Depressive Realism. Interdisciplinary perspectives – Colin Feltham.

Depressive Realism argues that people with mild-to-moderate depression have a more accurate perception of reality than nondepressives.

This book challenges the tacit hegemony of contemporary positive thinking, as well as the standard assumption in cognitive behavioural therapy that depressed individuals must have cognitive distortions.

The kind of world we live in, and that we are, cyclically determines how we feel and think. Some of us perceive and construe the world in dismal terms and believe our construal to be truer than competing accounts. Depending on what the glass is half-full of, the Depressive Realist may regard it as worthless, tasteless, poisonous or ultimately futile to drink.

I do not mean to say that people who experience clinical depression should not have therapy if they wish to, nor even that it does not sometimes help. Rather, I believe the assumption should not be made that depressive or negative views about life and experience necessarily correlate with psychological illness.

Depressive Realism seriously questions the standard assumption in cognitive behaviour therapy that depressed individuals must have cognitive distortions, and indeed reverses this to ask whether DRs might have a more objective grasp of reality than others, and a stubborn refusal to embrace illusion.

I argue that human life contains many glaringly tragic and depressing components and the denial or minimisation of these adds yet another level of depression.

Depressive realism is a worldview of human existence that is essentially negative, and which challenges assumptions about the value of life and the institutions claiming to answer life’s problems. Drawing from central observations from various disciplines, this book argues that a radical honesty about human suffering might initiate wholly new ways of thinking, in everyday life and in clinical practice for mental health, as well as in academia.

Divided into sections that reflect depressive realism as a worldview spanning all academic disciplines, chapters provide examples from psychology, psychotherapy, philosophy and more to suggest ways in which depressive realism can critique each discipline and academia overall. This book challenges the tacit hegemony of contemporary positive thinking, as well as the standard assumption in cognitive behavioural therapy that depressed individuals must have cognitive distortions. It also appeals to the utility of depressive realism for its insights, its pursuit of truth, as well as its emphasis on the importance of learning from negativity and failure. Arguments against depressive realism are also explored.

This book makes an important contribution to our understanding of depressive realism within an interdisciplinary context. It will be of key interest to academics, researchers and postgraduates in the fields of psychology, mental health, psychotherapy, history and philosophy. It will also be of great interest to psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors.

Colin Feltham is Emeritus Professor of Critical Counselling Studies at Sheffield Hallam University. He is also External Associate Professor of Humanistic Psychology at the University of Southern Denmark.

Introduction

One could declare this to be simply a book about pessimism but that term would be inaccurate and insufficient. A non-verbal shortcut into the subject could be had by listening to Tears for Fears’ Mad World or Dinah Washington’s This Bitter Earth, or perhaps just by reading today’s newspaper. Depressive realism is the term used throughout this book but it will often be abbreviated to DR for ease of reading, referring to the negative worldview and also to anyone subscribing to this worldview (a DR, or DRs). DRs themselves may regard the ‘depressive’ part of the label as gratuitous, thinking their worldview to be simply realism just as Buddhism holds dukkha to be a fact of life.

Initially, it may seem that this book has a traditional mental health or psychological focus, but it draws from a range of interdisciplinary sources, is pertinent to diverse contexts and hopefully of interest to readers in the fields of philosophical anthropology, philosophy of mental health and existentialism and psychotherapy. I imagine it may be of negative, argumentative interest to some theologians, anthropologists, psychologists, social scientists and related lay readers.

Although more implicitly than explicitly, the message running throughout the book is that the kind of world we live in, and that we are, cyclically determines how we feel and think. We will disagree about what kind of world it is, but I hope we might agree that the totality of our history and surroundings has much more impact on us than simply what goes round in our heads.

Depressive realism can be defined, described and contextualised in several ways. its first use appears to have been by Alloy and Abramson (1979) in a paper describing a psychology experiment comparing the judgements of mildly depressed and non-depressed people. It is necessary to make some clarification at the outset about ‘clinical depression’. I do not believe that depression is a desirable state, or that those who are severely depressed are more accurate in their evaluations of life than others (Carson et al., 2010). This is not a book advocating suicide as a solution to life’s difficulties, nor am I advocating voluntary human extinction, nor is the text intended to promote hatred of humanity. The DR discussed here should not be mistaken for a consensual, life-hating suicide cult even if it includes respect for the challenging views of Benatar (2006) and Perry (2014). Nor can one assume that all ‘depressives’ necessarily have permanently and identically pessimistic worldviews, nor indeed that the lines drawn by the psychological professionals between all such mood states are accurate. But one can ask that the majority worldview that ‘Iife is alright’ be set against the DR view that life contains arrestingly negative features (Ligotti, 2010).

