Error Of Category

Relationships often suffer from poor communication and through the use of our faculties of reason we can figure out where we go wrong.  One area that is often misunderstood is the realm of categories.  We discuss ideas relative to an understanding of the category that contains them. 

If we say someone is acting altruistically, then we are signifying that they possess certain qualities associated with the category of altruism.  Granted, altruism has a specific definition, but there is an interpretation of behaviors and actions that goes along with that definition.  There is space for judgment as to whether someone has acted in accordance with the altruistic archetype. 

People run amok when they describe their actions using inaccurate language.

Let’s look at an example that shows how errors in categories can cause confusion. A man, we’ll call him John, has fallen on hard times—losing his job.  After several months of unemployment he is evicted from his apartment and calls on a family member, we’ll call him Peter. 

Peter says, “Sure, you can stay with me as long as you need.”  About a week later both people attend church, where Peter tells a friend that poor John has fallen on hard times and will be staying with him for a while. A few weeks go by and Peter asks John to help him remodel his bathroom, since John is staying there rent free. 

A few more weeks go by and Peter begins charging John rent, saying, “You can pay me back when you land a job.”  Still, more time goes by and John finally lands a job, he now owes Peter $2,000 in back rent.  

Did Peter behave altruistically, charitably, or was it something else? 

Altruism is an unselfish concern for the well-being of others.  This means that you help others even if there is no direct benefit to you. 

Charity is very similar to altruism in the sense that it is a benevolent act, but it can have motivating factors that provide a benefit to the person performing the act.  An example would be donating some furniture and getting an itemized receipt for your taxes.  

In the case of Peter, the situation started out as an altruistic endeavor.  John did not have adequate shelter, which is considered a basic human need and Peter provided it, no questions asked. 

Peter then chose to start telling people about how he was helping John.  This elevates Peter’s status in the eyes of other people in his church community.  This shifts his act from one with a purely altruistic nature to one with a more charitable nature, since Peter is benefiting with regards to reputation.  

As time goes by perhaps Peter doesn’t think John is trying hard enough to find a job or maybe he sees an opportunity to get some extra help.  Regardless of the reasoning, the act of benevolence starts to resemble a type of employment. 

I’ll give you room and board if you help me remodel this bathroom becomes a tacit agreement.  Except, John isn’t really a free agent.  He has fallen on hard times, so he can not afford to tell Peter no.  Of course Peter knows this. 

Now, this doesn’t mean Peter is being nefarious.  What it means is that whatever initially motivated Peter to help John is no longer enough to “compensate” him for his kindness.  Maybe John is more than willing to help with the job (and it has become a job due to the exchange of value and compensation) or maybe he would rather continue filling out applications, visiting employment agencies, and going on interviews. 

After the remodel job is complete, Peter decides that the relationship should shift again to one of tenancy.  It is only justified to expect repayment of some kind for his troubles. 

The only problem is John has no money and Peter doesn’t want to give him the boot because he doesn’t want John going around telling people (at church) that he kicked him out.  So, Peter calculates what the rough estimate of those "troubles" would be and then tells John you can pay me back when you get on your feet.  This creates a kind of informal contract between the two (formal if written down).  

Once John has found a job he is left feeling confused about the whole experience.  On the one hand he is grateful he didn’t have to sleep on the street or live at a shelter.  On the other hand, he feels like Peter sought to profit from the situation after promising to help without specific conditions. Profit isn’t really compatible with charity, as John sees it. 

While this example may be somewhat absurd, I think we can all agree that we have experienced these kinds of situations to some degree. Then we ask ourselves, "Where did things go wrong?  Why do we feel badly about a situation that we should feel good about?"

I would argue that a great deal of disagreements come from poor communication that results from an error of category.  We say we are going to act a certain way that has a universal definition, but we realize after the fact that we don’t actually want to act that way or can’t afford to act that way. 

