The Experience of the Tragic

The Experience of the Tragic

Vladislav Pedder

© Vladislav Pedder, 2025

ISBN 978-5-0067-4550-6

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Introduction

“I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in human evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law.

We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everyone is nobody…”

– Rust Cohle, True Detective

This work continues the philosophical trajectory related to the investigation of the tragic as an ultimate cognitive and ontological condition. It has emerged from my translation and research efforts aimed at introducing the works of Peter Wessel Zapffe into the Russian-speaking context. In 2024, I completed the first full translation of his book On the Tragic and subsequently gained access to the complete ten-volume collection of his writings at the National Library of Norway. After prolonged searches, rejections, and copyright challenges, the first Russian editions of Zapffe’s works – thanks to my collaboration with the publishing house Totenburg – were published in Russia in 2025, after this book had already been completed. This material served as the foundation for a critical reflection on the limits of the philosophy of the tragic in light of contemporary ontological, cognitive, and neuropsychological approaches.

The present text is written from the perspectives of two figures – Professor N. and Professor P. These are not two authors nor two polemical viewpoints. Rather, they represent two theoretically articulated positions through which a philosophical analysis of the boundaries of human existence is conducted. This mode of presentation was chosen deliberately to emphasize that the human being is not a fixed entity but a dynamic system of states in which various, sometimes opposing, modes of interpretation coexist. The division into Professor N. and Professor P. is less a literary device and more an attempt to reveal the full internal complexity and instability of the mind.

Professor N. proposes an interpretation of human existence within the framework of the concept of liminal acceptance – a model of conscious retention in a state of ontological uncertainty without resorting to compensatory strategies. His approach is based on the rejection of normative narratives and appeals to final meanings. Liminal acceptance formalizes the state of a subject situated at the boundary between the explainable and the ineffable. At the core of Professor P.‘s position lie humility, ethical restraint, and the rejection of metaphysical justifications. He views human cognition as a system of predictive coding, compelled to operate under conditions of persistent informational incompleteness and environmental uncertainty.

Professor P. criticizes both the proposed model of liminal acceptance and Zapffe’s philosophy in its normative aspects. His position is grounded in the conceptual introduction of the category of differentiating experience as an ontologically primary level of reality. In his interpretation, experience is not the empirical content of consciousness but a fundamental, irreducible interaction between the system and reality, preceding any attempt at comprehension. Experience encompasses both cognitive and affective components and cannot be reduced to perception, meaning, or narrative structure.

Within this logic, all forms of philosophical response – including Professor N.‘s liminal acceptance – are secondary relative to experience, which conditions them, while itself remaining irreducible to them. Professor P.‘s position can be characterized as an ontologically oriented pessimism, free from the aestheticized melancholy characteristic of E. Cioran or A. Karako and from romanticized negativity. Unlike Ligotti, Professor P. excludes the aestheticization of alienation, focusing instead on the analytical fixation that no model can exhaust the structure of reality, as the latter is always already given in irreversible experience.

Thus, the study establishes a two-tiered perspective:

– on one hand, it proposes a methodology for engaging with existential uncertainty;

– on the other hand, it demonstrates the limits of any methodology by affirming that the experience of the world cannot be reduced to structure, norm, or ethics.

This bipartite structure has been deliberately chosen: it allows for the consideration of thought not as a unified, completed system, but as a multiplicity of possible responses to the same ontological problem. The study does not aim to synthesize the positions nor impose a ready-made conclusion upon the reader. Instead, it offers the opportunity to regard difference as a form of productive tension between the attempt at cognitive retention and the acknowledgment of the irreversible flow of experience.

The decision – to accept one of these positions, to oscillate between them, or to reject both – remains with the reader.

Part 1. The Existential Limits of Reason

Chapter 1. Blind Complication

This chapter addresses the fundamental foundations from which the history of the complexity of matter begins. We will examine how complex structures arose from the primary forms of substance, leading to the emergence of life, reason, and consciousness. This chapter is dedicated to the origins of all that exists and their role in shaping the complex world we observe today.

This account was necessary because all the topics discussed further began with the question of where and in what form the first substance appeared. Everything that happened subsequently is merely its complication – the result of natural development. Without understanding this, it will be difficult to fully comprehend the philosophical and existential questions raised in this book.

If you are already familiar with this material, you may proceed directly to point 4 of the first chapter – “The Existential Limit of Prediction.”

