolve unless the latter is true.

We humans have been social animals fr longer than we have been human.

Consider the argument that has been made in this discussion that timor mortis should decrease past reproductive age. WHY? The very fact that we evolved to live a generation older than our reproductive age should tell you that THIS (extended lifespan) benefited the genes of the grandparent (no longer DIRECTLY passing on genes).

[popeye1945]

Be very careful trying to apply thinking based on genetic theory valid for individual animals to social animals. In the latter case, you need to consider whether the individual animal is best off DIRECTLY maximizing passing on its genes or INDIRECTLY doing so by aiding a larger number of kin sharing those genes. The point is that social animals don't evolve unless the latter is true.

We humans have been social animals fr longer than we have been human.

Consider the argument that has been made in this discussion that timor mortis should decrease past reproductive age. WHY? The very fact that we evolved to live a generation older than our reproductive age should tell you that THIS (extended lifespan) benefited the genes of the grandparent (no longer DIRECTLY passing on genes).

Epigenetics shines new light on the topic of how the environment influences the generations like ripples through a still pond. Although it does not alter the integrity of one's genetic information, it does affect which genes are on or off. This is not speculation but well-established science. The effects of trauma can and are handed down through the generations. This is getting off topic, but the fear of death is common to all organisms, hardwired through the fact that in nature, life lives upon life, symbolically, the snake consuming its own tail. This is rather a constant trauma and is our inheritance, though somewhat blurred by the complexities of society. Death stalks organisms through hunger and its predatory nature to survive. This fairly recent insight into epigenetics is mind-blowingly applicable to many realms of human endeavor, not least of which is the complexity of human self-control.

[MikeNovack]

You persist in discussing in terms of the individual organism which I am suggesting is not necessarily valid for social organisms.

We are humans, not orangutans (to give an example of a relative that is not social)

Please note that throughout a lot of the history of Philosophy it has been assumed there must have existed a time where "man" lived in some primitive state as an individual (like orangutans do) or as single nuclear families (as gibbons do). This is not the case for us humans. It's not just us, but also for our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. Probably our "last common ancestor" was a social animal.

The rules for what is in "the best interest of our genes" are not the same for social animals as for animals living individually.

Epigenisis is something entirely different, related to how genes "work". For example, a gene that produces a defense chemical might be normally "off" (so cell energy not wasted when that chemical not needed). But in the presence of some other chemical (produced as the result of invasion by a disease organism) might turn "on".

[Impenitent]

All fears are the fear of death, and any derivative can be linked back to the primary fear of death. Your thoughts?

death by calculus...

-Imp

[popeye1945]

You persist in discussing in terms of the individual organism which I am suggesting is not necessarily valid for social organisms.

We are humans, not orangutans (to give an example of a relative that is not social)

Please note that throughout a lot of the history of Philosophy it has been assumed there must have existed a time where "man" lived in some primitive state as an individual (like orangutans do) or as single nuclear families (as gibbons do). This is not the case for us humans. It's not just us, but also for our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos. Probably our "last common ancestor" was a social animal.

The rules for what is in "the best interest of our genes" are not the same for social animals as for animals living individually.

Epigenesis is something entirely different, related to how genes "work". For example, a gene that produces a defense chemical might be normally "off" (so cell energy not wasted when that chemical not needed). But in the presence of some other chemical (produced as the result of invasion by a disease organism) might turn "on".

I am afraid you are mistaken; all organisms are fearful of death; it is hardwired by the evolutionary process. I suspect even on a microscopic scale. There is a possibility that terms mean different things to different people. So, I'll state here that to me, any organism that can fear for its life is conscious, and that takes in biology in its entirety. No species is entirely anti-social; the will of the species takes care of that in its desire to continue in being. Ok, I've been doing a bit more research and see where you are coming from. It seems to rest on humans not thinking that other animals can grasp the concept of death as non-existence, which seems a bit like splitting hairs. They are fearful and know when they are in danger. What is it like to be a bat comes to mind. I do see your point, but I think we should stay open-minded about it. It wasn't very long ago that they didn't believe the trees in the forest were conscious. Read Brilliant Green and you will never walk in the forest in quite the same way. You've made me think, though. I do that at least twice a year! Enjoying your input!

