The Fundamental Question

Part II of the "Fundamental Problem" Series

This post carries a similar introduction to the prior; all of the ideas which I will express here were derived by me personally, though I can't claim they haven't been mentioned or spoken about before. The literary background remains in the works of Nietzsche, Rand, Campbell, and Hardy, with lectures from Peterson on complexity and mental health.

As seen in the previous post, the fundamental problem can be broken down into personal components, like frames of reference. Another manifestation of an individualistic problem growing to a societal road block pertains to the human condition - the fundamental question. Not only does this question wreak havoc on our psyche's, but it can also be held responsible for a lot of the meaningless suffering which Nietzsche posited as the prime flaw of the human condition in On The Genealogy of Morality. The question is: How do we stop the incomprehensible complexity of our world and our reality from crushing us into depression and unrelenting nihilism?

We'll touch on nihilism more in the next post, which will look into greed, savagery, and history. We can observe this flaw in the human condition in the base struggles of daily mental health. Often, people find themselves struggling to cope with their lives. Some turn to vices such as drugs, alcohol, and crime to satiate the gnawing hunger within themselves that this question invokes. Quite simply, the question of complexity razes us to our bones. It strips away all nobility, glory, and self righteousness and leaves us as pallid atoms on a speck of dust within a sea of emptiness and hostility. According to Peterson, people often seek psychotherapy not for mental illnesses per se, but because their lives are too complex, and they cannot see a way out of the complexity without incurring more complexity.

In the life of a student, the fundamental question manifests itself every semester, which contributes in part to the dull melody of academic nihilism which I spoke about a few weeks ago. At some point, a student's life becomes so bewilderingly complex that to even attempt to claw their way out of it they must first take on even more complexity. Tests, projects, and homework pile up as victims of procrastination, and soon anxiety triggers the bitter feedback loop familiar to most students: the shame leading to sadness, the sadness leading to anger, the anger leading to harsh introspection, the introspection giving way to extrospection, the extrospection pulling you into the void of academic nihilism as you begin to question the futility of it all.

Futility is an important concept - the dark end to the line of questioning the fundamental question leads one down. In fact, there are many "solutions" to the fundamental question which humans have derived, largely subconsciously, since the emergence of consciousness. Unfortunately, few of these answers are good.

Stoicism tells us to control only that which we can, and to let whatever else happen as it will. It teaches us to be as the stone in the river, unyielding to the rapids. "Live in accordance with nature", it says, but as Nietzsche points out in Beyond Good and Evil, nature is cruel, indifferent, and utterly cold. To live in accordance with nature would be a lonely, isolating existence, devoid of love, passion, and the fires of ambition. And after all, the rock always yields to the rapids, even if it takes many years through the slow, painful erosion.

Buddhism follows similar doctrines. Though I won't claim to be an expert on the faith, it also tells its disciples to accept the suffering of life, the complexity of life, and to be at one with it - to understand it. Only then, according to Buddhists, can we begin to take the path to enlightenment. This answer is inaccessible, oversimplified, and not commensurate with societal progress.

I could go on listing philosophies. For a short example, Postmodernism takes the complexity of life and claims that there are infinite narratives to answer this complexity, and that they are all equally valid - an easy answer which fails to account for the depth of the human condition and almost invalidates itself in its epistemology. It seems that philosophy, and religion, though one can agreeably conflate the two here, has been trying to answer this question for quite some time.

The lack of a clear solution to the problem of complexity, though there are some which can mitigate its effects somewhat, makes this fundamental question a key part of the fundamental problem. It would seem that the only logical course of action would be to try and combat the complexity by finding the root cause of it in your life and trying to address that in whatever manner seems fit. If you determine the complexity to be externally rooted, question its necessity in your life. The complexity could be essential, but that may not be the case. If it's internal, then try to solve it by changing habits incrementally, striving towards small improvements.

Just like the case of frames of reference, the fundamental question can't be answered on a large scale basis. In fact, it also shares a similarity with frames in that the problem of complexity drives ideological possession to a certain degree. One can see this in the futility of justice creating the need for a Heaven and Hell in many religions; dissatisfied with the extent of the penal system of their time, ancient people, most likely those who couldn't afford justice, sought a means of comfort and invented the concept of Hell as a final ultimatum which allowed them to rest knowing their oppressors would be held accountable. If not in this life, then in the afterlife.

As our society grows more and more complex with each passing year, both technologically and culturally, the fundamental question will continue to grow in size accordingly. If left unaddressed, it will lead to even more of the disturbing trends in the mental health of young people we have already witnessed, with suicide rates skyrocketing and more people dissatisfied with their lives than ever before. Hopefully, this negative feedback loop of increased complexity leading to decreased quality of mental health leading to increased perceived complexity and so on will eventually trigger a cultural movement based around the individualistic progress we discussed. Until then, the fundamental question of complexity remains an integral part of the fundamental problem.