For many centuries, humanity sought to understand the origin of the world and life. Early conceptions often explained all that exists as the result of the design of a higher power. In antiquity, philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle sought order and purpose in nature, presuming that the world was arranged according to some rational cause. The Middle Ages brought ideas of divine creation, in which life and the entire Universe were regarded as the outcome of God’s creative act.

However, with the advancement of science in the modern era, these views began to be challenged. In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection, which revolutionized the understanding of the world and life (Darwin, 1859). Darwin demonstrated that the diversity of life forms is not the result of any specific design but rather the consequence of random mutations and selection processes that ensure the survival of the fittest individuals. Evolution, he debated, has no ultimate goal and does not progress toward perfection; it is a continuous process of change, whereby each generation adapts to changing conditions.

However, despite scientific explanations, many continued to seek purpose and meaning in the process of evolution. Science, armed with Occam’s razor1, not only eliminated the idea of divine design from the equation but also the very concept of a final purpose. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, developing this approach, employs the metaphor of the “blind watchmaker” to explain that evolution is not a purposeful process but a random and unconscious mechanism, which lacks any predetermined goal or design, yet nonetheless results in complex and organized outcomes. He wrote:

Evolution has no long-term goals. There are no distant objectives or final perfection that could serve as criteria for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the ultimate goal of evolution. In reality, the criterion for selection is always short-term – simple survival; or more precisely – reproductive success. What, in retrospect after geological epochs, appears as a movement toward some distant goal is, in fact, always a byproduct of many generations of short-term selection. Our “watchmaker” – cumulative natural selection – is blind to the future and possesses no long-term objectives.

This is what we will discuss further.

1. The Emergence of a Complex World

1.1 Self-Organization and the Absence of Purpose

The contemporary scientific understanding of the universe’s structure rejects the idea of teleology or an original design. Instead, the world as we know it is the result of processes of self-organization and gradual complexity unfolding within the framework of physical laws. These processes were not driven by an external purpose but developed due to the interactions of numerous elements over vast timescales.

Fundamental discoveries in physics and cosmology have shown that the universe originated from the Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The concept of the Big Bang was first proposed by the Belgian scientist Georges Lemaître in 1927 and was confirmed in 1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.

In the early stages of the universe’s existence, matter and energy were distributed chaotically and homogeneously. Over time, as a result of density fluctuations and the action of gravity, the first structures began to form: gas clouds, stars, and galaxies. These processes were natural consequences of physical laws such as thermodynamics and gravity, rather than the result of any design.

1.2 The Role of Entropy and the Complexity of Systems

A key concept explaining the complexity of the universe is entropy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, formulated in the 1850s by Rudolf Clausius, entropy (a measure of disorder) in isolated systems tends to increase. However, this does not mean that order is impossible. Locally, organized structures can emerge if this is accompanied by an increase in entropy in the surrounding environment. For example, the formation of stars and planets is accompanied by the release of energy and an increase in entropy in the surrounding space.

Thus, complex systems arise as a byproduct of the universe’s tendency towards equilibrium and maximal disorder. From simple interactions and processes of self-organization, more complex structures and patterns gradually emerge.

1.3 Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamic Systems

Further understanding of the emergence of complexity is connected with the study of nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos theory. In 1963, American mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz discovered that small changes in initial conditions can lead to significant and unpredictable outcomes (the butterfly effect). This helps explain how extremely complex phenomena – such as climate systems, galactic structures, and, ultimately, the chemical processes leading to life – could arise from simple physical laws (Lorenz, 1963).

Chaotic systems, despite their apparent unpredictability, follow certain rules and can exhibit self-organizing patterns. Examples include snowflakes, lightning, fractals, and turbulent flows. These processes demonstrate that complexity can arise spontaneously, without external control or purpose.

1.4 The Universe as Chemical Complexification

After the formation of the first stars, the process of synthesizing heavier elements from hydrogen and helium began. As a result of thermonuclear reactions occurring within stars, elements essential for the emergence of life – carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and others – came into existence. This process, known as stellar nucleosynthesis, was explained in the mid-20th century by Fred Hoyle and his colleagues (Hoyle, 1957).

When massive stars exploded as supernovae, these elements were dispersed throughout the universe, becoming the building blocks for new stars, planets, and, ultimately, living organisms.

The complexification of the universe occurred gradually: first, galaxies, stars, and planets formed from primordial gas; then more complex chemical elements and compounds were synthesized; and eventually, complex molecules and the conditions necessary for the emergence of life were formed. These processes had no predetermined goal, but they laid the foundation for further stages, including biological evolution.

