Was human suffering an evolutionary misstep? The Norwegian philosopher Peter Zapffe, born in 1899, certainly thought so. Living until 1990, Zapffe believed that human consciousness—our ability to reflect, analyze, and anticipate—was a double-edged sword, a source of our greatest achievements but also our deepest suffering.
But is “evolutionary mistake” the right term to capture this idea? Was it a mistake or just a powerful and complicated “gift?” Is it a curse, or a wild horse we must learn to ride? Let’s explore this from a realistic, yet hopeful perspective. By understanding these concepts, you may find ways to harness your own anxiety and let it guide your life in meaningful ways.
Beyond Zapffe, other thinkers have tackled similar themes. Kierkegaard, born in 1813, saw anxiety as a necessary guide to living authentically. Schopenhauer, born in 1788, explored the torment of our insatiable “will to live.” Nietzsche, born in 1844, envisioned overcoming our nihilistic tendencies to forge a higher self. And Camus, born in 1913, wrestled with the absurdity of existence itself. Together, these five philosophers provide a rich landscape for understanding the role of the existential toolkit.
Kierkegaard: Existential Angst
When Søren Kierkegaard was born in 1813, the field of psychology as we know it did not exist. He passed away at the tender age of 42 in 1855. After his death, by 1879, the first psychology laboratory was established in Germany. This marked the beginning of psychology as a formal discipline. It was Kierkegaard’s writings that at least foreshadowed, and perhaps laid the groundwork for many ideas that would later become both existential philosophy and modern psychology.
Kierkegaard wrote extensively about angst—a deep, existential anxiety that arises from human freedom and the burden of choice. For him, anxiety wasn’t something to avoid but rather a crucial part of living authentically. This anxiety, he believed, is born from the realization that life is filled with infinite possibilities and that with every decision, we must take a leap of faith. For Kierkegaard, this leap was primarily religious. He saw it as a leap of faith in to belief in his particular understanding of his Christian God. Trusting in something beyond rational understanding.
However, even if you’re not Christian or even religious, this concept still holds power. Every decision in life—whether major or minor—requires a leap of faith. No matter how much we analyze or plan, we can never be certain of the outcomes of our choices. The anxiety that comes with this uncertainty, according to existentialism, is a natural and necessary part of human existence. It pushes us to take responsibility for our decisions and to live with intent.
Kierkegaard’s insights remind us that anxiety is not just a source of suffering, but also a guide, helping us navigate life’s uncertainties and live more authentically.
Schopenhauer: The Torment of the “Will to Live”
Arthur Schopenhauer was born in 1788, predating Kierkegaard, and he died in 1860, just five years after Kierkegaard’s passing. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is often regarded as one of the darkest in Western thought, centered around his concept of the will to live. For Schopenhauer, this insatiable force is the fundamental driving power of all living beings. It’s the blind, unconscious urge that compels every creature to survive, reproduce, and seek pleasure—an impulse embedded deep within us. Schopenhauer built upon an ancient idea, echoing Aristotle’s concept of the life force. Both philosophers focused on life’s inherent “desire” to continue and thrive.
However, Schopenhauer saw this will to live as the source of endless torment. Why? Because it is never satisfied. No matter how much we achieve or acquire, the will always drives us toward the next goal, the next desire. Satisfaction, when it comes, is fleeting, and as soon as we attain what we want, we are left with new cravings or a sense of emptiness. This creates a cycle of longing and brief satisfaction, only to return to longing again—a cycle that breeds suffering.
Weekly Wisdom Builder
Got 4 minutes a week?
A new set lands every Wednesday at 3PM, emailed on Thursdays, and shared throughout the weekend.
Exactly what the world needs RIGHT NOW!
It’s important to note that many existential philosophers don’t take a negative view to our ambition. For example, I personally prefer to embrace the Daoist idea of flowing with nature and recognizing this pattern as part of life. Rather than focusing solely on the torment of endless desire, we can enjoy the journey as we strive for our goals. When we achieve something, we should take time to celebrate our wins, large and small. Schopenhauer painted a dark picture and never learned to ride the wild horse of life. By focusing on the negative, he shaded his philosophy with despair. As Marcus Aurelius once wrote,
“For the soul is dyed the color of its thoughts.” — Marcus Aurelius, circa 160 CE, Meditations, Book 5, Section 16
Schopenhauer’s view of human existence is bleak because he believed life is largely shaped by suffering. In Buddhism, the focus is on alleviating suffering, not dwelling in it. Schopenhauer dwelled in suffering, and if you do that, you will suffer. Yet understanding his reasoning is important. For Schopenhauer, suffering arises from the friction between our desires and the world’s inability to fully satisfy them. He argued that our self-awareness only amplifies this misery, making us painfully aware of the gap between what we desire and what we possess. In this sense, consciousness intensifies the suffering caused by the will to live—an idea that resonates with Zapffe’s notion of consciousness as an evolutionary misstep.
