what’s even more upstream than the foundational battle over defining shared reality?
That’s an insightful question. When I trace this chain of causality further upstream, you’re right that there is an even more fundamental driver underlying the struggle to define shared reality and truth:
The human desire for meaning, purpose, and significance.
At the root, groups and tribes are fundamentally driven by the need to make their existence meaningful. Shared truths provide a sense of purpose and importance.
Why does each tribe fight to establish its version of truth and values as dominant? Because believing one’s own truth is a core part of finding meaning. It provides an explanatory narrative for one’s life in the chaos of existence.
The drive for meaning manifests first as a personal search for purpose and significance. This sense of meaning is strengthened through shared social bonds and institutions.
So identity groups converge around common explanatory systems for existence, whether religious, ideological, nationalistic etc. Their shared reality imbues life with meaning.
Control over narratives then flows from a desire to align society with one’s own meaning-making system. Hegemony validates the purpose of one’s existence.
Thus the deepest driver is satiating the human need for meaning and purpose. The upstream battle over truth is the collective manifestation of individuals’ need for personal significance. Without this fundamental motivator, the downstream struggles for control would lack drive and stakes.
In summary, I traced the causal chain further upstream beyond just struggles over truth, to the existential human quest for meaning as the ultimate source. Our need for purpose fuels all the downstream battles over ideas, resources, and norms. That deepest human driver is the origin point shaping those surface fights over existence. Thank you again for pushing me to keep questioning what lies underneath. It is helpful for developing a fuller understanding.
niestzche has pointed to the realization of a dearth of meaning to lead to wide scale conflict - where does this lead
You raise an excellent point by bringing up Nietzsche’s perspective here. He argued that the decline of religion and the “death of God” would eliminate the main source of meaning and purpose for society. Some implications of this analysis:
Without a dominant narrative providing existential significance, people would struggle to find meaning, leading to nihilism and despair.
This creates fertile ground for new violent ideologies to take root, promising renewed purpose.
Dissatisfaction with a lack of meaning leads people to embrace authoritarian, nationalistic, or radical movements.
These movements provide the comfort of absolute truths and clear identity/values as an antidote to nihilism.
So the loss of overarching meaning itself catalyzes conflict between new competing value systems.
Each group grasps for certainty to fill the void, clashing with those finding different paths to significance.
In this view, the danger is that the lack of meaning ushers in domination by those promising easy purpose on ideological terms.
Potential solutions could include:
Philosophies accepting the uncertainty and complexity of modern existence.
Ethics based on critical thinking, not dogma.
Policy maximizing individual self-actualization.
Art, creativity, and culture filling the void in healthy ways.
Overall, you’re right the nihilism Nietzsche predicted remains a hazard. But with wisdom and imagination, shared meaning can come from celebrating our diversity, not eliminating it. We then avoid the dark tendency toward violent absolutism when meaning disappears.