The strictly psychological use of DR has now expanded into the world of literary criticism, for example, in Jeffery’s (2011) text on Michel Houellebecq. It is this second, less technical sense of DR on which I focus mainly in this book, that is, on the way in which some of us perceive and construe the world in dismal terms and believe our construal to be truer than competing accounts. Inevitably, within this topic we find ourselves involved in rather tedious realism wars or epistemological battles between yea-sayers, nay-sayers and those who fantasise that objective evidence exists that can end the wars.

Insofar as any term includes ‘realism’, we can say it has a philosophical identity. In the case of DR, the philosophical pessimism most closely associated with Schopenhauer may be its natural home. Existentialism is often considered a negative philosophy, and sometimes wholly nihilistic, but in fact it includes or allows for several varieties of worldview. DR receives the same kind of criticism as existentialism often has, which is that it is less an explicit philosophy than a mood, or a rather vague expression of the personalities, projections and opinions of certain writers or artists.

Depressive realism as it is translated from psychology to philosophy can be said to refer to the belief that phenomena are accurately perceived as having negative weighting. Put differently, we can say that ‘the truth about life’ always turns out to be more negative than positive, and hence any sustained truth-seeking must eventually find itself mired in unpleasant discoveries.

We then come to synonyms or closely related terms and ideas. These include, in alphabetical order, absurdism, anthropathology, antihumanism, cynicism, depressionism, disenchantment, emptiness, existential anxiety and depression, futilitarianism, meaninglessness, melancholia, misanthropy, miserabilism, nihilism, pessimism, radical scepticism, rejectionism, tedium vitae, tragedy, tragicomedy or Weltschmerz. We could add saturninity, melancology and other terms if we wanted to risk babellian excess, or flag up James Joyce’s ‘unhappitants of the earth’ as a suitable descriptor for DRs. We could stray into Buddhist territory and call up the concepts of samsara and dukkha. I do not claim that such terms are synonymous or that those who would sign up to DR espouse them all but they are closely associated, unless you are a semantically obsessive philosopher.

Dienstag (2006) denies any necessary commonality between different intellectual expressions of pessimism, and Weller (2011) demonstrates a connoisseur-ship of nuances of nihilism. Kushlev et al. (2015) point out that sadness and unhappiness are not identical. But Daniel (2013) stresses the assemblage of melancholy, and Bowring (2008) provides a very useful concise history, geography and semantics of melancholy.

Here is one simple illustration of how the shades of DR blend into one, not in any linear progression but pseudo-cyclically. The DR often experiences the weariness of one who has seen it all before, is bored and has had enough; the melancholy of the one who feels acutely the elusiveness and illusion of happiness, the impermanence of life and always smells death in the air; the pessimism of one whose prophetic intuition knows that all proposed quasi-novel solutions must eventually fade to zero; the nihilism of one whose folly-spotting and illusion-sensing radar never rests; the depression of one whose black dog was always there, returns from time to time and may grow a little blacker in old age; the sorrowful incredulity at the gullible credulity of hope-addicts and faith-dealers; the deep sadness of one who travels extensively and meets many people whose national and personal suffering is written all over their faces; and the bleakly aloof fundamentalism of one who believes his epistemology to be superior to other, always shallower accounts. In some cases an extreme form of DR may tip into contemptuous or active nihilism, for example, DeCasseres’s (2013) ‘baleful vision’.

But DR need not be, seldom is, a state of maximum or unchanging bleakness or sheer unhappiness, and many DRs like Cioran, Beckett and Zapffe could be very funny, as is Woody Allen. But grey-skies thinking is the DR’s natural default position and ambivalence his highest potential.

A broad, working definition of depressive realism runs as follows: depressive realism is a worldview of human existence as essentially negative. To qualify this, we have to say that some DRs regard the ‘world’ (everything from the cosmos to everyday living) as wholly negative, as a burdensome absurdity, while some limit its negativity to human experience, or to certain aspects or eras of humanity or to sensate life. ‘Existence is no good at all’ probably covers the first outlook (see Ligotti, 2010), and ‘existence contains much more bad than good’ the second (Benatar, 2006). We might also speak of dogmatic DR and a looser, attitudinal DR that seeks dialogue.

