Why does the desire to confirm we exist exist so deep in our nature?

Question

Our confirmation of existence far out weighs our survival instincts...as desire and instincts are not one and the same.

Answer 1

I don't think that we have a "desire to confirm that we exist" deep in our nature. In fact, I don't think this sort of thought even occurs to most people, unless they are exposed to arguments from radical philosophical skeptics. Ordinary, sane, non-philosophers don't question their existence; they just assume that they exist, insofar as they have the cognitive capacity to understand the definition of the word 'exist' at all. Ordinary people sometimes question WHY they exist – wondering if their joys and sufferings play a larger role in some cosmic scheme. But most people don't even think to question THAT they exist. Now IF they do happen to come across some philosopher (or an insane person) who is trying to convince them that they don't exist, then it is true that most people will vigorously defend their existence just because arguments against their existence seem so blatantly absurd and self-contradictory. If I don't exist, then who or what is it that is questioning my existence? This was Descartes' point in the Meditations ("I think, therefore I am.") So for most people, there is no feeling of any real debate about their own existence, and if pushed to debate the subject, they will simply point to the logical self-contradiction inherent in the statement "I don't exist."

Now if you are thinking of SUBSTANTIAL existence, then we get into an entirely different ball game. Most people do have a strong belief in the substantiality of their being, and they think they have a major stake in this belief being correct. There is no logical self contradiction involved in the idea that my entire existence might amount to nothing more than this moment in time. I might have been created "full form" with all of my memories, etc. within just this very moment, and I might cease to exist once this moment is done. I can't logically question that my thoughts and feeling are what they are at this exact moment in time, but I can question whether there is a substantial self that is having these thoughts and feelings. Most ordinary people don't really question this unless they've been exposed to some sort of philosophical arguments, but if by some chance they do confront this question, almost everyone has an initial desire to defend the notion of a substantial, enduring, autonomous self. A substance is a sort of essence that can change over time while still continuing to be the same thing. A chair is still "the same chair" even if you paint it a different color. I am still the same person (the same "soul") that I was last week, even though I've learned new things, changed my mind about some of my beliefs, acquired new desires, and so on. I can imagine that things could have gone differently for me and yet I would have been the same essential person than I am now. I could have grown up in a different town, attended a different high school, won the lottery two years ago, and somehow it would have still be the same "me" who had these different experiences.

People feel they have a stake in the reality of this substantial, ego-based self because without it there would be no existence for me to look forward to in the future. If I am not a substantial being, then I will not exist beyond this present moment, so there would seem to be no reason to plan anything or try to accomplish any goals. Although this is logically possible, most sane people think it is just plain silly for a person to seriously think that they won't exist beyond the present moment, so if you try to convince them of this truth, they will strongly defend the substantiality of their being. Most people recognize the basic fact of life that they cannot PROVE that they will survive over time and be here tomorrow, but they will defend their acceptance of this assumption as being the only reasonable thing to do. I have to live AS IF I will be here tomorrow, even if I can't prove that I will be. This just seems natural, and it seems like the only rational thing to do.

Now we come to the real kicker. It turns out that we actually don't exist after all, or at least we do not exist in the sense that we normally assume that we do. I am not an independent, substantial self that exists through time. There are no independent, substantial things in the world at all. No independent, self-sustaining OBJECTS survive from one moment to the next, and no independent, self-sustaining SELVES survive either. Every THING is impermanent, including the "I" that thinks of itself as a substantial being. We are "empty" of any substantial, self-subsisting, enduring substance, but in ordinary life we don't realize this about ourselves. When confronted with this truth, we will as you say, desire to confirm our existence as substantial, self-subsistence entities. Why? Because we are living under the influence of a very strong delusion. In reality we are deeply interconnected. Our very existence and sense of identity is interdependent with hall other beings, but we don't see this. We feel as if we have an enduring essence that is distinct from the enduring essences of all other beings, but this feeling of ourselves as being this isolated essence is misleading because we are not an isolated essence. There is only One Being, and we are It. We are not beings that endure through time; we are Being Itself in the midst of creating each moment. Being takes many different perspectives upon Itself, and each of us at any given moment is one of these perspectives. My ego-centered self does not endure from one moment to the next. The "I" that I think I am does not exist beyond the "feeling of existing" in any given moment. Being Itself is eternal (it is the source of time and space, but It is not "in" spacetime in the way that a baseball can be found in a particular pace at a particular time), but beings are only momentary. The "I" that I think I am is nothing more than a fleeting perspective of Being upon Itself.

