Premise 1: Life is an accident, death is natural. Premise 2:

File: I33_943.jpg (161KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1080x720px

Premise 1: Life is an accident, death is natural.
Premise 2: Sleep represents our unconscious desire to return to the natural state of nothingness/non-duality.
Premise 3: our fascination with violence is a reflection of the death drive, in the sense that the act is, even if performed in a simulation, a reflection of our desire to return to a state of nothingness and non-duality.
Therefore, humans possess a death drive.

Well, the argument is no cogent; for instance, premise one seems arbitrary.

On-premise 1:
Schopenhauer said the most common form of being is the form of inanimate objects, which can be debated about forever because we'll never know that for certain. Furthermore, life seems perfectly natural its self; in fact, Nietzche would say everything is a will to power, active forces acting on other active forces, not mechanical passivity. So, life not only seems not to be an accident, if you accept Nietzsche's argument, but it is entirely natural.

On-premise 2:
Sleep also serves a teleological function; that is to say, without sleep we would die. So it seems sleep could also represent a will to live, a will to prolong life, a will to live a more enriched life. Even furthermore, one could conjecture that humans are so obsessed with experience that we sleep to enter new realms of experience; consider, some people believe that sleep is a form of threat-simulation. So, we developed a new means of experience in order to aid in our ability to learn about the environment. My point being, premise 2 seems more poetic and a reflection of personal values rather than a "truth".

On-premise 3:
Well, violence also serves the function of being used in a defensive mechanism; meaning, it can be a tool that allows us to live longer. Nevertheless, our obsession with violence is more concrete than unconscious desires, it's a neural pattern that activates in the orbital frontal cortex. And, on top of that, it does not work like a "drive" but rather much more like a "modulatory response." That is to say, aggression is a response to environmental stimuli, or internal regulatory processes such as neuroendocrine phenomena

Here is my issue with Freud and almost every other philosopher. They speculate about how reality operates, they presume rationality can carve reality out. In my view, rationality ought to be limited to commenting and reflection on rationality its self, and claims about reality need be left to observations alone. Our thoughts do not determine the nature of reality, and to think that my conception of reality is even accurate presumes that the brain has a capacity to accurately conceptualize millions of variables. No, the brain cannot even determine if the perceptual environment is real or not, yet alone determine how reality operates.