The Social Contract

Explaining why we love, desire love, and interpersonal societal interaction.

The Social Contract

In society we have responsibilities. We have lives than run through a specific course and demand certain things toward others. We also have emotions: love, hate, anger, empathy, etc. But how exactly do these emotions fit into the puzzle that is The Social Contract? Quite simply, if you can follow logical pattern.

First we must operate under the assumption that everything is motivated primarily by self. Yes, actions may have some semblance of selflessness, even insomuch that the action itself appear to be entirely selfless. We must learn to cast aside any inclination that an action can be 51% selfless and 49% self-gratifying. Selfless must become only a partake in 49% of our vocabulary when discussing this.

If you do not subscribe to the above assumption, allow me to explain in further detail:

Let us say you go out to eat with a friend. You hold the door for them, pull out their seat, carry a pleasant tone, carry a pleasant conversation despite the surroundings, and even go as far as to pay for the meal. Let us assume this all occurred as I have said and exactly as I have said.

The first step in seeing and accepting this viewpoint is by taking a constant stance to everything with the question 'why'. Apply this question to every answer you get, until it can go no further until it becomes circular. Let us apply this to our current situation.

--

Why go eat? You are hungry // You want to socialize with said friend.

Why are you hungry? Instinct. Final outcome pt. 1.

Why do you want to socialize with the friend? To have fun / a good time. Why do you want to have a good time? Instinct. Final outcome part 2.

Going out to eat was to both satisfy your instinctual desire to satisfy hunger and pleasure. While not necessarily selfish, it is self-pleasing more so than other-pleasing.

--
Why hold the door / pull out the seat / carry a pleasant ton (and conversation) / pay for the meal? It is polite. Why be polite? Social obligation to be polite. Why fulfill this obligation? To be a functioning member of society. Why be a functioning member of society? To be accepted by that society. Why do you desire to be accepted by that society? Instinct.

You were doing this to satisfy your instinctual desire to be accepted. You satisfied a personal desire. More self-pleasing than other-pleasing.

--

Do you now see? If not, ask me for further examples and I will provide additional ones.

Now we will be assuming you subscribe to this 'selfish > selfless' idea.

Back to the emotions fitting into the Social Contract. Let us define the Social Contract. I define this (as I am the one presenting the theory and am allowed to define variables) as an apparent or hidden obligation to do and carry out any and all aspects of life, which may be disregarded or accepted. Accepting the social obligation does not need conscious consent, and one may not be aware of consenting to the Social Contract and only fall into the mold. Disregarding the Social Contract may or may not need consent, but, unless the individual is mentally insane or put through rigorous circumstances, the subject generally is aware of breaking the Social Contract (and is looked down upon by society for doing so).

Now that the puzzle is defined, let us map out just how the pieces fit in " specifically, emotions.

Let us look at love, the most (in)famous of all emotions, and arguably the most powerful.

Apply the filter of 'why', and we find one of two options:

Why do we love: Instinct / Social obligation to love

Let's discuss the first possibility. This possibility is generally taken by those that are unaware of their subscription to the Social Contract. I personally disregard this possibility (as you should as well), for this reason: one has reasons for loving someone. These reasons may be that the individual is beautiful, funny, kind, or thoughtful. No matter what the reason is, there are reasons. Now follow the 'why' pattern for those reasons:

Why do you love their kindness? You desire to be treated kindly. Why do you desire to be treated kindly? Instinct, however, this instinct is based in a desire to be treated kindly. This self-motivated desire makes it less about loving the person, but more toward what the person does for you as a reason to love them. This causes your love to be more self-motivated than other-motivated. Follow the same pattern for the other reasons for loving said person.

-OR-

We could subscribe to the secondary option, which has basically been provided in the explanation of the first: the social obligation to love them. Apply the 'why' filter:

Why do you have a social obligation to love them? Because they are kind. Why obey the social obligation? To be accepted by society. Why be accepted by society? Instinctual desire to be accepted.

Also- Why do you have the social obligation to love them? Because they are kind. Why does this make you love them? Because I enjoy kindness. Why do you enjoy kindness? I desire to be treated kindly. Why do you desire to be treated kindly? Instinctual.

