StrivingLife presents ...

Quite a few years ago I took a lower level Introduction to Biology course in college. While I did pretty bad in the course, I did learn quite a few things. One of the things that I learned was about the 'Biological Imperative'. The 'Biological Imperative', as I now understand it - whether or not it was taught like this - is that all biological beings are born/created (not in the 'Creation' sense, but rather as a way to express plants, which are not born, per se, and some animals, which are hatched, and are not, per se, born) with certain desires/strivings. These strivings are applicable to any, and all, biological entities. For this article, I'd like to discuss the Biological Imperative in various ways. First, I'd like to describe what I believe the Biological Imperative is, at it's fundamental root - at a level basic, and truly applicable, to any and all biological entities. Then, I'd like to mention how culture appears to fit into all of this, bringing in Philosophy when possible and applicable.

Please note that this is a work in progress. Realistically, someone could write a book on this subject (and I was quite surprised that 'Beyond the Biological Imperative' received no results, per se, on Google when I did a search - October 30th 2003) since the subject is so encompassing. So, therefore, I'll be working on sections at a time, not completing the work as a whole, but rather completing parts of the whole. For this reason, I look forward to any comments regarding this material, as they may help guide this article's direction.

1: What is the 'Biological Imperative'?

As stated above, the Biological Imperative is something which all biological entities (like humans and animals, as well as plants and the like) have. To put it simply, the Biological Imperative is composed of two things. One Biological Imperative, or one part, is self survival. The second (part of the) imperative is species' survival.

In other words, and to clarify, the Biological Imperative surfaces when we see an individual biological entity eat, as well as when we see it perform actions leading to reproduction. Pursuing, and obtaining, nourishment - through solid or liquid form - is a part of the first part of the imperative. Seeking shelter, such as under the ground (by way of caves) or above it (via the trees and their leaves), or under a constructed object (such as huts and the like), is also a part of this. This first part focuses solely on the individual acting under the Imperative. We could also argue, to a degree, that this also focuses, primarily, but not solely, on the present, which will be clarified after mentioning the second part of the Imperative.

The second part of the Biological Imperative, reproduction, or species' survival, is seen in every animal in a quite direct way. That is, animals act out, in - what could be viewed as - a free way. Compare an animal, for example, to a plant. While a plant depends on, in many cases, either animals (such as when bees pollinate flowers while moving from one flower to another to obtain nectar) or gravity (such as when acorns fall from a tree to the ground), and therefore do not directly interact with other's of their species to reproduce, animals can directly interact, and therefore do not depend on other animals or gravity.

Of course, one animal cannot reproduce (for the most part) without another individual animal, so animals do depend on other animals, but not as much as plants do. Nonetheless, and regardless, both animals and plants, whether aware of it or not, seek the survival of the species.

Instead of dealing solely with generalizations, let us focus on human beings, one particular kind of animal, so as to not become too confused, since particulars are far easier to point to.

2: An Example of the Biological Imperative Using Human Beings

I am a human being. As a human being, I am also biological¹. Because of this, it should be that the Biological Imperative, which I have stated applies to all biological entities, should be able to be seen within my actions, or, that is, we should be able to see the Imperative working through me through my means of survival. Then, we can compare these actions to those of other animals, to see if we can see something similar within them.

Every day, for the most part, I partake in the intake of nourishment, via various foods and drinks. If I were to neglect doing this, I would become hungry, and my actions would, to some extent, be impaired. In addition, while living within a shelter, of some kind, elongates my life, as well as making it easier. After all, being able to be somewhere warm when the snow is falling is certainly better then standing outside in the cold without any clothes (after all, even clothing is shelter).

In addition to this, I have some desire to find someone and reproduce with them. After all, I can only continue on for so long, At some point in time, I will die. Yet, if I were to father some child, if I were to 'bring about'/create something that had many of my traits, as well as some/many of my ideas (through teaching and discussion), then I would be, to some extent, still alive. They say that as long as Poe, or Dickens, or name-your-favorite is read, they will continue to live². It is the same for anyone - as long as some part of something is, the thing exists. For example, if you write a paper and the paper is destroyed by fire, as long as you remember the paper then the ideas, and in a way the paper, still exist (even if only in your mind - the words/ideas could potentially be written down again).