The situation would have been made a lot better if Peter had said, “Sure you can stay with me.  I’ve got a project I need help with and when you can I’ll need some rent.  Are you OK with that?” By being upfront about the situation all parties are on the same page.  Most of our interactions are conditional, so it makes sense to clearly outline the conditions from the beginning.  

When we think about acting virtuously we need to remember to only promise what we can deliver and to be authentic in our actions, regardless of whether we are in a position of power or not.  This is what it means to act in a magnanimous way.

One of the worst mistakes people can make is wanting to appear more generous than they are actually capable of being. This will only create mistrust and resentment between parties.

How to Choose Your Lifestyle

A lifestyle refers to the way a person chooses to live.  Everyone who is alive has a lifestyle.  Not everyone, however, has the lifestyle they want.  Some people are in a situation they wish they could change.  

Others live the same lifestyle as their parents, and have never thought twice about it.  Some people are right where they need to be (why are you reading this blog if you have all the answers?).  

Here's some examples of lifestyles:

1.  Urban Lifestyle - This refers to people who like to live in the city.  Maybe they are attracted to walk-ability, public transit, entertainment, coffee shops, or an abundance of STEM jobs.  Perhaps they like the hustle-and-bustle of high population density areas or the people watching that comes with it.  Regardless of the reason, many people adore city living and sitting in traffic.

2.  Rural Lifestyle - Conversely, some people want wide open spaces, a few cows, and some crops.  Maybe they really like that Kenny Chesney song about tractors, too.

3.  Active Lifestyle - You know the gym bro types.  They want to be exercising all the time and getting their max bench press up to 400 lbs.

4.  Healthy Lifestyle - These are the types that can't wait to tell you the cake you are eating is bad for you.  Just kidding, but really it isn't good for you.

5.  Minimalist Lifestyle - If you bring your date back to your apartment and they think you've been robbed because there's nothing inside, you might be a minimalist.  Or, maybe, you should call the cops...

6.  Bohemian Lifestyle - They like art, rejecting tradition, and communal living.  These are the people that smell bad and work at your local record shop.  

7.  Nomadic Lifestyle - These people live in a van down by the river.  This is by choice, not because they can't live in an apartment.  They want the freedom to go wherever they want whenever they want.  The increase in remote work has made the phrase "digital nomad" mainstream.  Thank you, COVID!

8.  Sustainable Lifestyle - You do things to reduce your carbon footprint and recycle.  Then you tell everyone about it.

9.  FIRE (Financially Independent Retire Early) - Basically, if you are an overpaid STEM worker and can live on less than half of what you make, you won't have to work for very long.

10.  Family-Centered Lifestyle - Do you like kids?  Do you want a wife?  This is the choice for you.

There's literally thousands of different ways of living.  Since we've established that our purpose in life is to survive, it is up to us to choose how to do this.  The meaning we get from life comes from the lifestyle we choose.  

Why?  If we choose to live a life that is authentic to our values, goals, beliefs, and attitudes, then we are going to find life meaningful.  If we try to be someone we don't want to be life is going to seem meaningless, and survival won't be a pleasant experience.

Let's say that you really love to travel.  When you aren't on the road you feel anxious, like you are missing out on life.  

If you are trying to live a traditional life where you own a home and have a 9 to 5 office job, you are going to feel like a fraud.  But, if you bought a travel van and found a way to make money freelancing, then you would be able to travel all the time.  

All of the sudden life becomes more meaningful; because, you aren't trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

If we go further with this example, we can imagine that the core values of someone that likes to travel might be autonomy, freedom, novelty, and adventure.  They might set goals like:  saving for an RV or van, finding a remote job, and getting a passport.  Their daily routine might revolve around developing habits to allow them to accomplish each step of the process.

This is how you build a meaningful life.  Figure out what mode of living makes the most sense for your personality, values, and beliefs.  From there it becomes relatively easy to set some goals and habits.  

As you accomplish things you will feel better about yourself and your attitude towards life will improve.  Your relationships will also improve; because, you will attract people into your life that share your desires.  