Either way, the love for said person is based on an instinctual desire to satisfy a certain self-motivated need. Thus, love is not an outward, selfless display of affection for another, but rather selfishness masquerading under the beauty that is love.

That is the Social Contract for emotions.

Reviews

[Timothy Burjess]

Greeting Apebble.

This is an interesting piece indeed my friend; a great late night thought provoker before laying one's head down to sleep. It's nice to see another viewpoint on structure of civility, even after a couple thousand years of varying perspectives and theories, especially considering that this piece reverts to an almost "primal philosophy" as it were; reminding any readers who have not pondered further that we are all in fact animals after all. Remaining or remembering the latter point is important for any individual interested in increased thought, for to forget one's roots means to forget themselves - which in turn invalidates anything that lost individual may suggest or remark, for they then - as lost individuals - are only deceiving themselves and those to whom they speak.

I shall begin the review of your story in standard style; head to toe.

Off the mark I become highly interested in this piece, for the first paragraph is written as one would expect a work of high standard to be: make a point or two, propose a question, proceed with an answer allowing further explanation - typical point, explication, exposition method. I'd imagine if this was to be converted into a major works, either the author and / or editor would create a short introduction to begin explaining this "Social Contract" in greater detail? I know you do so in this piece itself, but I only mention this because I would imagine a few would begin here, and instantly would become confused as to the definition behind it.

The second paragraph begins to an acceptable standard; the author persuading the reader to follow a train of thought that may not match their own, yet in a way that feels comfortable - but if not acceptable - as I stated. The middle of the paragraph gently slides in a lesson to be learned, perhaps one to be understood by the end of the piece? A good paragraph in getting the reader into a certain way of thinking for the continuation.

The example you portray (going out to eat with a friend) is standard of such a piece, and the following three lines is a good transition to the piece; fluent and simple. And the fact that you suggest that the logic you follow solves the regress problem through means of circular justification, only makes a reader such as myself immediately engrossed, for that is a problem that has been an obstreperous enemy of philosophers ever since man gained the ability of advanced thought - but now you mentioned such a discovery places great pressure on the following text.

The questioning begins; and what are questions if not searches for knowledge. The reader begins to feel as if they are on one seat of a see-saw with the author on the other. The author poses a simple question, then follows with a simple answer - the see-saw goes up weighed down by questioning, then it plummets back to earth with the weight of an answer. This almost youthful method seems to be so very simple; so easy to follow and comprehend - almost primitive; just like what the text begins to explain. "Instinct", suggests the author, "instinct" he proposes to everything he questions - in the social and physiological aspects mentioned respectively.

This paragraph - "Why hold the door / pull out the seat / carry a pleasant ton (and conversation) / pay for the meal? It is polite. Why be polite? Social obligation to be polite. Why fulfill this obligation? To be a functioning member of society. Why be a functioning member of society? To be accepted by that society. Why do you desire to be accepted by that society? Instinct." Oh how many times has this been suggested? How many times in a different language, format, or method? Yet, the author keeps it clear, simple, and precise - even to the one word answer: "instinct". The author suggest that all workings within society are only down to the individual and his selfish need to exist; an entity that can live among others of its kind. Yes indeed: how many times has this been suggested before, however; it's still nice to see, and important to a certain extent, for some can forget that that is indeed the case: we are animals. What you state in this paragraph seems to explain the reasons for all first world problems, does it not? Greed? Instinct - elaborated; the instinctual desire to ensure one's own survivability.. Violence? Instinct - elaborated; the instinctual necessity to prove one's dominance or power over another, or simply means of self-protection. Envy? Instinct - elaborated; the instinctual emotional reflex, which helps the individual realize their lacking in regards to social decorum. Yes, the author brings (simplistically*) to the readers attention that we are all after all, only a species, still ruled by neolithic and atavistic instincts - * drawing attention the the simplicity; this helps the docile reader flow into the next paragraphs on instinctual emotions.