Thus, the emergence of a complex world is a history of self-organization grounded in physical laws. From chaotic and simple states, through billions of years of interactions and increasing entropy, there arose a universe rich in structural and processual diversity. This laid the foundation for the next stage – the emergence of life.

2. The Emergence of Life

Contemporary science asserts that life emerged as a result of natural chemical processes, rather than through purposeful action or a higher design. Approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, the first signs of life appeared on Earth, and the process that led to this is called abiogenesis – the spontaneous emergence of living systems from non-living matter.

The “primordial soup” hypothesis, proposed by Alexander Oparin and John Haldane, formed the basis for the study of early Earth conditions that could have facilitated the formation of organic molecules (Oparin, 1967). The Miller-Urey experiment (1953) demonstrated that, when exposed to electrical discharges, a mixture of gases containing ammonia, methane, and hydrogen produced amino acids – the building blocks of proteins (Miller; Urey, 1953).

These chemical reactions were not directed toward achieving any specific goal but occurred as a result of molecular interactions governed by natural physical laws. Gradually, from these simple molecules, more complex structures began to form, such as RNA, capable of self-replication. This led to the “RNA world” hypothesis, advanced by Carl Woese and Leslie Orgel in the 1960s, which posits that the first molecules of life may have been RNA capable of self-reproduction without the involvement of proteins. RNA can serve both as a catalyst for chemical reactions and as a carrier of information, providing grounds to consider it the first step toward complex biological life.

The spontaneous emergence of life and the absence of an external goal in this process supports the idea that the evolution of life is a random phenomenon – not directed toward a purpose, but rather governed by the natural laws of chemistry and physics.

The process of the emergence of life continued with the formation of the first cells – primitive organismic structures enclosed by a membrane. These cells were capable of conducting metabolic exchange and of protecting internal chemical reactions from the external environment. Thus, evolution commenced. The formation of cells marked the beginning of living beings capable of metabolism, reproduction, and interaction with their surroundings.

In 1859, Charles Darwin, in his work On the Origin of Species, proposed the theory of natural selection. Darwin discussed that those organisms are better adapted to their environment have a higher chance of survival and of passing on their genes to the next generation. This process occurs without any purposiveness or predetermination; it is the result of random changes that lead to increased fitness in a given environment.

Evolution is a process of change and adaptation that has no final purpose or predetermined endpoint. It is a mechanism based on random mutations that produce alterations in populations of organisms, and death functions as the process through which less adapted individuals are eliminated. In this context, death is not the end of life, but an inevitable part of it – necessary for more adapted organisms to continue existing. Death, therefore, plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance and progress of the species, ensuring the “purging” of less adaptive genes.

The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, based on X-ray diffraction data, marking the beginning of a new era in biology. DNA was decoded as the molecule that encodes genetic information transmitted from generation to generation (Watson; Crick, 1953). Genes became recognized as the fundamental units of heredity, containing instructions for the synthesis of proteins, which play a key role in the functioning of the organism.

Genetics has also revealed how mutation occurs – random changes in genes that lead to changes in the organism. These mutations may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful, and depending on how they affect the organism’s survival, they may be passed on to the next generation. The process of gene expression and its regulation through epigenetic mechanisms (eg, DNA methylation) adds additional layers to our understanding of how organisms adapt to their environment.

The significance of mutations and their impact on the organism is revealed through the concept of “negative selection,” which eliminates organisms with harmful mutations, and “positive selection,” which reinforces the existence of those better adapted. (Hamilton, 1964; Dawkins, 1976) The inclusion of epigenetics in the modern understanding of evolution enables a more comprehensive awareness of how the external environment can influence genetic changes and the adaptation of species.

The theory of multilevel selection, proposed by scientists such as William Hamilton and Richard Dawkins, significantly broadens our understanding of evolution. Dawkins, in his famous book The Selfish Gene (1976), advanced the idea that the fundamental units of evolution are not organisms but genes, which strive for self-replication and dissemination. From his perspective, the organism becomes merely a vehicle for the genes, and evolution, in essence, is directed not toward the survival of individuals but toward the preservation and propagation of genetic information transmitted across generations.

According to this theory, evolution does not view the organism as an end in itself, but rather as a means for transmitting genes to subsequent generations. This leads to the concept of the “selfish gene,” where each gene functions as a kind of “instrument” concerned with its own persistence within the population. Evolution thus operates at the level of genes rather than individual organisms.