Sorry this is taking so long to explain. The answer is simple, but the simplest truths are the hardest to explain because understanding them required more than just memorizing a formula or a particular set of words. So now to get to the core of your question. WHY do we desire to confirm that our ego-centered existence is substantial? Answer: This desire is part of the delusion of substantiality. In fact, this desire is at the very root of the ego's delusion. My own view is that once Being Itself became Self-Aware, it developed a form of existential angst. After all, there is nothing beyond Being to which Being can turn for comfort, meaning, or a sense of higher purpose. Being Itself can find no salvation in a higher power because Being Itself is simply all that there is. This is a fundamentally freaky realization. Being did not ask to Be and has no real choice but to Be. Being is "thrown" into its Self-Awareness without a choice, but given its Self-Awareness, it has no choice but to be fundamentally free since there is nothing beyond Being that could restrict its capacity for choice. Every choice fundamentally stems from Being's own nature because Being Itself is all there is.

I believe that this "ultra-existential" angst is the root of Being's desire to escape from Itself. Being "forgets Itself" and this forgetting is a form of turning away or fleeing from Itself – fleeing from the unpleasantness of the eternally unsolvable mystery; fleeing from the fear of being Ultimately Alone; fleeing from the fear that "if I hurt Myself" there is no one else to blame, and no one else to whom I can turn for comfort; fleeing from the sense of rage and indignation that comes from the realization that "I didn't ask to Be Here" and "I didn't have a chance to choose my own nature," so if My nature is to make Myself eternally miserable, then there is nothing that I can do about it, since I can't escape my own nature. I think it is no mere coincidence that a lot of people have fears of this sort. We are manifestations of these fears. This is simple WHAT WE ARE when we are born – we are Being Itself attempting to flee from Its own existential anxiety; we are Being's "fear incarnate". If it were not Being's Basic Nature to become existentially fearful upon becoming aware of Itself, then material reality as we know it would simple never exist.

So why do see struggle to confirm the ego's delusion of independent selfhood and higher purpose? Because we are experiential manifestations of Being's fear of being autonomous, and thus utterly alone and without higher purpose. We are experiential manifestations of Being's quest for Self-love and Peace of Mind. Initially, at least, we can't help but feel isolated to some degree because Being feels Itself to be fundamentally isolated. But as manifestations of Being's perspective upon Itself, we are actually NOT fundamentally isolated; we are fundamentally interdependent with all other beings. We are Being Itself in the mode of having Forgotten Itself, so our true nature is a combination of Unity in Plurality, and Plurality in Unity. We are the One who has forgotten our Oneness.

We crave a sense of belonging and community because we are manifestations of Being's fundamental fear of being isolated and alone. We want to love and be loved because we are experiential manifestations of Being's fundamental fear of having no one to turn to, no one to depend on, and no one to save It from Itself. But despite our natural anxieties and delusions, we can also know peace and joy because for each of Being's anxieties, there is a corresponding mood of Self-Acceptance and boundless joy. Being free can be frightening, but it can also be a heck of a lot of fun. The infinity of Being means that "Being Alone" is really a matter of perspective. As Being, I can wallow in loneliness, or I can party hardy with any number of the infinite manifestations of my unlimited perspectives. Being Alone also means I have the capacity for Ultimate Peace; I can fight with Myself about every little thing, or I can come to terms with the infinite diversity of my Nature and simply enjoy My own company.

