The Rational Pessimist

Yuval Noah Harari’s 2015 book Sapiens is a history of civilization, with attitude. Trying to elucidate what’s up with us.

One topic is religion, which he deems important in making societies work. Well, maybe, when people couldn’t see much alternative. Many still think religion helps them make sense of life. (A false sense.) Harari addresses here Buddhism and Humanism. The former is arguably not a religion, largely free of supernatural nonsense. And Humanism is rejection of religion.

Buddhism has many variants; my discussion will respond to Harari’s take. He says Gautama (the original Buddha, circa 500 BCE) struggled with the problem of suffering. Produced even by life’s joys, because we crave more of that than is attainable. The remedy is to extinguish the “fire” of all cravings. That’s the literal meaning of “nirvana.” Focusing the mind on what is experienced, with no craving for something different. That way unpleasantness and pain cause no misery. In Harari’s words: “a person who does not crave cannot suffer . . . and the only way to be liberated from craving is to train the mind (my emphasis) to experience reality as it is.”

Conventional religions disconnect people from true reality, which has no gods. But the Buddhism characterized by Harari does no better, having its own reality denial. Indeed, it’s denial of our human nature itself. Its “nirvana” is absurd because it flouts the very essence of what it is to be alive. Quite simply, without desires life is meaningless.

I’m reminded of a poem I once wrote about a “very wise man” granted one wish, and asking to end all the desires plaguing him. Afterward, the “very foolish man” finds his life an empty shell, he can’t even summon the will to end it. (Read it here: http://www.fsrcoin.com/poem.html.)

Desire is in fact fundamental to human nature. Consciousness evolved because creatures caring what happened to them were motivated for self-preservation, thus more likely to survive (and reproduce, making those genes spread). Indeed, reproduction was thusly one specific desire built into us by nature.

And, as that man in my poem learned, desire is what makes life worth living. Motivating one to strive for whatever gives gladness and avoids pain; without which we’d be inert blobs, unable to survive long anyway. Something desired is by definition desirable, at least to the one desiring it. And desirability’s only criterion is producing good feelings. And feelings are ultimately the only things that matter to us. Otherwise, nothing can matter.

Hence we cannot extinguish all desire, it’s impossible. In fact a contradiction because the wish to suppress desire is itself a desire! And the effort is a recipe not for inner peace but self-torture. Relatedly, some Buddhists also urge letting go of the self as an illusion. But who would be doing the letting go? And if doing it is good for you — who is the “you?” With no self, desiring anything, what’s the point of being alive?

So — does this mean one should just give desire free reign? Of course not. “Moderation in all things.” But some people are tyrannized by desires, with fulfillment only provoking yet more desire. This bleak syndrome is called a “hedonic treadmill.”

We see one prominent example, whose psychologist niece wrote a book aptly titled Too Much and Never Enough. So consumed by desire that, even amid fulfillment beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, he’s still afflicted by grievance fury. An anti-nirvana.

I’ll humbly offer my own life experience as a counter-example. I once had a very powerful desire: for a partner. Rather than struggling to repress that “flame,” I worked hard to achieve the goal, and did — hitting the jackpot.

Decades later, what floods my psyche is gratitude, for that and so much else. That’s the antidote for the curse of craving Harari talks about. Gratitude for what one has — a focus not on desires yet to fill but instead a sense of fulfillment. That’s my nirvana.

* * *

“Humanism,” Harari says, “is a belief that Homo Sapiens has a unique and sacred nature, which is fundamentally different from the nature of all other animals and of all other phenomena . . . the most important thing in the world, and it determines the meaning of everything that happens in the universe . . . . all other beings exist for the benefit of this species.”

He sees humanism as “split into three rival sects.” One is “liberal humanism,” emphasizing individualism and human rights — “a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in free and eternal individual souls.” Then there’s “socialist humanism” valorizing not individuals but humanity as a collective. Third, “evolutionary humanism” — “whose most famous representatives were the Nazis,” dichotomizing between superior and inferior subspecies.

This is all absolute nonsense. Long active in humanist circles, I’ve never encountered any such beliefs there. Humanism is not human-worship. (I myself have pride in what we’ve achieved, but that’s countered by so much iniquity.)

Humanist thought actually aligns with what I’ve written earlier here. Facing the true reality of existence — as illuminated by objective scientific inquiry, with no resort to supernatural fantasy. We are the products of natural evolution (nothing sanctified). And there being no “higher power,” our fates are in our own hands. Using our reason to figure out for ourselves what’s right or wrong, what desires (yes) to aim for, to make a better world, for everyone. This is my humanism.