Despite his dark outlook, Schopenhauer didn’t leave us without hope. He suggested that moments of relief could be found in aesthetic experiences—through art, music, or acts of compassion. By momentarily detaching from our individual will, we can escape the torment of constant desire. However, Schopenhauer’s ultimate solution was asceticism—a rejection of worldly desires and the will itself, which he believed could lead to inner peace. While I don’t advocate for abandoning ambition, I do believe that understanding this pattern of desire and suffering can help us navigate it more wisely.
Schopenhauer’s concept of the will to live offers a stark yet insightful view of human existence. It reveals how our deepest urges, combined with consciousness, can be both a blessing and a curse—driving us forward. By recognizing and understanding this cycle, we can learn to cope with it or, perhaps, even learn to ride the wild horse.
Nietzsche: Forging a Higher Self
Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, envisioned a way to overcome our nihilistic tendencies and forge a higher self. Nietzsche believed that once we accept that life lacks inherent meaning—what he called nihilism—we are then free to create our own purpose. Rather than falling into despair, Nietzsche saw this realization as an opportunity to live life authentically and joyfully.
Much of Nietzsche’s philosophy was influenced by his observations of religious practices, particularly Christianity. He saw many people attending church and following religious rituals, not because it was their true desire, but out of habit or societal pressure. For Nietzsche, this was a form of inauthentic living—people adhering to beliefs and practices that didn’t resonate with their true selves. He wasn’t necessarily attacking Christianity; rather, he was challenging people to examine whether their actions truly aligned with who they were.
Nietzsche introduced the idea of eternal recurrence as a test for authentic living. The concept asks us to imagine living our current life over and over again, endlessly repeating every action and decision. If the thought of doing so fills you with dread, it might be a sign that you are not living in a way that reflects your authentic self. If, on the other hand, you could embrace this eternal repetition, you’re likely living in alignment with your true desires. In essence, Nietzsche encourages us to live a life we would be happy to repeat for eternity.
Let’s take an example: going to church. If attending church and living for the promise of heaven brings you genuine joy and fulfillment, then by all means, continue. That’s your authentic self, and Nietzsche would say you are living true to yourself. However, if going to church feels more like a burden, a ritual you don’t connect with, Nietzsche’s philosophy encourages you to question why you continue. Are you doing it for yourself, or for others? And if it’s not serving you, why not make a change?
For Nietzsche, the point was not to stay on a wild horse or jump off, but to find a way to tame it. He didn’t want you to abandon all structures, beliefs, or traditions, he wanted you to evaluate whether they truly reflect who you are. His philosophy empowers individuals to create their own meaning and follow their unique path. If something in your life isn’t bringing you joy, fulfillment, or purpose, then change it. Life is too precious to be lived for someone else’s values.
In this way, Nietzsche’s approach resonates with the idea: “enjoy the journey.” If your journey through life isn’t one you’d want to repeat eternally, perhaps it’s time to rethink the path you’re on. By recognizing the freedom that comes with a life devoid of inherent meaning, Nietzsche believed we could forge a higher self—one that rises above nihilism and embraces the power to choose.
Zapffe: Evolutionary Misstep
Now, let’s return to Zapffe and clarify a few things before we conclude this article. Peter Wessel Zapffe, born in 1899, extended Schopenhauer’s dark existentialism. Both men could have been dark, reclusive, mostly unhappy, and suffered from bouts of depression, but they were both happy in their way. Schopenhauer focused on ascetism. He removed as many desires and pleasures as possible. Zapffe focused on humor, the arts, and intellectual endeavors. Personally, I think caution is warranted when reading the “dark” philosophies.
With that in mind, let’s continue.
Zapffe took a strikingly unique approach to understanding human suffering, framing it as the result of an evolutionary misstep that needed to be corrected. While many philosophers explored the role of consciousness in the human condition, Zapffe brought in the lens of science and evolution, viewing human self-awareness not as a triumph of evolution but as an unfortunate biological accident—one that burdens us with an overwhelming consciousness that far exceeds what is necessary for survival.