Critics of DR, of whom there are many as we shall see, often joke lamely about the perceived glass half empty mentality underlying this view, and tirelessly point out the cliché that a glass half empty is half-full. DR may not deny that life includes or seems to include some positive values, sometimes, but it is founded on the belief, the assertion, that it is overall more negative than positive. And, depending on what the glass is haIf-full of, the DR may regard it as worthless, tasteless, poisonous or ultimately futile to drink.

The succinct ingredients of DR are perhaps as follows. The human species is overdeveloped into two strands, the clever and inventive, and the destructive and distressing, all stemming from evolutionarily accidental surplus consciousness. We have developed to the point of outgrowing the once necessary God myth, confronting the accidental origins of everything and realising that our individual lives end completely at death. We have to live and grow old with these sad and stubborn facts. We must sometimes look at the vast night sky and see our diminutive place reflected in it, and we realise that our species’ existence itself is freakishly limited and all our earthly purposes are ultimately for nought.

We can never organise optimal living conditions for ourselves, and we realise that our complex societies contain abundant absurdities. World population increases, information overload increases and new burdens outweigh any benefits of material progress however clever and inventive we are. We claim to value truth but banish these facts from our consciousness by all manner of mendacious, tortuous mental and behavioural devices. The majority somehow either denies all of the above or manages not to think about it. But it unconsciously nags at even the most religious and optimistic, and the compulsion to deny it drives fundamentalist religious revival, capitalist growth, war and mental illness.

Depressive realism may generate a range of attitudes from decisive suicidality or leaden apathy through to cheerful cynicism, eloquent disenchantment and compassionate or violent nihilism. We can argue that everyone has a worldview whether implicit or explicit, unconscious or conscious, inarticulate or eloquent. Wilhelm von Humboldt is credited with the origins of the concept, using the term Weltansicht (world meaning), with Weltanschauung arriving a little later with Kant and Hegel.

DR may contain idiosyncratic affects, perceptions and an overall worldview, the scale of negativity of which fluctuates. It may be embodied at an early age or emerge later with ageing and upon reflection, or after suffering a so-called ‘nadir experience’, and may even be overturned, although this event is probably rare. Often, we cannot help but see the world in the way we happen to see it, whether pessimistically or optimistically, even if our moods sometimes fluctuate upwards or downwards. Typically, no matter how broadminded or open to argument we consider ourselves to be, we all feel that we are right. The DR certainly fits this position, often regarding himself as a relentlessly sceptical truth-seeker where others buy into complacent thought and standard social illusions.

The person who has no particular take on existence, who genuinely takes each day or moment as it comes, is arguably rare.

We should ask what it is that is depressed in DR and what it is to which the realism points. Melancholy was once the more common term, depression simply meaning something being pushed downwards, as in dejected spirits. This downwardness places depression in line etymologically with the downwardness of pessimism, not to mention countless metaphors such as Bunyan’s trough of despond.

From the 17th century depression gained its clinical identity but the roots lie in much earlier humoral theory. Whichever metaphor is employed, however, we might ask why ‘upwards’ is implied to be the norm, and in what sense ‘downwards’ should be applied to ‘unhappy consciousness’. Heaven has always been located upwards and hell downwards. More accurate metaphors for depression might involve inward or horizontal states. But this would still leave the question of why outwardness and verticality should be regarded as more normal, or the view of the depressed, melancholic, downward, inward or horizontal human being as less acceptable or normal than its opposite, unless on purely statistical grounds.

I think it is fair and proper to make my own position as transparently clear as possible. In spite of critiques of writing from ‘the view from nowhere’, most academic writing persists in a quasi-objective style resting on the suspiciously erased person of the author. Like most DRs, my personality and outlook has always included a significantly depressive or negative component. I was once diagnosed in my early 30s in a private psychotherapy clinic as having chronic mild depression. I have often been the butt of teasing and called an Eeyore or cynic. I am an atheist.

I have had a fair amount of therapy during my life but in looking back I have to say that:

a. none of that therapy has fundamentally changed the way I experience life, and

b. my mature belief is that I was always this way, that is, someone with a ‘depressive outlook’.

Only quite recently have I come to regard this as similar to the claim made by most gay people that they were born gay, or have been gay for as long as they remember, that they do not think of themselves in pathological terms and they do not believe homosexuality to be a legitimate object for therapeutic change.