The worst thing you can do is continue being something you don't want to be.  People that do that die while the body is still warm.

   

You Are Asking The Wrong Question

I see people getting hung up on meaning and purpose.  These two ideas aren't the same.  Usually, when people talk about meaning, they are wanting their life to have meaning on some cosmic scale.  The truth is that we have no evidence our lives mean anything on a cosmic level. We can certainly give our lives meaning, just like we can define any other object or thing that is around us.  

Purpose on the other hand is usually seen as something we discover or something that we create.  Some religious people might say that they have discovered their life purpose, which God gave them.  Some more existentialist types might say that they have taken responsibility for their lives and created their own purpose.  In summary:

• Purpose is something you discover or create that acts as a compass for your life.  It usually answers a why question for you life.
• Meaning is a definition you create that acts as an explanation for the actions you take in life.

The truth is that we can't really manufacture or discover a purpose.  We can only define our lives within the spectrum of our personal experiences.  I can't experience everything the world has to offer, so I'm making my choice regarding my life purpose on limited data.  

But, even if I could experience everything, this paradox of choice would likely lead me to question whether or not I was making the right decision.  How could one know if they chose the correct purpose?  It isn't as if it is a falsifiable experiment. 

At best we can just create a life where we are deluded into thinking something supernatural gave us purpose or we choose a purpose for ourselves, which will be impermanent.  What is our purpose?  What does life mean?  I think we are asking the wrong questions about life.  

On a biological level, we are all humans.  Each human has a decision to make.  Do they choose to live or do they reject life?  For all of us that choose to live, our purpose in life is obvious and universal.  If we choose to live then we are choosing to survive.  Further, if we choose to create life by having children, then they become part of our purpose (and we have a duty to them).  

Survival and/or replication of the species is our purpose.  And with that decision comes every aspect of life that could provide meaning for us.  Whether that meaning lies in our work, family, or something else.

How we choose to survive becomes more of a cultural question, rather than a cosmic one or one that we create purely on our own.  The society we live in has a culture (as well as sub-cultures).  So, the design of our lifestyle and the meaning we take from it becomes a matter of choosing how we make a living each day and provide for our needs, as well as the needs of our family (should we decide to have a family).  

The actions we take on a daily basis are better evidence of our wants than thinking too abstractly about this.  You can end up running down the rabbit hole when it comes to trying to find purpose or meaning.  The truth is you already have a purpose and you can define a meaning for anything.  

So, choose the culture of life that you feel most connected to and start living that way.  This will help you feel better since you will be taking action and aligning life with your values.  It also tempers the temptation to make life's purpose an overly emotional decision.  It has far more logical components to it that you might realize.  

The foundation of a good life is built on logical choices.  The passions are there for purely motivational reasons.  Once you feel a connection to a culture or lifestyle you are better off coming up with a plan for your life and implementing it.  It's not more complicated than that.  If complications arise, the cause is usually the influence you give other people over your life and/or your own limiting thoughts.  

That life is ephemeral should not stop us from living.  Simply by continuing to exist we have answered affirmatively in favor of life.  All that is left to do is choose life's flavor, which is where creativity begins.   

The Attitude of Life

Affirmation of the Value of Life

Attitude plays a crucial role in how we see the world.  Our culture has consistently held the view that life is worth affirming.  

Sometimes this view is expressed through religious belief, as is the case with the Abrahamic faiths.  Here are examples from the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an:

• Genesis 1:27 states: "So God created mankind in his own image in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

• Genesis 2:7 states: "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

• Romans 14:8 states: "If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."

• James 1:17 states: "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

• Qur'an 67:23 states: "[God is] He who has brought you [all] into being, and has endowed you with hearing, and sight, and hearts: [yet] how seldom are you grateful!"

In summary all three faiths affirm the value of life in their teachings (especially the lives of their believers).  According to the Pew Research Center (2020), 28.8% of the world population was Christian, 25.6% was Muslim, and 0.2% was Jewish.