The question is, do animals have similar 'actions', or, can we see similar behaviors in animals? It's quite obvious that animals also eat, as can be clearly seen in household pets, such as dogs and cats. Without nourishment, we are told, living things die (whatever form nourishment may take³), and we can often see this, such as when a plant is unable to access water and, because of this, shrivels up/dies.

The second imperative - reproduction - is also shown by the mere fact that we can actually see the animals, and plants, that we are discussing. The only way that we can see a thing is if it were created, or produced. Because of this, everything came from something. So, the fact that we see a wolf probably means that it came about by reproduction. Yet, one could question whether or not human beings and other animals are quite so similar here. After all, human beings can decide not to reproduce - such as by abstinence, 'protection', or surgery - while (other) animals cannot.

Of course, this question is quite valid, as most questions are, but it brings in something which most animals do not have access to, mainly advanced rational and (advanced) socialization. We can compare this (the question) with one regarding war: human beings wage war on each other (other beings of it's own species) while animals do not. The fundamental part of this (waging war) is death and particularly the killing of one being by another, or by some group of others (however, this is somewhat perverted by the fact that one man can push a button resulting in the deaths of millions of peo?le). We can see group killing when, for example, we see a pack of wolves/canines attack some animal, typically within a herd. The point is that human beings are slightly more advanced then the other animals, just as monkeys/etcetera are more advanced then birds/etcetera, and therefore do things in a slightly different manner. Perhaps if the other animals knew how, they too would abstain from reproduction, and perhaps, had the planets the ability, they would gather up their seeds (such as acorns) and destroy them, and swat away any insects seeking nourishment from their flowers ...

Notes:

1: Of course, I'm neglecting here those human beings which are not biological, such as artificial intelligences, such as the popular example of Star Trek's Data. However, I'm not interested in ethics here, nor in Star Trek (as I'm not a fan), so I will leave the statement as I have written it, with this footnote to hopefully alleviate some displeasure.

2: Especially of note is Ray Bradbury's short story The Exiles (which can be found in The Illustrated Man, amongst others).

3: For example, nourishment could be water/liquids (as is the case with almost everything) or hard/soft food (such as with animals) or sunlight, and even air (or perhaps better, oxygen). If we continue with the idea of Ideas existing, in fact, we can also say that memory, or thought, is also a kind of nourishment.

Starting from the truth that "the world is my representation" [3], Arthur Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation lays down what Schopenhauer believes the world is. After determining that the world is not only representation, but also will, he goes on to discuss how this all works together, and how other philosophers work into this system. For this paper, I will be focusing on the relationship between aesthetic contemplation and asceticism within this work.

Before I can discuss the relationship between aesthetic contemplation and asceticism, I must first determine what each is for Schopenhauer. Asceticism is denial of the self, and the body. An ascetic cares neither about suffering, nor pleasure. Aesthetics, on the other hand, deals with art, such as paintings and sculpture. Aesthetic contemplation, then, would be contemplation, or examination, of art. Schopenhauer argues that aesthetic contemplation should specifically look for "knowledge of the object not as individual thing, but as Platonic Idea", or as the eternal form of the thing - what all like things share. [195]

Having explained the basics of these two terms, we can now investigate what the relationship between the two is for Schopenhauer. If we continue with the quote above, we see that Schopenhauer begins to lay it out for us. Schopenhauer's aesthetic method consists of two things; "knowledge of the object not as individual thing, but as Platonic Idea", as stated above, and "the self-consciousness of the knower, not as individual, but as pure, will-less subject of knowledge." [195] That is, his method consists of seeing the perceived object - a painting for example - not only as representing a Platonic Idea, but also without relation to the perceiver - outside of the principle of sufficient reason.

In an attempt to clarify, and to showcase what I believe Schopenhauer is saying, imagine a landscape painting by some famous artist. In this painting we see a meadow, mountains off in the background, a darkening sky, and a few clumps of trees. While this painting may represent - may have been inspired by - some particular plot of land that the artist has seen, the painting should not inspire that kind of feeling into us. Rather, we should look at it as showcasing the Platonic Ideas of those objects within the painting.

In a similar way, we should not portray our selves into the painting, imagining that we are, for example, sitting in the meadow drawn, or walking towards the mountains/trees painted, but, rather, should forget that we are, and contemplate solely those Platonic Ideas that the painting shows us. It is, therefore, by aesthetic contemplation that we can become ascetics, denying the self, and not allowing it to move us, allowing only the art to do so, or perhaps, only the Platonic Ideas to do so.

