THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIENCE (Some information taken from “Introducing Nietzsche A Graphic Guide) Today, and preventively throughout history, there has often been a belief regarding a sense of almost absolute and universal apprehension of right and wrong, often the product of cultural walling. But we may regard the notion of conscience/consciousness as a particular and unique human trait and characteristic, but the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche in his work “The Genealogy of Morals”, he suggests that conscience is a comparatively recent development in the evolution of human psychology. The development of conscience concurs with the development of social structures, and systems of law, when natural impetus for adverse behaviour and instinct need to be suppressed for those purposes, coinciding with the development of rationality. Organisms exist in their various and befuddling ways if the are possible ways for an organism to be constituted regarding physical laws and forces. Due to the erratic nature of evolution, this may entail a creature of our level and capacity for destruction. It is likely that our species (Homo sapiens) where more destructive in order to out-compete and out-wit any competitors. We may ask, why did we, as a species, start to develop these social structures, society, and impose these forms of order on the world? Intelligence and conscience may be something for us, to compensate for our lack of sensory ability compared to other animals. (Cats sensing barometric pressure and the higher sense of smell belonging to bears and dogs. Echolocation and other means). Why we evolved to have this lack of sensory ability compared to other life is a difficult question. But this is (our biological constitution) is a possible way of surviving in regard to the forces acting upon us and the universe. This intelligence has often lead, to the belief that we are of a higher purpose, and a result and evidence for cosmic purpose. This is a side effect of this conscious development. Due to the lack of sensory ability, we develop a capacity for intelligence for invention, to compensate and help us survive. But then this development backfires when this conscious ability starts to reflect on the meaning of our placement and the purpose of it. Consciousness, as a paradoxically wondrous and awful side effect, starts to out grow and become to large to be suitable for basic surviving, as it produces and angst and anguish in the face of existence. It stimulates the absurd confrontation. Also, this evolutionary leap away from our more animal natures toward Homo sapiens (Latin for “wise man”) becomes a cause of great misfortune, yet also development in fields. With the consciousness of our natures and instinct, we start to see theses impulses and instinct as repugnant or conflicting. Since these instincts are not allowed free play and exploration, they turn inward. This is what is called “interiorisation”. And it provides the basis for the growth of somewhat erroneous conceptions, of notions of the human soul or a universal moral compass. Just as the originally free-swimming sea-dwelling creature is forced to eventually leave its former home and adapt to the land, it finds it condition clumsy and awkward, and so do we with our newly acquired “moral-sense”. This starts to impede our former freedom of animalistic action. This “declaration of war” against our old instincts can be unhealthy. According to Nietzsche... “We finally take sides against ourselves, become sick and punish ourselves”. A daily war of attrition between instinct and morality – the “gnawing of conscience” - becomes the state of normality. We may call this conscious development in regards to our inventing and intelligent capacity, Intelligent elusion. To cope with the moral angst and confrontation of the absurd condition, humans develop forms of evasion, to counter-act, bear, or forget this unknowing and numb ourselves toward our condition. We may distract ourselves in activities we invent, be that sport, board games, pubs, nightclubs, reading, work etc... We may use the sublimation of art and literature as a distraction (reflecting the human condition in a rather detached manner) to try and loose ourselves in vague wonder, romanticism and mysticism. As a tonic that forgets its purpose. Then we may of course just ignore our situation, mitigate it, and isolate ourselves from confronting angst of the universe in the first place, and not asking fundamental existential questions. And the most counter productive and harmful method would be anchoring our selves to the world with idealogical or religious creeds to fool ourselves with a sense of purpose or obligation. Sadly, the likes of Peter Wessel Zapffe, who looked at these problems, and Eduard Von Hartmann, advocated the extinction of the human race, either through the lack of procreation or sadly, and even worse, otherwise, as a solution to this conscious war and interiorisation. To combat our Intelligent elusion. When, as this consciousness produces a suffering, this path will produce more suffering, and we end with the problem of existence eluding us with its measurelessness and our lack or ability to understand our absurdity. Our divorce. (Though we were not really married in the first place). If we choose the path of suicide, what Zapffe and Hatmann choose, we admit that existence is not worth living, and absurdity overwhelms us. Existence wins. I have said all this before, but I shall reiterate, the leap of faith to cope with our condition, will produce the same problem of self-elusion and philosophical suicide. So the answer to it, is to live in revolt and keep the absurd alive. Putting the conviction of Sisyphus into our lives, to overcome our existence. We need to imagine Sisyphus happy. The fact that you and I, as individuals, are alive, and not our possible brothers and sisters who did not make it to fertilisation or were splurtted across the mantelpiece, is a result of slim chance. Your beginnings may have frittered and died below your fathers stomach. We are almost lucky to be living. And all of this is rendered meaningless at our deaths. My obligation would be to make this somehow worthy without causing harm, or evading our cosmic meaninglessness. Much of this discourse after the uprooting of conscience, and this war of attrition, is reflected in fields and areas of Existentialism. Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky both share in a quest for a sense of being at the extreme limit. Though Nietzsche was trying to finally dethrone Christianity, while Dostoyevsky, and the likes of Leo Tolstoy, sought the re gaining of faith in order to combat the nihilism produced by this. Despite this, Dostoyevsky could not become a Christian, despite his wishes. Franz Kafka in “Metamorposis (1912) the protagonist attempts to “become an insect”, reflecting the nightmare reality of consciousness. Gregor Samsas transformation into an insect can been seen as as the terminal materialisation of a sick consciousness. This anticipates the “absurd”, seen Camus 1946 novel “The Outsider/Stranger”.
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:52:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015