Let's examine two eastern faiths for similar sentiment:

• In Hinduism the Bhagavad Gita 7:19 states: "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare."

• In Buddhism there is the story of the blind turtle form the Samyutta Nikaya (Pali Canon).  Here it is in verse form:  

Imagine a blind turtle, in the ocean's deep reside,
Surfacing once in a century, with the vastness as its guide.
A single wooden yoke, with a hole of modest size,
Afloat on the surface, tossed by currents and wind's cries.
The chance this blind turtle, with neck outstretched so fine,
Pokes its head through that hole, is a probability sublime.
Just as rare as this occurrence, so fortunate and grand,
Is a being's rebirth as human, to reach this precious land.

These views are far more nuanced, but both see being "reborn" as a human to be unique and special.  Certainly, they are life affirming beliefs.   Hinduism accounts for 14.9% of the world population and Buddhism accounts for 4.1% of the world population.

This leaves us with nearly 25% of the word being religiously unaffiliated (and around 2.2% in a host of minor religions we won't discuss here).  What does this group of religiously unaffiliated believe about life?

The religiously unaffiliated break down to broadly three categories of people:  atheists (17%), agnostics (20%), and nothing in particular (63%).  Obviously, there are no holy scriptures for these groups, but I suspect the larger group is influenced by the religious beliefs around them since they aren't openly denying them.  However, what we do find is that they all still affirm life in a variety of ways, mostly through a desire for positive moral actions (see chart).

As you can see, moral actions such as a strong desire to not hurt people can certainly be interpreted as affirming life.  This doesn't necessarily view life as a gift, but it does indicate that life is something special and has value.  

The American Humanist Association (an atheistic organization) affirms the value of life within it's definition of humanism: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good."

In summary, monotheistic faiths like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism treat life like a kind of gift, with a set of expectations and behaviors believers are expected to act out.  Polytheistic and non-theistic faiths like Hinduism and Buddhism see life as something unique and special that doesn't come around often for beings that are in a cycle of rebirth.  And even atheists like those in the humanist association see life as something which requires responsibility to a "greater good."  What all of these beliefs have in common is faith in something I like to call the "Big Why."

The Big Why

Let's take a step back for a moment and ignore all the previously mentioned belief systems.  Instead, we will focus on a much earlier state of nature.  I won't attempt to reconstruct everything anthropology has discovered about our distant ancestors.  But I will try to give a summary that will illustrate some key points about humanity. 

Humans have a unique set of skills in the animal world (or so we think).  We are capable of complex language, but more specifically we are capable of complex metaphor and story telling.  Evidence from archaeology, anthropology, science, etc. reveals man was capable of abstract thought and used metaphor to attempt to explain his place in the cosmos.  These stories were mostly transmitted orally for many thousands of years, until they started to be written down in more recent history.   

Humans tend to see existence and consciousness as the same thing.  This is the way we experience the world, as conscious first person observers.  Our biggest evolutionary advantage has always been the ability to communicate and coordinate our individual efforts with others in such a way as to create a culture that dominates the natural world.  A side effect of this increased cognitive capacity, abstract thought, and egoistic sense of self-preservation has led to the creation of elaborate belief systems to try to explain why we exist.  This is true for the religious and non-religious, alike.  

Altruism and the Birth of Values

The earliest human groups were hunter/gatherer societies.  These bands of humans were small and built on kinship bonds.  Typically, these bands were only a couple dozen individuals because they had to be small enough that foraging within a certain square mile radius would produce enough food for all the members.  Men would hunt and defend the territory.  Women would gather/forage and raise the children.  

Men, because of biological differences, tend to be more aggressive than women, so to reduce the risk of violence most of the men in bands tended to be blood relatives.  Women typically came from other bands in the area, this allowed alliances to be created and avoided incest.  

Because bands consisted of kinship relations between all of the members, they were genetically connected.  Biological organisms have an urge to replicate, this is a foundational idea in sexual selection in evolutionary biology.  Thus, the birth of a foundational value came from this original state of nature:  altruism.