I do not mean to say that people who experience clinical depression should not have therapy if they wish to, nor even that it does not sometimes help. Rather, I believe the assumption should not be made that depressive or negative views about life and experience necessarily correlate with psychological illness.

Since I have worked in the counselling and psychotherapy field for about 35 years, I have some explaining to do, which appears mainly in Chapter 6.

Appearing in the series Explorations in Mental Health as this book does, I should like to give a brief sense of location here. In truth this is an interdisciplinary subject that by its nature has no exclusive home. On the other hand, given my academic background, there are some clear links with psychology, psychotherapy and counselling. On the question of mental health, the contribution of DR is to re-examine assumptions about ‘good’ mental health and in particular to challenge the standard pathological view of depression as sick, and with therapists as having a clinical mandate to pronounce on everything with depressive or gloomy connotations.

The line between so-called existential anxiety and so-called death and health anxiety can be a fine one, and we should question the agonised revisions and diagnostic hyperinflation by the contributors to the DSM over such matters (APA, 2013; Frances, 2014).

DR seriously questions the standard assumption in cognitive behaviour therapy that depressed individuals must have cognitive distortions, and indeed reverses this to ask whether DRs might have a more objective grasp of reality than others, and a stubborn refusal to embrace illusion.

In conducting this challenge we are taken well beyond psychology into ontology, history, the philosophy of mental health and other disciplines. The mission of this book is hardly to revolutionise the field of mental health, but it is in part to reassess the link between perceived depression, pessimism and negative worldviews.

But a book of this kind emerges not only from a personal position and beliefs. I may experience my share of low mood, insomnia, conflict and death anxiety, but my views are also informed abundantly by wide reading, observations of everyday life and friends. Mirroring the ‘blind, pitiless indifference and cruelty of nature’ (Dawkins, 2001), I see around me a man in his 80s passing his days in the fog of Alzheimer’s, another in his 70s with Parkinson’s disease, a woman suffering from many sad medical after-effects of leg amputation, another woman suffering from menopausal mood swings, couples revealing the cracks in their allegedly smooth relationships, several young men struggling gloomily to find any fit between their personalities and the workplace, colleagues putting a brave face on amid insane institutional pressures and the list of merely first world suffering could go on and on.

The sources of this common brutalism are biological and social. The examples of suffering easily outnumber any clear examples of the standard optimistic depiction of happy humans, yet this latter narrative continues to assert itself, backed up by cheerful statistics and miserabilism countering examples.

I argue that human life contains many glaringly tragic and depressing components and the denial or minimisation of these adds yet another level of depression.

The lead characters in DR will emerge during the book. It may be useful here, however, to mention those who feature prominently in the DR gallery. These include Gautama Buddha, Arthur Schopenhauer, Giacomo Leopardi, Philipp Mainlander, Thomas Hardy, Edgar Saltus, Sigmund Freud, Samuel Beckett, E.M. Cioran, Peter Wessel Zapffe, Thomas Ligotti, John Gray, David Benatar and Michel Houellebecq.

One of the admitted difficulties in such billing is that those still alive might well disown membership of this or any group. Another problem is who can really be excluded: for example, why not include Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Camus? As well as the so-called greats, we should pause to remember more minor writers, for example, the Scottish poet James Thomson (1834-82) whose The City of Dreadful Night captures perfectly many DR themes (see Chapter 4). Sloterdijk (1987) included in his similar ‘cabinet of cynics’ an idiosyncratic trawl from Diogenes to Heidegger; Feld’s (2011) ‘children of Saturn’ features Dante and Ficino.

In truth DRs may be scattered both interdisciplinarily and transhistorically (Breeze, 2014). To some extent questions of DR membership are addressed in the text, but it is true to say such discriminations are not my main focus.

This book is structured loosely by disciplines in order to demonstrate the many sources and themes involved. My treatment of these disciplines will not satisfy experts in those disciplines and must appear at times náive, imprecise or inaccurate, but these fields impinge on us, claim to define how we live and suffer and what remedies might exist. In another kind of civilisation we might have no such epistemological divisions. I look at how these disciplines inform DR but also use DR as critical leverage to examine their shortcomings.

Hence, Chapter 1 excavates some of the relevant evolutionary and common historical themes.

Chapter 2 looks at some religious themes and the theologies explicating these, as well as the contemporary fascination with spirituality and its downsides.