[MikeNovack]

Ok, I've been doing a bit more research and see where you are coming from. It seems to rest on humans not thinking that other animals can grasp the concept of death as non-existence, which seems a bit like splitting hairs.

No, that is NOT what I am talking about, nor do I believe we differ from other animals by kind (just degree). I believe in evolution (with all that entails).

I am talking about how evolution works for SOCIAL ANIMALS. The traits and behaviors that will evolve will be those that result in the greater number of copies of the genes of the individual surviving in any case (social or non-social animals). The difference is that for non-social animals that can only be direct (offspring of the individual) but for social animals can be indirect (genes shared with close kin)

That's why "altruism" can evolve in social animals. By social animals not meaning animals that live in schools, flocks, herds, etc. of more or less unrelated individuals but ones which live in groups of related animals.

[popeye1945]

Ok, I've been doing a bit more research and see where you are coming from. It seems to rest on humans not thinking that other animals can grasp the concept of death as non-existence, which seems a bit like splitting hairs.

No, that is NOT what I am talking about, nor do I believe we differ from other animals by kind (just degree). I believe in evolution (with all that entails).

I am talking about how evolution works for SOCIAL ANIMALS. The traits and behaviors that will evolve will be those that result in the greater number of copies of the genes of the individual surviving in any case (social or non-social animals). The difference is that for non-social animals, that can only be direct (offspring of the individual) but for social animals can be indirect (genes shared with close kin)

That's why "altruism" can evolve in social animals. By social animals not meaning animals that live in schools, flocks, herds, etc. of more or less unrelated individuals but ones which live in groups of related animals.

Self-interest in the continuation of one's genes through relations is not hard to understand, a little less intense than being interested in the flourishing of one's direct progeny. Where are you going with this concerning the topic that all fear is the fear of death? Modernity has moved away from living in groups of related individuals, but there is identification with others, and so compassion arises even in this situation. Altruism is sometimes active across species; it takes seeing other creatures as capable of both joy and suffering, which makes consuming them somewhat more disturbing. Life lives upon life is what the gods have created for their amusement--- come to Jesus! Did you read Richard Dawkins ' "The Selfish Gene?" Good to keep in mind that it's one great family tree, and we are all related, different patterns, same essence.

[MikeNovack]

Self-interest in the continuation of one's genes through relations is not hard to understand, a little less intense than being interested in the flourishing of one's direct progeny. Where are you going with this concerning the topic that all fear is the fear of death? Modernity has moved away from living in groups of related individuals, but there is identification with others, and so compassion arises even in this situation. Altruism is sometimes active across species; it takes seeing other creatures as capable of both joy and suffering, which makes consuming them somewhat more disturbing. Life lives upon life is what the gods have created for their amusement--- come to Jesus! Did you read Richard Dawkins ' "The Selfish Gene?" Good to keep in mind that it's one great family tree, and we are all related, different patterns, same essence.

THAT is my point. "Modernity" is irrelevant when you are discussing our biological evolution. We have been living in groups of related individuals for 99.9% of our existence as a species.

But as for extending to others (even other species) you are making an assumption of "what as been coded". Evolution works by coding whatever works (to have the result of increasing the number of copies of the gene). Even if that happens to be indirect/imprecise.Thus BECAUSE living in groups of related individuals, JUST act in altruistic way "works" to increase copies of the gene. No need to evolve the much more complex "act in altruistic way if/f the other is a close relative. The latter is more precise BUT the simpler version likely to evolve first because in practice, good enough.

[popeye1945]

Self-interest in the continuation of one's genes through relations is not hard to understand, a little less intense than being interested in the flourishing of one's direct progeny. Where are you going with this concerning the topic that all fear is the fear of death? Modernity has moved away from living in groups of related individuals, but there is identification with others, and so compassion arises even in this situation. Altruism is sometimes active across species; it takes seeing other creatures as capable of both joy and suffering, which makes consuming them somewhat more disturbing. Life lives upon life is what the gods have created for their amusement--- come to Jesus! Did you read Richard Dawkins ' "The Selfish Gene?" Good to keep in mind that it's one great family tree, and we are all related, different patterns, same essence.