Schopenhauer details this further when he tells us that "when ... an external cause or inward disposition suddenly raises us out of the endless stream of willing ... the attention is now no longer directed to the motives of willing, but comprehends things free from their relation to the will. Thus it considers things without interest, without subjectivity, purely objectively." [196] Like an ascetic, the perceiver becomes "lost in the object, forgetting all individuality" or all sense of a self, of a body, while in aesthetic contemplation.

It is worth noting that the self is, as a manifestation of the will, will, and therefore striving. What the will strives towards is that which applies directly to it, which will attempt to fulfill its desires, but which will instead only bring about the arousal of new desires, of new things towards which the will will strive towards. Only by contemplating the Ideas, through aesthetic contemplation, can we be free of this striving, by losing our self in the Ideas, or perhaps equally true, the moment. It's also important to state here that philosophy, according to Schopenhauer, "can never do more than interpret and explain what is present and at hand." [271] This ties into this because we are not concerned with how it effects us - the events that will lead from what we are contemplating, which is covered under Etiology - but rather solely with what it is presenting.

Music is another part of this, both in so far as it is an art, and is therefore open to aesthetic contemplation, as well as in so far as it allows us to attend to things free from striving. However, as I see it, music is superior to the other arts, as there is no object, per se of art. That is, while when we look at a painting, or at a sculpture, we see an individual thing, that is meant to show us the way to that which is contained in all individuals of the same kind, music has no perceivable object. It is "the way in which music is perceived, namely in and through time alone, with absolute exclusion of space" [266] that better clarifies this point. Just as the Platonic Ideas do not reside in space, per se, neither does music. That is, while objects representing the Platonic Ideas reside in space - such as trees - the Platonic Ideas do not reside in space, just as, while music can fill a space, music cannot be physically grabbed or moved. For these reasons, music and the Platonic Ideas, according to Schopenhauer, are both copies "of the will itself". [257]

There is another aspect of the relationship between aesthetic contemplation and asceticism that needs to be brought up. Aesthetic contemplation is not something which can be kept up for long periods of time. That is, while we can indeed lose our self in the contemplation of some piece of art, or of some particular piece of music, there will always be some striving that will bring us back into our self. We can certainly contemplate Bach for an extended amount of time, but we will undoubtedly become hungry after a while. This is the will 'pulling' us back into a self perspective, back into a subjective perspective, as a hungry human standing in some particular gallery listening to some particular music - the music of Bach - coming from some particular, brown and black, box in the wall.

On the other hand, asceticism strives towards a permanent separation from the self, or a permanent withdrawal from a subjective perspective. While aesthetic contemplation actively pursues the withdrawal, or tearing, from the will, asceticism pursues the destruction, or negation, of the will. This destruction occurs by denying the will of what it wills - striving does not cease, but fulfillment does. When the self realizes that it is a hungry human being, in need of food, it can either fulfill it's desire for food, or it cannot. Only by doing the latter - by denying the will of it's importance - can one work towards asceticism.

Yet, in both instances, aesthetic contemplation and asceticism, there still is a constant conflict of self-negation, however perhaps stronger in the latter case. That is, while in aesthetic contemplation suffering is of no matter and is forgotten, while as an ascetic, the suffering is still there, and not forgotten, but is of no matter - or, if of any concern, only as a reason for further asceticism.

This, then, is the relationship between aesthetic contemplation and asceticism. Both require the denial of a self, of being a subject, and, in addition to that, the denial of the importance, or significance, of the will. While aesthetic contemplation arises above the will for a short time, asceticism attempts to deny the will for a much longer, even permanent, time. For this reason, one may argue that both are striving for the same thing, however, one seeks it more as a permanent solution, while the other seeks it temporarily. One also strives for it out of knowledge that all is suffering, and there is no individuation - asceticism - while the other strives for it because it is free from suffering - aesthetic contemplation.

Bibliography:

Schopenhauer, Arthur; The World as Will and Representation Volume I, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1969.

