CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Gut Feeling

Gut Feeling

Started by ruggeddriver21 · · 👁 5 views · 56 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants ruggeddriver21Jonathan Brooks8Sam Martinez9Amy Howard18ruggedraven36steelridge58gentlerider7Carl HughesNicholas Gonzalez87Harold Doyle3Ethan Gomez82Gerald Jackson48Casey Gomez
ruggeddriver21 ruggeddriver21 MemberOP
22 messages
joined Jan 2021
#1 ·
At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?
Jonathan Brooks8 Jonathan Brooks8 Active Member
233 messages
joined Feb 2007
#2 ·
ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

That instinct is baked directly into the species itself. An individual might not make it through, but the species survives—it has to—through reproduction. However, if we didn't have that primal drive for survival embedded within the individual, the very act of reproducing—and by extension, the continued existence of the entire species—would be fundamentally compromised...
Sam Martinez9 Sam Martinez9 Regular
361 messages
joined Jan 2021
#3 ·
ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

It isn’t just limited to humans. That primal instinct seems to be woven into the very fabric of animal life—perhaps even all of it—and if you look closely enough, it might just exist within plants as well.

ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

That is simply what logic dictates.

ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

It seems humanity eventually turns to religion as a sort of ultimate fix. It’s an attempt by the mind to solve that unsolvable equation—the fear of death—by finding some sense of cosmic order. But I don't think we should conflate the dread of dying with our basic survival instinct. One is a psychological weight, while the other is something much more primal. Interestingly, I've noticed that the fear of death tends to ebb away as people get older. As for the survival instinct? That one might weaken over time too, though I can't say for certain.

ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

Of course it isn't. Its entire purpose is to ensure that when things go sideways, we can throw every available resource at the problem. It’s about doing whatever it takes to save a life.

When the time finally comes to pass, it comes. There is no sense in fighting the inevitable.
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#4 ·
ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

Recognizing how absurdly fleeting life is... that realization should really push us to think deeper about all of this. Maybe what we're experiencing isn't the whole story:
Because if everything is destined to end, then why bother having a beginning at all?
ruggedraven36 ruggedraven36 Regular
331 messages
joined Dec 2015
#5 ·
Amy Howard18 said:Recognizing how absurdly fleeting life is... that realization should really push us to think deeper about all of this. Maybe what we're experiencing isn't the whole story:
Because if everything is destined to end, then why bother having a beginning at all?

Look, every story—from a Hollywood blockbuster to the mess of our own lives—has a beginning and an end. That doesn't make the story meaningless just because it finishes. It’s the middle part—the aimless drifting in between—that usually makes the whole thing feel pointless.
steelridge58 steelridge58 Regular
397 messages
joined Mar 2008
#6 ·
ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

Well, I’m starting to think that isn't actually true, because if that instinct were really as sharp as we claim, how on Earth could we explain the way humans keep making things worse—constantly sabotaging our own survival conditions and threatening the very stability of Earth itself?

Now, look, I can see how that survival instinct kicks in when you're facing immediate, life-or-death danger right in front of you, but when it comes down to actual planning—you know, thinking about the future and building a world where both humanity and the rest of the living world don't just exist, but actually thrive—it feels like we collectively act in total opposition to that very instinct, behaving in ways that are frankly irresponsible and irrational, even though we have both the capacity for reason and the freedom to make choices that would ensure our long-term progress and align perfectly with our basic need to stay alive.

So, why in the world don't we act that way?

The only real guarantee in life is that we won't survive forever.
And that's the only certainty we have—that we are all fading away.

That could easily apply to us as a species if this trend of being reckless with our present and our future continues.

As individuals who are fully aware of our own mortality, I honestly feel like that shouldn't be something that drains our motivation, but rather something that pushes us harder to seize our opportunities, to truly value life, and to cherish the time we have left...
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#7 ·
ruggedraven36 said:Look, every story—from a Hollywood blockbuster to the mess of our own lives—has a beginning and an end. That doesn't make the story meaningless just because it finishes. It’s the middle part—the aimless drifting in between—that usually makes the whole thing feel pointless.

