“His modest needs are so ready to hand*... (par 21)” The savage's knowledge consists only of the means by which he can accommodate his 'modest needs.' They are 'ready to hand' in that he need not deliberate about the means of accommodation, it is already known. The savage, when hungry, looks for deer. He has knowledge of deer, how to find it, and how to kill it. He need not 'think' about how he is to perform this task- he knows how to. It is the instinctive response to his passion.
The difference between savage and animal is the 'optional' nature of the passion: his free will. To act on his hunger presents itself as and option which he may obey or disobey “...and he is so far from the degree of knowledge necessary to acquire greater knowledge, that he can have neither foresight nor curiosity.” The savage has the knowledge of how to find and kill the animal already; he need not come up with a plan or strategy. He has found food many times in the same way. His free-will is his ability to deliberate between the two passions.
When I go to my refrigerator for a glass of water, I do not need to deliberate how to carry out my action (as long as I remember there is water in my refrigerator). My passions tell me that I am thirsty and I can either choose to continue typing or go get a glass of water.** My deliberation is only in-between my thirst and my laziness to get up. If I go and return without something disturbing the process, I can preform the whole task without even paying attention or thinking about it (as long as there is water in my refrigerator and the cups are where I think they are, etc.) I have performed this task many times. Likewise for the savage, “[t]he spectacle of Nature becomes so familiar to him that he becomes indifferent to it. Forever the same order, forever the same revolutions...”
Let us then turn to the following passage: “His soul, which nothing stirs, yields itself to the sole sentiment of its present existence, with no idea of the future, however near it may be, and his projects, as limited as his views, hardly extend to the close of his day.” Let us suppose that Paul wakes up in the morning tired and wants to remain in bed. He remembers, however, that he has to make a tent today in order to buy this week's groceries. Paul is now faced with two options; however, he is now deliberating between a current passion and a possible future passion. He knows that he will encounter the future passion because of his past.
Let us now imagine Paul deliberating about whether he should go to the supermarket now or make a tent and go to the supermarket later. In this case, he is not deliberating about the future passions (he knows he will be possibly be hungry without deliberation) but is deliberating about the most efficient way to accommodate them. When the passions then arrive, he need not deliberate about them, unless they are strong enough to throw him off schedule. He eats breakfast at eight, lunch at noon, and dinner at six.
The savage's means of accommodation is already 'known,' he only deliberates with the passions themselves. The means of accommodation is a 'regularity'- in the same way that Paul need not deliberate the fact that he will, at some point, be hungry the savage need not deliberate that he can do such-and-such to accommodate his hunger. Paul's past informs him of the passions themselves- their order, regularities, revolutions, etc- and in this mode of 'foresight,' he plans out each day, as well as planning for tomorrow, the week, the month, and the year in terms of what he might possibly have to deal with. It is also of importance that in 'foreseeing' Paul ultimately sees his inevitable death- “one of man's first acquisitions on moving away from the animal condition (par. 19).
In summary, savage man deliberates between his immediate passions but not how his passions are to be accommodated, as he has foreseen this already. The civilized man, to the contrary, does not deliberate between his passions which he has foreseen already; he rather deliberates about the best means to accommodate these passions with respect to time.
*I think the translator might have stolen this phrase from someone...
**By the way, I actually did wait until I finished typing this to go get a drink of water. I don't know what that says about my autonomy, though.
Is a savage man unable to foresee his own failure to accomodate his passions? Surely his instincts would not allow failure to occur often, but it seems from your claim, Mr. Bodayle, that if he was unable to accomodate his desire he would have no way of consciously knowing he will fail. All the savage man knows is that he is very hungry and he will keep trying to get food until he finds it or dies.
ReplyDeleteBecause the civilized man deliberates over the best way to accomodate his desire, he can realize that certain passions are unable to be accommodated. Therefore the civilized man can resign to the fact that he is in a desert without food. The civilized man's acknowledgement of his future failure to accomodate his passions may be at the root of the foreseeing of death.
This is why the savage man is happier than the civilized man.
eh?
I agree, Mr. Storey.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, however, what the relation of desperation would be to this idea of starving in the desert. Desperation certainly seems like a possibility for the civilized man- so does suicide or resignation.
The savage man, however, just says 'I want food' and then follows program 'find food' until he is no longer physically able to hunt, I think.