In Chapter 3 I examine a number of philosophical themes connecting with DR.

Some examples in literature and film are analysed in Chapter 4.

Psychology comes into focus in Chapter 5, to be complemented and contrasted with psychotherapy and the psychological therapies in Chapter 6.

In Chapter 7 socio-political themes are scrutinised insofar as they illustrate DR.

I then move on to science, technology and the future in Chapter 8, again in order to depict the dialectic between these and DR.

The ‘lifespan and everyday life’ is the focus of Chapter 9, which takes a partial turn away from academic disciplines to the more experiential.

Arguments against DR, as comprehensive as I can make them in a concise form, comprise Chapter 10, while the final chapter envisages the possible utility of DR.

One of the many things DRs find depressing about the societies we live in is that those of us shaped ironically by twisted educational systems to think and write about such matters, and lucky to find a haIf-accommodating employment niche, are likely to be in or associated with academia. This institution has survived for many centuries and in spite of its elitist niche remains somewhat influential, although far less influential than its personnel imagine.

In its current form it is being ravaged by the so-called new public management but at the same time in its social science, arts and humanities departments is defiantly dominated by left-wing academics whose writing style is often highly symbolic, obfuscatory, arguably often meaningless (Sokal, 2009) and designed for coded communication with a mere minutiae of the general population, that is, academic peers.

On the other hand, academia can also suffer from a kind of censorship-by-demand-for-evidence, meaning that common observation, subjectivity and anecdote are erased or downgraded and a statistics inebriated tyranny reigns supreme. Once when presenting some of the themes in this book to an academic ‘research group’, I was told I had cherry-picked too many bad examples, as if my colleagues were all paragons of balanced argument and nothing short of watertight pseudo-objectivity could be tolerated: in my view this itself is an example of silencing the DR nihilism that threatens an uncritically ‘life is good’ assumption.

A dilemma facing anyone who hopes to capture the essence of depressive realism and the parrhesia within it concerns the style in which to write and the assumptions and allusions to make. Universities seem barely fit for purpose any longer, or their purpose is unclear and some have predicted their demise (Readings, 1997; Evans, 2005). This should not surprise us, on the contrary, we should learn to expect such decline as an inescapable part of the entropy of human institutions but it is a current aspect of our depressing social landscape.

I have only partly followed the academic convention of obsessively citing evidence and precise sources of evidence. In some cases, where no references are given, my figures and examples derive from unattributed multiple internet sources; I do not necessarily make any claims to authority or accuracy, and the reader should check on sources if he or she has such a need. In many instances I use terms such ‘many people believe’, which might irritate conventional social scientists. I also use anecdote, opinion and naturalistic observations fairly freely. Academic discourse is, I think, very similar to the ‘rhetoric’ exposed by Michelstaedter (2004), in contrast with the persuasion of personally earned insights and authentic observation, as Kierkegaard too would have recommended.

A confession. What appears above is what is expected of a writer, a logical outline, a promise of reading pleasures to come and of finding and offering meaning even in the teeth of meaninglessness (a trick accomplished by the sophistry of Critchley [1997], among other academic prestidigitators). As I moved from the publisher’s acceptance of my proposal to the task of actual composition I began to wonder if I could in fact do it. ‘Let’s do this thing’ is a common American expression of committed and energetic project initiation. As befits a text on depressive realism, the author is bedevilled by doubt: more of a Beckettian ‘is this thing even worth beginning?’ The topic is so massive that one is suffocated on all sides by the weight of precedents and related information, the beckoning nuances, the normative opposition to it and the hubris of attempting it. I anguished over the possibility of a subtitle, something like ‘perspectives on pointlessness’, that might convey a mixture of nihilism and humour. Such are our needs for and struggles with sublimation, and our neophilia, that it is tempting not to bother. However, here it is.

Chapter 1

Big history, anthropathology and depressive realism

Can we say there is something intrinsically fantastic (unlikely), admirable (beautifully complex) and simultaneously tragic (entropically doomed from the outset) about the universe? And about ourselves, the only selfconscious part of the universe as far as we know, struggling to make sense of our own existence, busily constructing and hoping for explanations even as we sail individually and collectively into oblivion? Was the being or something that came out of nothing ever a good thing (a random assertion of will in Schopenhauerian terms), a good thing for a while that then deteriorated, a good thing that has its ups and downs but will endure or a good thing that must sooner or later end? Or perhaps neither good nor bad?