Altruism is the selfless concern for the well being of others.  In these early human groups we see that the kinship bonds that existed between the members created the value of altruism.  Members would fight to defend other members, even if it put themselves in harms way, because it bettered the group and protected its vulnerable members.  This value is directly connected to the human desire to answer the why question about life.  The desire to build the strength of the group and protect it is believing in something bigger than yourself.  This idea has existed as long as humans have because humans aren't capable of surviving without other humans.  Our children are defenseless at birth and have a long maturation period.  This means it takes a literal village to raise a child and defend a family.

From altruism we can abstract a great many other values.  One such value is honesty.  The earliest stories from holy books indicate the importance of this value.  In the bible there is the story of Eve eating from the tree of life, being deceived by the serpent, and the consequences that came from that are original sin.  It is not hard to see why early humans would have valued honesty.  A member that couldn't be trusted was a threat to the group and the survival of individuals.  It is not wonder breaches of trust account for most of the conflicts humans experience; lies are as old as we are!   

Optimism, Pessimism, and the Idea of Progress  

Optimism is the belief that the future outcome of something will be positive.  This has been a foundational belief for humanity.  If a society has a why for existence and an ethical framework they can build a complex society.  That society, if it can defend itself from competing societies, can grow, conquer, enlarge its possessions, and thrive.  

Pessimism is the belief that the future outcome of something will be negative.  This belief has been much maligned throughout history because it is antithetical to the idea of progress.  How can you build something if everyone just believes things are going to crumble?

But, let's take a closer look at progress.  The idea of linear societal progress has problems.  Often times there are trade offs to advancements.  Improvements to technology can create unemployment in other fields.  History is filled with civilizations that rose and then fell.  The victors celebrate, while the losers fail.  The west is rich with a high quality of life, while other parts of the world (victims of colonialism) are left to live with artificial resource scarcity.  We live longer, but do we live better?  There are a million different ways we could challenge the idea of progress, which are outside the scope of this paper.  However, we can say for sure that progress is not always linear.  Setbacks are quite common throughout history.

This would seem to indicate that pessimism is at least as valid a view of the future as optimism.  That at best progress is limited and at worst cyclical uncertainty casts doubt on the future. Realism would be the golden mean between the two; however, it does not address the inherent suffering that comes with existence—casting a gray hue on things. 

Suffering: The Challenge to Life

Much like the problem of evil, which creates doubt for the existence of God, the problem of suffering creates a lack of confidence in the affirmation of life.  The problem with life is the ephemeral nature that is has.  Life is full of suffering and no one escapes it, whether you are rich or poor.  It all ends for everyone.

Let's look at suffering in the context of a human life:

• You are born into a world without your own consent.  Prior to existing you were neither happy nor sad. 
• You do not pick your parents, genetics, environment, country of origin, or anything else.  
• You are wholly dependent throughout life, for even adults depend on the strength of the economy, country, and employers.
• From the moment you are born you start to age.  You will be sick, and eventually a malady will kill you; if an accident of some kind doesn't first.
• If you live long enough you will lose people close to you.  This will bring grief.
• You may have to endure hunger, insolvency, war, and other vicissitudes of life.
• But even if life were pretty good, you still will one day die and you must live with the constant reminder of that fact throughout life.
• There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or an afterlife (like the ones in the major world religions).  Even if an afterlife does exist there is no evidence that it is desirable or good.  This leads to cosmic nihilism, the knowledge of the indifference of the universe to human existence and meaning.
• Existence and consciousness cannot be a gift, rather they are obligations, the expectations of which are unavoidable from the world around you.

Additionally, humans are pretty poor judges of the quality of their life.  Why might you ask?  Thank the hedonic treadmill.  This unique adaptation for humans allows them to return to a baseline level of happiness despite the negative events that transpire around them.  Call it an evolutionary psychological gift that allows humans to not be completely devastated by loss.  This is why prisoners can still find moments of happiness, cancer patients can still live and fight each day, and its why we can endure a whole host of other aches and pains.  