A crucial development in this theory is the notion of multilevel selection. Selection can occur not only at the level of individual organisms but also at the level of genes, groups, and even species. In this context, evolution can be seen as a process in which not only the most adaptive individuals are selected, but also those genetic combinations that increase the chances of survival for populations or groups.

One example illustrating multilevel selection is the phenomenon of the emergence of organisms with identical traits – for instance, the “green beard effect.” Imagine a population of animals in which a group of individuals randomly develops a unique feature – a green beard. This concept, proposed by Richard Dawkins, illustrates how traits that are not individually advantageous may be preserved and spread through group selection. In this case, individuals with a “green beard” (a symbolic trait that distinguishes them from others) may not possess any clear survival advantage, but if such individuals form a group, their shared traits can foster cooperation and mutual support within that group, increasing the survival chances of its members. Thus, the trait may be beneficial at the group level, even if it brings no direct benefit to individuals. The green beard may be selected through group selection, wherein mutual cooperation or even “signaling” for interaction among individuals arises, thereby contributing to the survival of the entire community. In this way, group-level evolution may lead to the spread of such a trait if it promotes cooperation and social interactions that increase the survival prospects of the group as a whole.

Dawkins, in his theory, also accounts for the importance of altruism in evolution. He argues that individuals who act in the interest of the group may contribute to the preservation of their own genes, even if such behavior does not offer direct personal benefit. An individual may contribute to the survival of other members – such as relatives or members of their group – at the cost of personal risk. In this context, if an individual with a green beard helps other members of their group to survive, their actions may enhance the overall success of the group, and such traits will be maintained and reinforced at the group level.

Viewing evolution as a process that takes place at multiple levels allows for the inclusion not only of organisms but also of broader evolutionary units such as populations, ecosystems, and even species. For example, within multicellular organisms or communities of organisms with identical traits (for example, behaviors or physical characteristics), there is a probability that these traits will be preserved through altruistic behavior that contributes to the overall success of the group. However, such behavior is important not only for the survival of particular individuals but also for the dissemination of their genes at the level of the entire population.

One of the clearest examples of such a phenomenon is symbiosis – a close, mutually beneficial coexistence of different species. When two or more species cooperate with one another, their chances of survival increase, and their traits may be preserved and reinforced through evolutionary mechanisms. traits such as the green beard may, in the long term, spread not only at the level of individual organisms but also within more complex biological systems, contributing to the survival of the group as a whole.

Today, it is believed that selection takes place at several levels: at the genetic level, selection occurs at the level of individual genes. Genes that contribute to the successful survival and reproduction of their carriers become fixed in a population, being transmitted to subsequent generations. This form of selection focuses on how specific genetic variations can increase their frequency in a population due to their effects on the organism or on their copies in other organisms. At the individual level, selection acts on the level of organisms. Individuals possessing traits that increase their chances of survival and successful reproduction are able to transmit their genes to the next generation. This leads to the spread of beneficial adaptations within the population and the fixation of traits that increase individual fitness. Kin selection occurs through assistance to close relatives who carry similar genes. Altruistic behavior toward kin can increase the chances of spreading shared genes, even if it decreases the individual’s own chances of survival. Such selection explains the emergence of cooperative behavior in family groups and colonies. At the group level, selection occurs at the level of groups of organisms. Groups in which members cooperate and support one another may have an advantage over groups dominated by selfish behavior. Competition among such groups may lead to the selection of cooperative strategies that increase the overall success of the group. At the level of ecosystems or symbiotic communities, selection may take place at the level of entire ecosystems or communities composed of interrelated species. In such systems, stable interactions such as symbiosis, cooperation, and mutual support may contribute to the successful existence of all participants in the community. If an ecosystem or symbiotic community successfully copes with environmental changes and maintains its stability, this may promote the survival and dissemination of all species that comprise it. Although this level of selection remains contested, examples of coevolution show that complex communities can form through cooperative and mutually beneficial relations between different organisms.

Modern research supports the ideas of multilevel selection, showing how cooperation at the level of groups and communities may contribute to evolutionary success. It is important to emphasize that evolution, as a process, largely depends on random mutations, which may either help or harm the organism. However, the presence of directionality in evolution is not excluded. With each generation, species become more adapted to their environment, but this does not happen through predetermined aims or designs – it is the result of the interaction between random changes and existing ecological and social factors.