Depressive realism looks not only to the distant future but into the deepest past, interpreting it as ultimately negatively toned.

It is quite possible and indeed common practice for depressive realists and others to explicate their accounts without recourse to history. It appears that much contemporary academic discourse, certainly in the social sciences, is tacitly structured abiologically and ahistorically, as if in spite of scientific accounts we have not yet accepted any more than creationists that we are blindly evolved and evolving beings. In other words, in spite of much hand-wringing, many maintain a resignedly agnogenic position as regards the origins of the human malaise: we do not and may never know the causes.

But we have not appeared from nowhere, we are not selfcreating or God-created, we were not born as a species a few hundred or a few thousand years ago, we are not in any deep sense merely Plato’s heirs. Neither Marxist dialectical materialism nor Engels’ dialectics of nature capture the sheer temporal depth of evolution and its ultimate cosmogony (Shubin, 2014). Existence, beyond the animal drive to survive, is atheleological and unpromising. Religious and romantic theleologies largely avoid examination of our material roots and probable limits. From a certain DR perspective it is not only the future that has a dismal hue; an analysis of the deep past also yields much sorry material.

My preference is to begin with certain historical and materialist questions. The reasoning behind this is that (a) we have accounts of and claims to explain the existence of life as once benign but having become at some stage corrupt; (b) we might find new, compelling explanations for the negative pathways taken by humanity; (c) recorded observations of human tragedy that can be loosely called depressive realism are found in some of the earliest literature; (d) this procedure helps us to compare large scale and long-term DR propositions with relevant microphenomena and transient patterns. This anchorage in deep history does not necessarily imply a materialist reductionism to follow but it tends, I believe, to show a ceaselessly adaptive, evolutionarily iterative process and entropic trajectory via complexity.

The emerging disciplines of deep and big history challenge the arbitrary starting points, divisions and events of traditional history by going back to the earliest known of cosmic and non-human events, charting any discernible patterns and drawing tentative conclusions. Spier (2011) offers an excellent condensed account of this kind, but we probably need to add as a reinforcer the argument from Kraus (2012) that something from nothing is not only possible but inevitable and explicable by scientific laws. Indeed, it is necessary to begin here as a way of further eroding theistic claims that want to start with God and thereby insist on God’s (illusory) continuing sustenance and guiding purpose.

It is not the creation ex nihilo of the mythological, pre-scientific God, the omnipotent being who brought forth the universe from chaos that any longer helps us to understand our world, but modern science.

We do not know definitively how we evolved, but we have convincing enough causal threads at our disposal. Here I intend to sift through those of most interest in exploring the question of why our world has become such a depressing place.

We are animals but apparently higher animals, so far evolved beyond even our nearest relatives that some regard human beings as of another order of nature altogether. Given the millennia of religious belief that shaped our picture of ourselves, the Darwinian revolution even today is not accepted by all. Even some scientists who purport to accept the standard evolutionary account do not seem to accept our residual animal nature emotionally (Tallis, 2011).

But it is important to begin by asking about the life of wild animaIs. They must defend themselves against predators by hiding or fighting, and they must eat by grazing, scavenging or predation; they must reproduce and where necessary protect their young. Many animals spend a great deal of their time asleep, and some play. Social animals cultivate their groups by hunting together, communicating or grooming. Some animals protect their territory, build nests or rudimentary homes and a few make primitive tools; some migrate, and some maintain hierarchical structures. Most animals live relatively short lives, live with constant risk and are vigilant.

However it happened, human beings differ from animals in having developed a consciousness linked with tool-making, language and massive, highly structured societies that have taken us within millennia into today’s complex, earth spanning and nature dominating civilisation. Wild animals certainly suffer, contrary to idyllic fantasies of a harmonious nature but their suffering is mostly acute, resulting from injury, hunger and predation, and their lives are not extended beyond their natural ability to survive.

Our ingenuity and suffering are two sides of the same coin.

Weapon making and cooperation allowed us to rise above constant vulnerability to predators, but our lives are now often too safe, bland and boring, since we have forfeited the purpose of day-to-day survival. We have also benefited from becoming cleverer at the cost of loss of sensory acuity. Accordingly, and with painful paradox, we are driven to seek ‘meaning’ and we are gratuitously violent (Glover, 2001; White, 2012). Animals have no such problems.

*

from

Depressive Realism. Interdisciplinary perspectives

by Colin Feltham

get it at Amazon.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s