To clarify an evolutionary perspective, all evolved traits are, in a sense, “accidents.” Evolution occurs through genetic variations—random mutations that differentiate offspring from their parents. Some of these mutations prove beneficial, enhancing survival, while others might be neutral or even harmful. Over time, natural selection determines which traits persist.
Zapffe did not look at our advanced self-awareness as a fortunate evolutionary triumph, he saw it as dark and fatalistic: an unfortunate burden—an “accident” that amplifies human suffering.
Zapffe argued that as humans evolved, our cognitive abilities advanced to the point where we became capable of contemplating our own existence, suffering, and eventual death. This excess consciousness, while responsible for our intellectual achievements, also leads to a deep existential anguish. According to Zapffe, nature had not intended for such a high level of self-awareness. In this way, consciousness became a double-edged sword: it allowed for remarkable advancements but at the cost of making us aware of life’s inherent meaninglessness.
Zapffe’s philosophy asserts that while consciousness may have initially developed to enhance survival, it quickly grew into something more—something problematic. Other animals exist in the moment, driven by instinct, free from the existential dread that plagues humans. For Zapffe, this level of detachment is the more natural way of being. Humans, however, have been cursed with the ability to reflect on their existence and, as a result, suffer from existential anxiety.
Let’s frame existential anxiety within the animal kingdom by differentiating it from learned anxiety in other species. While animals, like cats, can develop learned anxiety through negative experiences—such as associating certain areas with danger—human anxiety often extends beyond immediate or learned responses. Due to our heightened self-awareness, humans experience anticipatory anxiety, where the mind projects future scenarios, some of which may never happen. This future-oriented anxiety makes human consciousness unique, but also burdensome, compared to the more immediate fear responses in animals.
To cope with this overwhelming awareness, Zapffe believed that humans employ various mechanisms to limit consciousness. He identified four strategies we unconsciously use to protect ourselves from the absurdity of existence: isolation (shutting out disturbing thoughts), anchoring (fixating on specific beliefs or systems), distraction (focusing on daily tasks), and sublimation (channeling existential angst into creative or intellectual endeavors). While these strategies help us navigate the pain of existence, they don’t address the root problem—our overdeveloped consciousness. I think he identified four interesting strategies for riding the wild horse, but I also think he imposed limits that don’t exist. Keep this in mind as we progress, there are many strategies beyond coping mechanisms available to you for riding the wild horse.
While Zapffe’s evolution ideas provide a fascinating lens through which to view our condition, his fatalistic views are dark, and somewhat unhelpful. His notion of consciousness as an evolutionary misstep connects suffering, meaning, and existence to a biological framework. It suggests that the very thing that defines us as human—our ability to think beyond the present moment—is also the source of our deepest anguish. To confront this burden of overdeveloped consciousness, Zapffe advocated for the fatalistic view of Antinatalism. The idea that human suffering is inevitable, and thus, it’s more ethical to refrain from reproducing. Because human suffering was not a choice, his bottom line was that humans should not reproduce and become extinct.
Pretty dark stuff from a deeply unhappy philosopher. While other existentialists focused on defining meaning, Zapffe wants humanity to give up and just die out. Do you see what I mean about being cautious of the unhappy philosopher? They might have interesting and even good ideas, but we have to interpret them through our own lens.
In many ways, this is why philosophy is as much a personal endeavor as it is a group one. Beyond this dark depressing corner of existentialism, other existentialists embraced our ability to define meaning. In a world that offers no inherent meaning, we are free to use our ability to create our own.
Personally, I think limiting yourself to Zapffe’s four strategies is a mistake. My focus on pleasure, rooted in Epicureanism, might be seen as a form of sublimation—one of Zapffe’s strategies—but there’s a key difference. Zapffe viewed sublimation as a way to cope with existential suffering, while I see it as a conscious embrace of life, aimed at thriving rather than just enduring. This is why my mantra begins with “Enjoy the journey,” emphasizing a balanced pursuit of pleasure. When reading philosophers, it’s important to consider: Are they focused on coping, thriving, or something else entirely?
Zapffe framed our existential struggles as evolutionary byproducts, which is an interesting idea. The idea that we are uniquely forced to grapple with questions that other animals are free from. However, he went further and asserted we are beings out of place in the natural world. That idea is fatalistic. As we’ll see in Camus’ work, the burden of consciousness can also be viewed as an invitation to rebel, to create meaning in the face of an indifferent universe.