It also means that no matter how much joy and happiness you experience from life, eventually those highs go away too.  You get used to things and you get bored with them.  That's why the new from jobs, relationships, and increased material wealth often goes away with time.  

Basically, our psychology always pushes us towards the center of things.  It keeps us from being devastated by the bad stuff, but it also keeps us from experiencing prolonged ecstasy from the good stuff.

Suffering and the truths indicated by the bullet points above do not affirm life.  As a matter of fact, if given the choice, these realities might lead most people to reject life.  Why aren't most of us anti-natalists?  In the face of all of that, why do we soldier on in our own life?  

Reason and Emotions

The cold hard facts of life tend to be guided by a frigid rationality.  That we live, get old, and one day die are simply facts about life.  Many of the decisions you make in life have rationality at the core.  Problem solving tends to be a skill that is dependent on reason.  The earliest cities formed as a means of protecting resources, wealth, and defense.  These are all practical concerns.

The limits of logic and reason tend to have an emotional component to them.  Who we love is a great example of this.  We can take a reasoned approach to finding a mate, the biological drive is certainly there for motivation.  We can look for someone with the attributes, skills, and personality that we want.  But at the end of the day that will only get you so far.  Eventually, you have this list of facts about a person and you have to decide to take a next step.  There's the leap of faith.  We reach a point where we know as much as we can know, so we jump into the pool of life feet first and see what happens. 

We could say, fundamentally, that all humans have the same purpose.  As biological entities we seek to survive and replicate.  So, the purpose of life is to survive as long as possible and produce as many offspring as possible?  That might be true of roughly everyone, but few people would admit that was their purpose.  We are egoistic at our heart, so we tend to think emotionally about ourselves and this gets applied at the group level as well. 

The truth is that reason and emotions go hand-in-hand.  Without an emotional pull towards something (passion) we wouldn't feel motivation to do much.  Then what good would logic be?  

I think the reason why humans continue to fight back against the universe's indifference is because of the powerful emotions that we feel towards life.  Without those emotions we would be left with a cold rationality that would simply lead us down a dark path.  The passion we feel for life is what allows us to overlook the ugly; rationality, then, becomes a tool to help us live our passions and embrace our emotions in a healthy way.  

But never forget that a leap of faith has consequences and elements of delusion at its core. Madness becomes our ultimate justification for choosing to live (how ironic).  That's bound to create problems throughout life.  

"The realization that life is absurd cannot be an end, but only a beginning."

                                                                                        -Albert Camus

Reconciliation

If all the ways in which we affirm life are based on subjective stories from the religious and non-religious alike, and the cold hard facts of life make us recoil, how do we reconcile them in a way that allows us to go on living?  Is it even possible?

Let me offer up a possible solution to a problem that can't be solved (zen proverb).  We have often been told to pursue happiness.  Nearly every philosophy or religion recommends this course of action in some way.  Science even researches how to be happier.  Atheists and theists alike want to be happier.  

I don't think this is the way.  Let's go back to altruism.  This is the purest of all virtues for a social species like humans.  Without it none of us would exist.  Let's also think back to suffering, which is inherent to all of us.  No matter what story we tell ourselves to get us through the darkest night, whether it is Christianity or Humanism, we cannot escape the suffering of the human condition and we cannot escape our dependence on each other.  

It seems to me the goal of life isn't to be happy.  The goal of life, if we are going to create one, is to reduce the suffering of those around us.  That better aligns with our species ethos.  There are many names for this other than altruism.  There is negative-utilitarianism (a form of consequentialism), suffering-focused ethics, and Buddhism (secular and engaged), among others.  But I don't want to be dogmatic.  What I'm interested in exploring with this blog is how does the attitude shift from maximizing happiness to reducing suffering change the way we live our lives?  Many of the topics in this essay will be further analyzed throughout future posts.