Is Human Consciousness a Mistake of Nature?

This is how you start a Stoic kerfuffle

Disclaimer: These are just ideas I’m working through. I’d love to know what you think in the comments. Also, and hopefully obviously, the entire line of thinking which follows is within the framing and context of Stoicism. Thanks 😊

---

Stoicism encourages us to use our rational faculties in order to overcome the chaotic nature (lowercase “n”) of our minds to become aligned with Nature (uppercase “N”) — to live in accordance with Nature as a human being.

If I’m not mistaken, we are the only animals on the whole of Earth that need to do this; that need to reason our way to living in accordance with Nature. Honeybees don’t do this, bears don’t do it, zebras, giraffes, lions, fish, no other animal has to think about aligning with Nature in order to align with Nature… they just align with it. When they don’t, they are considered an aberration of Nature and not some sort of elevated animal possessed of a divine benefit.

It isn’t very hard to view human consciousness as the reason for this difference of ours — making human consciousness both the cause of our misalignment with Nature, and the cure for it.

Aside from humans, the Universe has not put this barrier between any other living (or non-living) thing and alignment with Nature. Human consciousness seems, then, like a mistake or, at the very least, an unplanned outcome that gets in the way of humans creating harmony with the Universe.

I’ve heard a couple arguments against this that say, basically (and I’m paraphrasing):

“Human beings are special to the Universe and were given consciousness so they would have the opportunity to ascend beyond the normal level of alignment with Nature that other animals can achieve. With that comes the risk that they may never choose to pursue Virtue at all.”

If what we’re talking about is the Universe designing itself in such a way that humans were an aimed-for outcome — the targeted recipients for a special gift to help them be even closer to the cosmos — I think this is my metaphorical stop. Framing the Universe as a benevolent entity that cares especially for humans, and gives us special gifts because we are in favor with it, is a bridge too far for me.

The ancient Stoics were smart, but they didn’t know everything. No doubt if Zeno were shipwrecked today, the information he would have available to him during the formative years of a 21st Century Stoicism would result in a significantly different looking Stoicism at least where Stoic Physics are concerned. For Stoicism always was, and continues to be, a working theory about how the Universe works and what best way to live as a human being.

The Universe hasn’t changed since the times of Zeno, Chrysippus, and Marcus Aurelius, but what we know of it has. Claiming the cosmos has consciousness (in that consciousness arises within us, and we are part of the cosmos, so the cosmos must contain, at least, the ingredients for consciousness) is one thing, but to suggest that consciousness has a personal interest in humans and that it acts benevolently towards us, is categorically beyond the pale. At least for me.

How about for you? What do you think? Could the same Stoicism exist today if we abandoned the idea that humans are special to the Cosmos? Could we arrive at the same conclusions of Stoicism without believing this?

Remember, these are just thoughts spewed out, without planning, and I’m still working on what I think about this.