The reader (now firmly planted into the "selfish" mind-seat by the author) is then fluently introduced to the author's depiction of "the emotions fitting into the Social Contract". The author brings a little humor into the piece with his suggestion of "I am the one presenting the theory and am allowed to define variables", yet this suggestion is in truth an honest one, for he is stating without any deception that he is molding the following in the favor of his own definition. Indeed the author then states the workings of a society that some may forget, but it is simply the obligations all individuals live by, and as he states again " one may not be aware of consenting to the Social Contract". A good paragraph in depiction of what is apparent in regards to human civilized life.

Now the author begins the depiction of "love" in regards to this "social contract" - and what do we get? A simple "instinct". What else were we as readers expecting to see! However, the author proposes an elaboration following two examples of individuals, and their supposed "level of consciousness" as it were. The first individual is defined as one whom is of a younger consciousness; one who is not fully developed in terms of awareness, and the author is soon to exterminate his own appreciation of this kind of consciousness, and suggests to the reader that they do too. He even goes further as to explain why; with the reasons that come with ... no no, not "instinct" as the reader may instinctively assume ... no, with the advanced process of abstraction - with regard to emotion as a whole. To quote, "These reasons may be that the individual is beautiful, funny, kind, or thoughtful", and this abstraction into why one may love another, could then be further abstracted to a great length, yet would be superfluous to the following paragraph ... that it actually stems right back to ... yeah you got it.

So having been tricked by the author, the reader then feels as if there is no hope for advancement, for it all just seems to stem back down to instinct! And further depression sets in with the mention of "This causes your love to be more self-motivated than other-motivated" - we then are all selfish individuals, who only in truth love ourselves - and hate ourselves respectively in regards to the "social contract". One simply has to rearrange certain words from the author's work to understand this, i.e: "Why do we love: Instinct / Social obligation to love" - switched to - "Why do we hate: Instinct / Social obligation to hate" - in reflection, and comparison to the explicated reasoning in to why we love, then "These reasons may be that the individual is ugly, serious, unkind, or hurtful". Then to elaborate upon the latter (also using transformed writing), "Why do you hate their unkindness? You desire not to be treated unkindly. Why don't you desire to be treated unkindly? Instinct ... This self-motivated desire makes it less about hating the person, but more toward what the person does to you as a reason to hate them. This causes your hate to be more self-motivated than other-motivated." All emotion then stems down to selfish need - atavistic need. Now, the reader almost fully agrees with the statement the author previously brought to the table, to "disregard this possibility".

The second individual - who then must be the opposing of the first (selfless, conscious individual respectively) - is then elaborated upon. Yet, it soon turns out that the individual is no greater than the first, for he is just as selfish: "instinctual desire to satisfy a certain self-motivated need". This final paragraph relentlessly expresses to the reader that this is no hope but selfishness in regards to anything they do - for whatever they do for others is only because they consciously or subconscious stand to gain out of it themselves, even the deepest of love: "selfishness masquerading under the beauty that is love".

To to summarize, the reader becomes interested in the piece, learns how "everything is motivated primarily by self", understands that everything regresses to "instinct", and finally learns that even the strongest of emotions are nothing more than selfishness ... then at the end, realizes (with a little push from the author) that the reasons for reading this - and the reasons for everything they do and feel - is only out of instinctual selfishness; a haymaker at attempt to knockout.

However, the regress problem has been around long enough, and that is due to the complexity of its nature - and it hasn't been solved here. On the contrary, the author has simply stated that everything the individual human does is out of instinct and selfishness, which, somewhat painfully and paradoxically, is the regress problem itself. Therefore it leads the reader to think that this piece is not justified, and its ideas portrayed are only out of the author's instinctual selfish desire to be proclaimed. Nevertheless, as a neophyte in the school of individualism, I connect (via objective translation and then abstraction) with many themes throughout, and shall be one to watch more from you.

Thank you for this piece; it is one I shall ponder further on.

Timothy.

[Apebble]

Holy hell mother of god that's a long and detailed review :D

I enjoyed reading your response (I'm still digesting it...but nevertheless I found it interesting). It may actually cause me to do some research into what you said.

Thanks for the read/review mate!