I hear you, but I'm talking about the absolute end, not just the conclusion of one specific chapter... I mean the total cessation of consciousness itself. The moment when there is no longer any capacity for reflection or awareness left by the individual who passes away.
steelridge58 steelridge58 Regular
397 messages
joined Mar 2008
#8 ·
The topic here is instinct, so please, let's try to stay on track and not drift off into random tangents.
ruggedraven36 ruggedraven36 Regular
331 messages
joined Dec 2015
#9 ·
According to Freudian psychoanalytic theory, there's this instinct that works directly against our survival drive—it's called the death instinct.
Sam Martinez9 Sam Martinez9 Regular
361 messages
joined Jan 2021
#10 ·
ruggedraven36 said:According to Freudian psychoanalytic theory, there's this instinct that works directly against our survival drive—it's called the death instinct.

I suspect Freud missed the mark on this one. It is highly probable that he was actually aiming at something else entirely, because much like many other terms we toss around, "instinct" is a word where people tend to project their own varying definitions onto it.

That’s one issue, but there's another: it's often incredibly difficult to disentangle instinct from raw impulse. And then you have the challenge of separating those impulses and instincts from our other cognitive functions, like reason. We don't operate like a collection of isolated parts; a human being acts as a single, integrated whole. It's quite rare to find someone operating on just one level at a time.

Instinct is essentially what we're born with—that innate programming that shows up even in newborns. In the animal kingdom, you can tell it's instinct because it’s the one thing an animal couldn't have possibly learned from its peers.

There is a subtle but vital distinction between instinct and drive. While we can exert some level of control over our drives—shaping them through willpower or discipline—instinct remains entirely outside our jurisdiction. It is an autonomous force that simply acts upon us.

steelridge58 said:Well, I’m starting to think that isn't actually true, because if that instinct were really as sharp as we claim, how on Earth could we explain the way humans keep making things worse—constantly sabotaging our own survival conditions and threatening the very stability of Earth itself?

Now, look, I can see how that survival instinct kicks in when you're facing immediate, life-or-death danger right in front of you, but when it comes down to actual planning—you know, thinking about the future and building a world where both humanity and the rest of the living world don't just exist, but actually thrive—it feels like we collectively act in total opposition to that very instinct, behaving in ways that are frankly irresponsible and irrational, even though we have both the capacity for reason and the freedom to make choices that would ensure our long-term progress and align perfectly with our basic need to stay alive.

So, why in the world don't we act that way?

The only real guarantee in life is that we won't survive forever.
And that's the only certainty we have—that we are all fading away.

That could easily apply to us as a species if this trend of being reckless with our present and our future continues.

As individuals who are fully aware of our own mortality, I honestly feel like that shouldn't be something that drains our motivation, but rather something that pushes us harder to seize our opportunities, to truly value life, and to cherish the time we have left...

We are essentially puppets to our own biology—driven by instinct, raw impulses, logic, and basic needs. It seems to be a defining flaw of our modern American civilization that we almost always go about satisfying those needs in the most dysfunctional ways possible. Take consumerism, for instance; so many people here attempt to soothe their internal voids through the hollow ritual of retail therapy.

During the height of the pandemic lockdowns, when everything ground to a halt, I remember listening to researchers try to make sense of the psychological shift we were all undergoing. They began arguing that shopping had evolved far beyond a mere errand or a way to grab essentials. According to their analysis, consumerism had transformed into a genuine sensory experience—a small, much-needed indulgence. By forcing us all into isolation, those shutdowns didn't just restrict our movement; they effectively stripped away one of those few remaining outlets for simple, everyday pleasure.

That is exactly where the tragedy of our modern "progressive" consumer culture lies. Buying things ought to be just that—acquiring what we actually need to function. Instead, it’s become nothing more than a cheap psychological trick, a hollow distraction used to soothe the sting of being alone, miserable, disappointed, or just plain angry.

It seems our society has completely lost its way, prioritizing the endless accumulation of material wealth over the actual well-being of people. We’ve built an entire system designed to serve possessions rather than placing human beings and their fundamental interests at the forefront of everything we do.

