What is the ultimate drive of humanity?
Originally, me and my friend hypothesized that the main drive for humanity was love. Love is too vague of a term though, the broadness of the term and various context of which it can be associated with, cannot fully describe the drive for humanity. Yes, love for an individual’s interests and what makes them happy is a drive, and without love for these things, passion and initiative would be lost, thus, impeding humanity’s progression. After further contemplation, we reconsidered our original thought, we looked for the ultimate love of humanity, if love is a very powerful drive, then the strongest love of humanity must be the main drive. We then concluded that the love of knowledge is our ultimate love, we are all on a quest for knowledge, we just decide on different topics to gain knowledge in, it is the thing we love and are most prideful of. This conclusion led to the thought of, in our quest for knowledge we create opinions and beliefs, and we all share the want to spread our own belief, because as we spread this we gain power often times, and this power is what feeds our ego the most. So the ultimate drive, must be, as Nietzsche said is the will to power
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
To matter. To be important and to have significance, to someone or something. When you fall in love, you become important and significant to that person. When you have sex, you are attempting to reproduce in order to carry your genes on to the next generation because you want to have a lasting impact. We drive to make a difference in the world because we want to have an impact. When we contemplate the vastness of the cosmos, and the sheer number of humans who have lived and will live, all we can do is hope that we make our seemingly insignificant lives significant.
Yes, that is very true when all said and done.
But cutting to the core of the “drive” of humanity — most people don’t keep going because they want to make their life significant, it’s the reason why they want to make their life significant that drives them.
There are so many different “life-after-death” beliefs around the world, it’s impossible to categorize it so loosely, but we all know that we’re going to die and whether or not you think there’s an afterlife you still know that there is a chance that it just stops, I’m sure some of the most devout people must keep it in their mind that the chance, however small, is present. Therefore, the notion that their lives are driven by the significance of their life isn’t materialistic enough for the world we know, but the need for social status and material response of our significance is what drives us.
its our search for meaning that drives us, its explained quite well by Viktor Frankl in his book “Man’s search fro meaning” and this quote sums it up very well at least it did for me
“to live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering. If there is a purpose in life at all, there must be a purpose in suffering and in dying.”
While all of these might be somewhat right, I think many of them can be represented by concepts @cj420weeks mentioned, though maybe not in the way intended. First, I would like to expand on “love”. Love, while potentially abstract (e.g. love of knowledge), can also be more specific and human. Insofar as it is possible to love another person and in turn be loved back, it could be said that love is also about being connected. To speak more broadly, the will to connect to others could be called “communal” motives.
Being your own person is also important too, however. Striving for personal mastery and asserting one’s self are things that most people to some degree desire and seek. These could be considered motives of Agency.
Together agency and communion can combine to represent motives which are blends of the two dimensions. It is important to note that sometimes we are motivated to be submissive and sometimes even cold (non-communal), but in general we all seek relationships with others and personal achievement.
A lot of what I said comes from Timothy Leary’s Interpersonal Circumplex model (there was a reason he made it to Harvard… he did legitimate research)
that cant be entirely true tho, look at gay couples yes they have sex but they are in no way passing on their genes in fact they are going against “evolutionary priority” by existing if procreation is the drive of humanity.
i hold that our drive is our search for meaning, be that in our self’s our experiences the world around us or the cosmos them self’s… we are always assigning some kind of meaning to the things places and people around us
But they still fuck right? The question isn’t whether you succeed in passing on your genes. It’s following your instincts and your urges for sexual copulation. Looking for meaning is a secondary cognitive goal. If your asking what drives us, more people in the world are driven to bone than those driven towards esoteric philosophical ideals.
I think the ultimate drive of humanity is to be the best they can be and contribute while doing so. Everyone wants to follow their dreams, meet the person of their dreams and feel like they made a difference along the way. I think the whole biological aspect is bullshit. How many people grow up with a lifelong goal to fuck and have kids? There is plenty of people out there who find their bliss without passing their genes along.
You guys seem so stuck on sex! Do you really think sex is the point of all this? If so, you are deeply mistaken and/or are missing out on things about existence.
Posters are perhaps figuring the question to be asking, what drives humanity the most? I believe that is a less than optimal way to ask and answer the question.
Instead, consider: What is the force that drives humanity onward? What has driven it to survive, including sexually? What is the direction of this drive’s momentum and what does this tell us about the true nature of the drive itself?
The sexual drive is merely the means by which life must continue. I am quite sure that it in and of itself is NOT what drives humanity, but simply what keeps humanity driving.
I am sure that the drive of humanity is greater understanding of itself in the cosmic sense. That is to say that the very point of the cosmos making mankind is as vessels to perceive and understand itself though a variety of conscious and creative forms. Mankind has been moving with gusto towards our level of self-understanding at all times leading up to now and there’s no sign of this stopping!
The signs of the fall of sexual dominance came long ago. We cannot do without our sexual drive, but over 100,000 years ago more factors became involved in the motion of our evolutionary direction than sex alone. We developed SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS and birthed a part of ourselves that has little to do with the animal drives of simple-consciousness.
As we have elevated to new levels of consciousness and self-understanding, so will we continue!
So your saying that 7,026,869,615 humans are driven by a quest for greater understanding of itself in the cosmic sense. I’m sure like 85% of people in the world won’t even know what that statement means.
Yes YOU can say that that statement applies to YOU, but can you make that statement for all of humanity?
@comicsanmc, yes I can most definitely make that statement for all humanity.
Whether or not what I’m describing surfaces in every individual is irrelevant. The motion of humanity is undeniably this. There is a time when only select few humans had the self-consciousness that we all enjoy today, and when NO human would understand a single word of this. Yet today, the heigher consciousness and immense self-understanding of humanity is self-evident and obvious.
85% of people may not understand what the statement means, but they are all self-conscious beings! Over 100,000 years ago none of such existed at all. Yet, out of the millions that pass, this motion is obvious and stands today as its own evidence!
The fact that there are few today that exemplify the FUTURE of this motion does not prove wrong that this motion is proven already from the past and present.
The fact that this is the undertone of all evolution of consciousness shows that it’s also the undercurrent of people’s behaviours today including sexual behaviours.
I’d have to disagree with that statement. I think that consciousness evolved as a way to make us a more successful species. An Excerpt from Michio Kaku:
“Scientists are now understanding the true nature of emotions. First emotions tell us what is good for us and what is harmful. The vast majority of things in the world are either harmful or not very useful. When we experience the emotion of “like”, were we are learning to identify the tiny fraction of things in the environment that are beneficial to us. In fact each of our emotions (hate, jealousy, fear, love, etc.) evolved over millions of years to protect us from the dangers of a hostile world and help us reproduce. Every emotion helps propagate our genes into the next generation.”
“In other words, one of the chief purpose of emotions is to give us values, so we can decide what’s important, what is pretty, what is expensive, and what is precious. Without emotions, everything has the same value, and we become paralyzed by endless decisions, all of which have the same weight. So scientists are now beginning to understand emotions, far from being a luxury, they are essential to intelligence.”
Yes, of course consciousness it is a way for us to become a more successful species. That is more supportive of my statements than it is of sexuality being the key drive of evolution. Nature has spent millions of years developing to these planes of consciousness and the motion continues.
Kaku’s quote is about emotions, not consciousness or the drive behind humanity. Not only that, but merely what science will deduct about emotions due to the limited way the scientific perspective can decode the world. If you feel the reproductive urge is the main drive, explaining emotions isn’t necessary, as that paradigm holds that emotions are the result of such not the cause.
This is the reason I first posted, beforehand posters were approaching the idea of “the drive” from a very boxed-in perspective of a human smack-dab in the middle of the race’s evolutionary progress. In that sense I am too, so the only difference here is that much of my life is dedicated to seeing the world without the filters. This has shown me the following:
Describing how intelligence and emotions have evolved only thus-far (on this particular planet in the passed within a fearful world always on the brink of survival) fails to truly underpin the nature of the evolution itself.
The perfect unbroken continuity of this motion to the present state, having crossed into at least two profoundly different planes of consciousness each exponentially more profound of an effect on us as a species, has to be taken into account! You cannot separate a single stage of development from the whole. When you describe the drive of Being, the drive of evolution, the drive of mankind, you are describing all a single cosmic flow of self-development.
Said flow is the drive of evolution, the motion towards increasingly higher awareness of the cosmic Self by itSelf. It’s why we’re here now! The animal evolution of the past has served the purpose of creating higher consciousnesses less confined by those fears, and will continue to do so.
But your still being held down by the parochialism that consciousness is some biological end game. Consciousness and our love for it is just a parochialism as a conscious organism. A microscopic organism is far more successful as a species. We just put a preference on intelligence because we have it.
I am held-down by nothing, as I didn’t suppose you were held-down by your notions. You’re not held-down at all, you have chosen your stance and you hold it firm. I however didn’t choose my stance for it’s not a stance at all but a reality I have experienced first-hand. In fact we’re all experiencing it first-hand in a multitude of ways. You believe that a particular way is the nature of the multitude.
Interestingly enough you’re making that claim of me by supposing I think that consciousness is a part, the “endgame”, and not the whole. I definitely don’t believe that at all. My statements are clearly saying that consciousness, and development of its awareness, is the undertone of the whole thing.
It’s no “end game”, that would suppose there is a beginning or end which there is not, or that this is some kind of goal that has not yet been reached which is also not the case. The “drive” of humanity is not the type of drive that strives towards a yet-unreached goal, but the ongoing process of life itself.
You help clarify this point in fact: microscopic species are indeed “more successful as a species” within your terms of “success.” Yet, evolution drove head-first to develop our mode of intelligence. This tells me that what we call intelligence, and what you’re referring to as consciousness, is only a tiny bit of the true nature of consciousness and its intelligence. The true nature of consciousness is all-pervasive, its continual flow of developing its self-perception is the undertone of all things that be.
Now this is getting interesting. First I think we should come up with a standard definition of consciousness.
Beyond defining what intelligence and consciousness are, are we postulating that there is a cosmic bias towards intelligence? Perhaps some uniting factor that binds all intelligent beings no matter what planet, galaxy, or Universe?
@comicsanmc, agreed. When I refer to consciousness, I refer only to the Self that experiences. The mind is a construct of awareness that consciousness experiences. Awareness is the particularity of what consciousness experiences through a certain mind-medium.
“Cosmic bias towards intelligence” works pretty well to describe what I’m referring to here, but the phrasing sortof presupposes that there is anything besides intelligence to be biased against. Life is intelligent, in various forms. Increasingly self-aware consciousness in those terms takes a natural “edge”, in my terms as in the cosmos seems to be made up of processes that facilitate increasingly self-aware forms of intelligence.
Thus intelligence isn’t a goal, it’s a nature. In its most ancient and dense form this intelligence is implied in the playing-out of genetic coding made by arrangements of molecular elements. At a later stage, the embodiments of that genetic coding themselves then act as the coding substrate for larger implied intelligences by being parts of networks. On our level we’ve become a single self out of these networks. These developments of consciousness out of the ancient material, primordial, and primal are huge nearly unfathomable leaps in consciousness that the “coding” of the universe – the functions of the flow of cosmic drive – has “programmed” within its very nature. Yes genetics are one octave of this spectrum that largely operates on sexual information sharing, and biological network intelligence another that operate on neuro-molecular information sharing. But these are all forms, appearances, of stages of the infinite process of cosmic development of self-awareness and the journey away from density. Who knows how many there are? Or is it better to ask who knows how many we, as it, can create? Our human existence is already profoundly novel. We must give the cosmos credit for making itself into beings that are more than sexual, but also intellectual, aesthetic, and emotional in more than just a primal/fear-based sense.
Then under that definition anything that isn’t an inanimate object can be defined as intelligent. The genetic coding itself makes them “intelligent” so Life is intelligent?
But that raises a question for me. The laws of physics themselves seem to be intelligent. A sun for example is a massive thermonuclear ball of fusion. A product of mass and gravity.
Could the fact that each star is created based on a certain set of “programming” in the form of physical laws be evidence of intelligence by that standard?
@comicsanmc, “Then under that definition anything that isn’t an inanimate object can be defined as intelligent.”
AND anything that is an “inanimate” object. Remember, it only SEEMS inanimate to your relatively-macro perspective.
All of the “things” in the cosmos are forms of energy. That energy is synonymous with the rules of its behaviour and thus is a great single undefined intelligence.