Camus: Wrestling with the Absurd
Albert Camus, born in 1913, extended these ideas before his untimely death in a car accident in France. Though he died at the young age of 46, he left behind some of the most powerful existential writing, focusing on one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence: the absurdity of life.
Camus defined the absurd as the conflict between humanity’s desire to find inherent meaning and the silent, indifferent universe that offers none. Much like Nietzsche before him, Camus embraced this dichotomy. He didn’t seek to resolve the tension but to live within it.
Like Nietzsche, Camus argued that the world offers no preordained purpose, no divine plan, and no ultimate reason for our existence. This view connects to an ancient idea: humans are like a Swiss army knife. We have our nature, but we are built to do a wide variety of things. This differs from many other animals, who are more fixed in their roles. An elephant does not hunt; a tiger does. That’s their nature, and they will live according to it.
Yet, as humans, we are wired to seek meaning, to search for patterns, and to hope for a higher purpose. This clash between our need for meaning and the universe’s refusal to provide it is what Camus referred to as the absurd. Rather than offering comforting illusions or false hope, Camus believed that the honest response to this absurdity was to confront it head-on. Like Nietzsche’s call to authenticity, Camus’ philosophy urges us to tame the wild horse and face the truth of our condition.
One of Camus’ most famous illustrations of this struggle is found in his retelling of the myth of Sisyphus. In Greek mythology, Sisyphus is condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll back down each time he nears the top. This futile task becomes a metaphor for human life: we strive, we toil, and we seek meaning, only to be faced with the inherent meaninglessness of our efforts. But for Camus, the lesson of Sisyphus is not one of despair. Instead, he imagines Sisyphus finding a kind of freedom in his struggle, he learned to enjoy the journey. By acknowledging the absurdity of his task and continuing anyway, Sisyphus defies the gods who sought to punish him.
In much the same way, Camus urged us to live without illusion and to embrace the struggle of life, even in the face of absurdity. He didn’t advocate for resignation or nihilism; instead, he called for rebellion—not against the universe, but against despair. For Camus, the answer to the absurd wasn’t found in giving up but in living fully, experiencing life in all its richness despite its lack of inherent meaning.
Camus believed that by confronting the absurd, we could find liberation. We could create meaning on our own terms, reveling in the freedom that comes with the knowledge that life offers no ultimate answers. Like Nietzsche, Camus didn’t view the lack of meaning as a source of despair but rather as an invitation to live more fully.
His philosophy asks us to acknowledge that life is absurd, but instead of being paralyzed by this knowledge, we can choose to embrace it. Like Sisyphus, we can find contentment—not in the pursuit of unreachable goals, but in the act of striving itself. Camus’ response to the absurd was to live passionately and authentically, making the most of our freedom in a universe that offers no guarantees.
Conclusion: An Existential Toolkit
The ideas explored in this article offer a toolkit for understanding life’s double-edged sword—the beauty and the burden of consciousness. They help us learn how to ride the wild horse of existence, embracing its unpredictability. For me, these philosophies focus my attention on my prime directive: “Enjoy the journey,” which means both embracing, or at least enduring the lows and relishing the highs.
One of the central themes of 30 Philosophers is exactly this—“enjoy the journey.” While it might sound cliché, it’s crucial for fully appreciating life’s path. Mastering this Zen aspects of life shifts the mindset from “I have to do this” to “I get to do this.” It also embraces the Daoist notion of flowing with the natural, unknowable universe.
Nietzsche’s perspective on nihilism also influences why my mantra begins with “Enjoy the journey.” When you realize that ethics are fluid and that life lacks inherent meaning, it’s easy to feel lost or to “fall off the wild horse.” But I hope that, no matter what path you choose in life, it’s one that is ethical and non-violent, treating others as you wish to be treated.
The real trick, for me, is finding enjoyment, contentment, or at least acceptance in whatever life brings my way. Life’s unpredictability is not something to fear, but something to embrace—a wild horse to ride. Whether through seeking truth or embracing a bit of ignorance for peace of mind, the key is to live authentically and with intent. As you move forward, remember: the journey itself is the destination.
“Enjoy the journey, with truth and honor, causing no harm.”
— map / TST —
Get the full story…
Nothing beats the long-format of a book for clearly telling a grand story. For a deeper exploration of the broader landscape of modern human thought, check out my new book, “30 Philosophers”, where I tell the story of the greatest ideas that have shaped humanity over the last 5,000 years.