This is why compassion is a central element in virtually all spiritual traditions. Compassion is the experiential expression of Being's capacity for Self-Love. What we know as "the physical world" is an experiential manifestation of Being's quest to Be at Peace with Itself. It is a "quest" because of Being's proclivity for existential angst means that finding Peace is not just automatic or inevitable. Rather, Being must ACHIEVE the Peace It seeks through persistent effort. What we know of as the physical world amounts to the experiential manifestation of Being's struggle with Itself. Each of us has a role to play in this Cosmic quest. Each of us is Being Itself struggling with Itself in an attempt to find the unlimited joy that is just as much a part of its nature as the unlimited anxiety that compels Being to flee from Itself. Our ego-centered selfish desires are manifestations of the fear that leads Being to suffer and struggle with Itself. The solution is for each of us to realize the impermanence of our ego-centered selves and thus realize the meaningless emptiness of struggling to satisfy our own selfish desires at the expense of other beings. The solution is for each of us to find and nurture our compassion for all "other beings" because these "other beings" are actually Being Itself struggling to find Its Path. This is why the "Golden Rule" is to "Do unto other as you would have other do unto you." Ultimately what you do unto others IS what you do unto yourself, once you understand your own nature as Being Itself.

Answer 2

Our desire to confirm and reconfirm our existence arises due to our obsession with self. It is the same love of self which translates into survival instinct at the biological level and into affirmation desire at the psychological level.

Answer 3

How if I will say to you ,we exist as rational to be the individual so that our actions is our responsibility and that is our righteousness which God demanded . Being solitary is necessary for inwardness and or subjectivity because onto this irrationality of existence we encounter a risk and pursuing onto this existence we need to have what we call faith which faith can not be itself without risk .After all of this we cannot do this authentically and it is infact a hippocricy if we are not the individual .The great thinker said God is the solitary of man

Answer 4

I don't have the desire to know if I exist...I get my confirmation every time I wake up in the morning, when my baby cries for his bottle, when my husband can't find something he misplaced, when my 14 yr. old asks for money to buy the latest video game, or when it's time to pay bills. I know I exist, and so do the bill collectors.

Answer 5

[i won't be able to assert it extra effective than the author I discovered it from, so I won't attempt.] existence is a self-sufficient generally taking place. [for this reason it "might desire to" exist.] that's no longer a made of a supernatural length [a author], or of something. there is no longer something antecedent to existence [nothingness], no longer something different than for it—and no determination to it. existence exists—and in straight forward terms existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable. Leonard Peikoff "The Analytic-man made Dichotomy," creation to Objectivist Epistemology, 148 A vulgar version of concept stealing, prevalent between avowed mystics and irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Reification of the 0. It consists of concerning "no longer something" as slightly, as a particular, distinctive form of existent. (for occasion, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such indicators because of the fact the concept that presence and scarcity, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equivalent capacity, and that being is the absence of non-being. E.g., "Nothingness is ahead of being." (Sartre)—"Human finitude is the presence of the no longer interior the being of guy." (William Barrett)—"no longer something is extra genuine than no longer something." (Samuel Beckett)—"Das Nichts nichtet" or "no longer something noughts." (Heidegger). "understanding, then, isn't a stuff, yet a negation. the venture isn't slightly, yet a non-element. the venture carves its very own international out of Being by making use of skill of unfavourable determinations. Sartre describes understanding as a 'noughting nought' (néant néantisant). that's one among those being different than its very own: a style 'which has yet to be what that's, that's to assert, that's what that's, that's to assert, that's what that's no longer and which isn't what that's.'" (Hector Hawton, The ceremonial dinner of Unreason, London: Watts & Co., 1952, p. 162.) (The reason? "actual utterances relating to the no longer something might desire to constantly stay unusual. It won't be able to be made basic. It dissolves while that's located contained in the cheap acid of mere logical acumen." Heidegger.) creation to Objectivist Epistemology, eighty

Answer 6

I think that's just us trying to not feel guilty about things we do

Answer 7

I would not say this it just depends if you have attack dogs and can out shoot majority of men LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

cause if we didn`t , then we will not be existing any more , it is about being ..