The new shirt we just picked up is going to give us nothing more than a fleeting moment of satisfaction. By tomorrow, we'll already be back in the market looking for something else. Meanwhile, the retailers are just sitting there rubbing their hands together, dreaming of the profits they'll rake in—enough to buy themselves a flashy new pair of Nikes to celebrate the haul.
Sam Martinez9 Sam Martinez9 Regular
361 messages
joined Jan 2021
#11 ·
Amy Howard18 said:I hear you, but I'm talking about the absolute end, not just the conclusion of one specific chapter... I mean the total cessation of consciousness itself. The moment when there is no longer any capacity for reflection or awareness left by the individual who passes away.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your train of thought here. Death is the complete termination of the organism; death is the cessation of the body, the consciousness, and everything else that constitutes an individual.
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#12 ·
Sam Martinez9 said:I'm not entirely sure I follow your train of thought here. Death is the complete termination of the organism; death is the cessation of the body, the consciousness, and everything else that constitutes an individual.

Sure, I get that, but does any of it actually make sense if there's absolutely nothing waiting on the other side? Especially when you consider all those bizarrely irrational survival instincts that the OP pointed out so beautifully?
Sam Martinez9 Sam Martinez9 Regular
361 messages
joined Jan 2021
#13 ·
Amy Howard18 said:Sure, I get that, but does any of it actually make sense if there's absolutely nothing waiting on the other side? Especially when you consider all those bizarrely irrational survival instincts that the OP pointed out so beautifully?

I find it makes perfect sense. I think ruggedraven36 put it best:
ruggedraven36 said:Look, every story—from a Hollywood blockbuster to the mess of our own lives—has a beginning and an end. That doesn't make the story meaningless just because it finishes. It’s the middle part—the aimless drifting in between—that usually makes the whole thing feel pointless.

Regarding instincts, their utility lies in facilitating our existence while we are here—securing energy, evading threats, ensuring reproduction. It is all geared toward sustaining life for as long as life itself persists.

Instincts exist to help us live and survive, but they weren't designed to grant us immortality.

In fact, death is a fundamental necessity for life to function at all.

Just try to imagine a world where nothing that has ever been born has ever died. What would that look like? Would life even be possible under those conditions?
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#14 ·
Sam Martinez9 said:I find it makes perfect sense. I think ruggedraven36 put it best:

Regarding instincts, their utility lies in facilitating our existence while we are here—securing energy, evading threats, ensuring reproduction. It is all geared toward sustaining life for as long as life itself persists.

Instincts exist to help us live and survive, but they weren't designed to grant us immortality.

In fact, death is a fundamental necessity for life to function at all.

Just try to imagine a world where nothing that has ever been born has ever died. What would that look like? Would life even be possible under those conditions?

Look, I don't have anything against instincts themselves... but the person who started this thread pointed out the paradox of their existence when you consider how fleeting life is. Even though instincts are undeniably real, life still ends... isn't that interesting?
There's really no need to explain the purpose of individual instincts; I think everyone pretty much knows that, and it's not really what this discussion is about.
To me, looking at the philosophical side of instincts in the context of mortality is a much more valid way to address what the OP was actually getting at... those basic biological explanations for instincts and whatnot aren't quite hitting the mark here.
gentlerider7 gentlerider7 Regular
291 messages
joined Jan 2021
#15 ·
Amy Howard18 said:Sure, I get that, but does any of it actually make sense if there's absolutely nothing waiting on the other side? Especially when you consider all those bizarrely irrational survival instincts that the OP pointed out so beautifully?

The whole pagan mindset is basically just "I'm here today, gone tomorrow" or "eat, drink, and be merry, because you won't be able to once you kick the bucket."
Chesterton said somewhere that this kind of thinking is really just a symptom of a deeply unhappy consciousness.
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#16 ·
Jonathan Brooks8 said:That instinct is baked directly into the species itself. An individual might not make it through, but the species survives—it has to—through reproduction. However, if we didn't have that primal drive for survival embedded within the individual, the very act of reproducing—and by extension, the continued existence of the entire species—would be fundamentally compromised...