THAT is my point. "Modernity" is irrelevant when you are discussing our biological evolution. We have been living in groups of related individuals for 99.9% of our existence as a species.

Interesting, so modernity is going against the grain of evolutionary programming. All the fashionable political movements of today tend to overlook the fact that they are going against human nature. I have often said the politically incorrect statement that evolution does not follow fashion. It does seem to be a foolish means of creating chaos. Modernity is but a link in the same chain of events and processes that one calls evolution and is no less significant than any other period to the ongoing story.

But as for extending to others (even other species) you are making an assumption of "what as been coded". Evolution works by coding whatever works (to have the result of increasing the number of copies of the gene). Even if that happens to be indirect/imprecise.Thus BECAUSE living in groups of related individuals, JUST act in altruistic way "works" to increase copies of the gene. No need to evolve the much more complex "act in altruistic way if/f the other is a close relative. The latter is more precise BUT the simpler version likely to evolve first because in practice, good enough. [/quote]

The nature of our beastly nature is such that we do not know the whole story. The fact that we, as humans, can identify ourselves with other creatures not of our own kind is a commonality. This dialogue seems to be getting further and further away from the premise. All fear is the fear of death. Perhaps if you find yourself in disagreement, it would be helpful to use some practical examples.

[MikeNovack]

Interesting, so modernity is going against the grain of evolutionary programming. All the fashionable political movements of today tend to overlook the fact that they are going against human nature. I have often said the politically incorrect statement that evolution does not follow fashion. It does seem to be a foolish means of creating chaos. Modernity is but a link in the same chain of events and processes that one calls evolution and is no less significant than any other period to the ongoing story.

Not exactlt .... we had been talking about biological evolution, and how that is effected by animals being social animals. But many social animals ALSO have "culture". Culture is also subject to evolutionary pressure but it is not biological/genetic. If there are no pressures to change, can be very stable (rules of children's games stable ~!000 generations! *<< the transmission generation in this case 2-3 years; children learn "the right way to play" from children 2-3 years older >> On the other hand, pressure or introduction of new technology can result in change over just 2-3 human generations as to make cultures almost unrecognizable**..

* You would recognize the hopscotch layout in the streets of Pompeii

** Most of the Native American tribes that were buffalo hunting horse nomads when encountered had been river bottom farmers a hundred years earlier. The technological change was introduction of the horse.

[popeye1945]

Interesting, so modernity is going against the grain of evolutionary programming. All the fashionable political movements of today tend to overlook the fact that they are going against human nature. I have often said the politically incorrect statement that evolution does not follow fashion. It does seem to be a foolish means of creating chaos. Modernity is but a link in the same chain of events and processes that one calls evolution and is no less significant than any other period to the ongoing story.

Not exactlt .... we had been talking about biological evolution, and how that is effected by animals being social animals. But many social animals ALSO have "culture". Culture is also subject to evolutionary pressure but it is not biological/genetic. If there are no pressures to change, can be very stable (rules of children's games stable ~!000 generations! *<< the transmission generation in this case 2-3 years; children learn "the right way to play" from children 2-3 years older >> On the other hand, pressure or introduction of new technology can result in change over just 2-3 human generations as to make cultures almost unrecognizable**..

* You would recognize the hopscotch layout in the streets of Pompeii

** Most of the Native American tribes that were buffalo hunting horse nomads when encountered had been river bottom farmers a hundred years earlier. The technological change was introduction of the horse.

This is all very impressive, but try to tie it back to the topic.

[MikeNovack]

This is all very impressive, but try to tie it back to the topic.

Uh, you don't think CULTURE plays a role in things like "fear of death"?

For example, in the sub-culture "military" one of the most important parts of training into this subculture is to replace that with "fear of letting down one's buddies". More generally, culture has a great deal to say about how people of that culture fear death.

[Alexiev]

This is all very impressive, but try to tie it back to the topic.

Uh, you don't think CULTURE plays a role in things like "fear of death"?

For example, in the sub-culture "military" one of the most important parts of training into this subculture is to replace that with "fear of letting down one's buddies". More generally, culture has a great deal to say about how people of that culture fear death.

Another example: Perhaps the Christian martyrs feared God more than they feared death.