Article history

Created: October 23rd 2003
Modified: November 5th 2003; December 1st 2003; January 26th 2004; June 5th 2004

Unless you've been lying in a coma, or spending an extraordinary amount of time playing such games as Sid Meier's SIMGolf™, SimCity 3000™ Unlimited, Age of Empires II, Solitaire, etcetera, or, if you're just reading this (perhaps) long after I've written it, you probably heard that Arnold Schwarzenegger (see Running Man, Terminator, Terminator 2, Terminator 3, Kindergarten Cop, Total Recall, etcetera) has become, according to the masses of Californians that went out to vote, the next Governor of California, taking the place of the recalled (the second in the nation) Governor, Gray Davis (I personally keep thinking it should be Gary, but... interesting name I suppose). There's a lot going on with this, Arnold becoming the next Governor, and I've put off writing this page for that reason, as well as for a few other reasons... Anyways, even though I live in Wisconsin, I figured I'd tackle a few of the things that I've thought whilst paying attention to this. Here goes :)

1) Schwarzenegger the Running Man: From the Beautiful Lips of Sandra Bullock

First, let me discuss my feelings towards Arnold Schwarzenegger, while he was running. As I'm sure many of you are aware, Sandra Bullock, in Demolition Man, discusses Schwarzenegger. For those few not aware of the beautiful Sandra Bullock's line, let me fill you in on the basics (watch the, great, movie for the exact quote - she's wonderful in the movie, she truly is...). The important part of Sandra's dialogue regarding Schwarzenegger is that Arnold Schwarzenegger, at some time in the movies past (and our future, merging the two lines together) Arnold Schwarzenegger became the President of the United States ('Burn Bushs - Bring in Schwarzenegger...). One of the properties that an individual looking to be elected President of the United States needs to have is the property of being born in the United States. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was not born in the U.S., would be unable to be elected President. However, if such a property were no longer required, then Schwarzenegger could be the next President. According to some (perhaps many) the law laying down such a restriction is no longer really applicable, and could be removed if so desired (perhaps a wrong choice in words, but...).

What I'm trying to get at is that I had great hopes while following the news - I felt that Sandra Bullock couldn't be wrong, since she just seems so right. Of course, when some news came in about Schwarzenegger's attitudes towards women (very near the time when people were going to be voting) I thought that it might be close, and that Schwarzenegger probably wouldn't make it in, based on the fact that a split for the Republican's could mean a Democrat win. Please note, I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a Democrat. I used to be a Democrat, then I was a Libertarian, now I'm just me. I believe that a person should have their own philosophy, and they should stick to it. After all, that's what we all do anyways - take pieces of ideas/belief structures and assimilate what we like, not assimilating what we don't like - so why try to confine myself to someone else's system? Anyways, I wasn't seeing it as a party win, I was seeing it as Sandra Bullock being correct and intelligent in matters concerning what she knows.

2) Schwarzenegger the Terminator: Hollyweird? Only if you think that giving power to the people in politics is unusual

Second, I'm getting bored of this. I'm not a political science person, and, well, anyways. Schwarzenegger was elected, by the people, to be the next Governor of California. I'm not going to go into the various concerns of whether Davis should have been recalled. I'm not going to talk about the tyranny of the majority, or about the stupidity of the masses when they get together. I have high hopes for Schwarzenegger, very high hopes. Do I think he can help California? Well, he's certainly got some great ideas on how to do it. The only real thing I can do is keep up on the news, and, if given the chance, let others know about my views (which I'm doing here, rather poorly ;)).

3) Want to Keep up-to-date?

It should be noted that, as with any bit of news, there hasn't been all that much talk about Arnold Schwarzenegger these days, in the nationwide sense. Since I'm in Wisconsin, I don't often get the chance to read a California paper. However, I suppose the lack of news is also a good thing, since we would be hearing about anything that was going horribly wrong is things were going horribly wrong, one would think...

• http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/recall/
  • The Mercury News had a great Recall 'package'/section with lots of news regarding Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, it’s been removed.

Notes: Remember that on November 17th, 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in - now it's time for Arnold to either shine, or cry ...

November of 2004 Update:

Unfortunately, most of the information has been removed, regarding this issue. Governor Schwarzenegger has been in the news a few times, especially when Bush was making his rounds in California. He was also in the news a few months (?) before when he saved a drowning man. California isn’t in drastic problems (at least the national news isn’t discussing it), so he must be doing a good job. Personally, I hope that he’s able to continue in politics for as long as he desires, even if he is a Republican.

Created: October 13th 2003
Modified: October 24th 2003; November 8th 2003; November 17th 2003; February 13th 2004; November 13th 2004; February 5th 2005