I think you can look at it from this angle, too:
The reproductive drive became so intense that the population surged right up to the absolute breaking point of the sustainable limits of Earth.
Even though that same species used that momentum to become more technologically advanced—which, predictably, just fueled more population growth—that progress still wasn't enough to allow us to colonize other planets or tap into their resources. Instead, we ended up spiraling into countless exhausting, cataclysmic wars, ultimately leading to the species going extinct on this planet.
In the end, the reproductive instinct actually backfired, causing the very extinction of the species it was meant to preserve by becoming too overwhelming.
Sam Martinez9 Sam Martinez9 Regular
361 messages
joined Jan 2021
#17 ·
Amy Howard18 said:Look, I don't have anything against instincts themselves... but the person who started this thread pointed out the paradox of their existence when you consider how fleeting life is. Even though instincts are undeniably real, life still ends... isn't that interesting?
There's really no need to explain the purpose of individual instincts; I think everyone pretty much knows that, and it's not really what this discussion is about.
To me, looking at the philosophical side of instincts in the context of mortality is a much more valid way to address what the OP was actually getting at... those basic biological explanations for instincts and whatnot aren't quite hitting the mark here.

But there isn't really a paradox there.

I see no paradox in death: organisms die from old age, and the survival instinct doesn't act against aging. Or they die by being preyed upon. In that case, the instinct functioned, but the organism simply wasn't fast enough, skilled enough, or agile enough... to evade death. Or they succumb to disease, and the survival instinct offers little defense against a pathogen.

Amy Howard18 said:Look, I don't have anything against instincts themselves... but the person who started this thread pointed out the paradox of their existence when you consider how fleeting life is. Even though instincts are undeniably real, life still ends... isn't that interesting?
There's really no need to explain the purpose of individual instincts; I think everyone pretty much knows that, and it's not really what this discussion is about.
To me, looking at the philosophical side of instincts in the context of mortality is a much more valid way to address what the OP was actually getting at... those basic biological explanations for instincts and whatnot aren't quite hitting the mark here.

Philosophy must reflect reality if it intends to speak about life.

If we understand the purpose of instincts, the paradox vanishes.
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#18 ·
Sam Martinez9 said:But there isn't really a paradox there.

I see no paradox in death: organisms die from old age, and the survival instinct doesn't act against aging. Or they die by being preyed upon. In that case, the instinct functioned, but the organism simply wasn't fast enough, skilled enough, or agile enough... to evade death. Or they succumb to disease, and the survival instinct offers little defense against a pathogen.

Philosophy must reflect reality if it intends to speak about life.

If we understand the purpose of instincts, the paradox vanishes.

What I’m talking about is the philosophical side of having a survival instinct that ultimately ends in failure, simply because everyone dies in the end.

Sam Martinez9 said:But there isn't really a paradox there.

I see no paradox in death: organisms die from old age, and the survival instinct doesn't act against aging. Or they die by being preyed upon. In that case, the instinct functioned, but the organism simply wasn't fast enough, skilled enough, or agile enough... to evade death. Or they succumb to disease, and the survival instinct offers little defense against a pathogen.

Philosophy must reflect reality if it intends to speak about life.

If we understand the purpose of instincts, the paradox vanishes.

So, you're saying this survival instinct exists solely to serve an individual who—despite having that very instinct—is still destined to die anyway!?
Amy Howard18 Amy Howard18 Member
35 messages
joined Aug 2021
#19 ·
gentlerider7 said:The whole pagan mindset is basically just "I'm here today, gone tomorrow" or "eat, drink, and be merry, because you won't be able to once you kick the bucket."
Chesterton said somewhere that this kind of thinking is really just a symptom of a deeply unhappy consciousness.

"Just live for the moment and grab what you can"... well, sure, if it lasts, it lasts... but man, that's shallow!
Carl Hughes Carl Hughes Newcomer
4 messages
joined Feb 2022
#20 ·
ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

Every living creature shares that drive; it’s basic biology. We only differ from the rest of the animal kingdom because we possess the consciousness to know we’re dying—an evolutionary upgrade that arrived just a moment ago.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads