(A Humanities Course Term Paper)
(Some lines are direct rip-offs from sources, hopefully no-one will complain. I couldn't think of framing them better)
A natural characteristic of conscious and rational minds is to try to explain its own existance. Deconstruction the statement, 'meaning' implies intention, aim or design, typical features of intelligent life. 'Life' is tough to explain philosophically, it automatically implies a period of existance, and non-existance(i.e death) of a consciousness. Further, the essense of life as implied in the 'Meaning of life' question, is in the first person. Of what significance is my life?
Humans have struggled for millennia to tackle this question, various philosophical and religious interpretations appearing over the years. Wars have been fought over them. But as much as these questions cause people to lose their heads (sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally), the bottom line is that these are very practical questions. The meaning of life is deeply mixed with the philosophical and religious conceptions of existence, consciousness, and happiness, and touches on many other issues, such as value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will, conceptions of God, the soul, and the afterlife. If we could claim ascertaining the true meaning of life, we could possibly answer other questions like 'What does it mean to be alive?' and 'Do I have free will?'.
The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual form his personal reality, and in our personal belief system, we attempt to find motivation for going about everyday tasks. However, this mirage is shattered, when one tries to takes an perspective from outside oneself, a view of our actions at a cosmic/philosophical stage. This starts an open discussion on the significance of anything we do, of going about life itself, if as soon as two hundred years in the future, our life and most traces of it will cease to exist.
We might try to derive meaning of our lives by association with something inherently bigger. Like, considering we influenced the lives of others(our friends and relations), were a part of an ecological system, played one generation of evolution, or were a part of a social, ideological movement. But then the question of meaning just switches to this bigger phenomenon. What makes this more meaningful with respect to true reality? Case in point , what is the point of human generations? All of human history? We might try to explain in terms of still bigger associations, but they continue to pose the same question. Now either we chance infinite regression, or we satisfy ourselves at a point where we consider reason not necessary. Where an act just exists, and no meaning is required for its existance. Since the claim of knowledge of true reality is itself dubious, we will have to settle for an answer which satisfies just our concept of reality. And hence, the justification of 'no reason required for phenomenon P' is satisfactory for anyone who truly believes it. But if no reason was required for P, why not for an earlier iteration, or for the first iteration, i.e our individual life. Why did that not satisfy us in itself, and this does?
This is exactly the attribute which makes religion very appealing, in its seeming ability to give automatic reason to anything and everything. The idea of God seems to be the idea of something that can explain everything else, without having to be explained itself. No one asks “What is the reason for God?”, but following the path of God, and God as the ultimate explanation, always makes sense. Some religions outrighly, while others subtly declare the methods of God beyond human comprehension, and thus beyond question. We are in essence given the retort to the meaning of life as that we can't understand it. However, a tentative analysis gives the following as the aims of life as described commonly in religion includes:
a) Worship of a supreme transcendental God, or
b) To serve as a training ground for a higher reality
c) To help and support his fellowmen,
d) Attainment of skills and knowledge.
All these can be thought of as attaching oneself with a higher noble goal, which as discussed, still leaves the meaning question unsettled.
It seems remarkable that people, experiencing this dilemna as a natural followup of their existance, find it in themselves to go about their daily activities. The trick, so to speak, is to keep our field of perspective narrow, and focus on what's in front of us, and see their existance as their justification. The fact that our existance might be pointless if overwhelmed by the fact that we exist. We can also argue that “Does it matter that it doesn't matter?”, which is perfectly acceptable. The perpetual discussions might be depressing or maddening, but are seldom satisfactory.
Bibliography
1)“What Does It All Mean?” Oxford University Press, by Thomas Nigel.
2)Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life
3)http://aristotle.net/~diogenes/meanmind.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I agree completely with the first two paragraphs. The first one is especially very articulate.
The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual form his personal reality, and in our personal belief system, we attempt to find motivation for going about everyday tasks.
> The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual do not form his personal reality, completely. Others' actions are a part of his reality. This is a key point - reality does not constitute yourself alone, and an attempt to create reality out of your own perceptions alone is an attempt at pretence.
However, this mirage is shattered, when one tries to takes an perspective from outside oneself, a view of our actions at a cosmic/philosophical stage. This starts an open discussion on the significance of anything we do, of going about life itself, if as soon as two hundred years in the future, our life and most traces of it will cease to exist.
> There is no mirage. Reality, to a person, is what he knows to be unchallenge-ably true. The significance of anything one does, of going about life itself, when as soon as two hundred years in the future, one's life and most traces of it will cease to exist, is to generate as much happiness out of it as possible, DURING his lifetime. I don't see how an open discussion starts here.
Example 1: If a person is in his deathbed, and knows that he has a few minutes of life left in him, and does an act of kindness to someone else, it is to derive the satisfaction he would like to have, for that remaining time of his life. Not because after his death, his help would survive, but *to gain that knowledge that after his life, his help would survive*. The happiness he gets out of this knowledge is for the present, and is the motive of his action.
Example 2: In Troy, Achiles says that line that goes like "Beyond that shore lies immortality. It's yours. Grab it.". At the beginning of the movie, there is a line that hints at how much men wanted their name to last beyond their time. Men wanted that knowledge *to sustain them through their living time*, possibly not realizing the nature of their wish. By thinking of the time when their actions would still influence the world, they motivated themselves for the present.
We might try to derive meaning of our lives by association with something inherently bigger. Like, considering we influenced the lives of others(our friends and relations), were a part of an ecological system, played one generation of evolution, or were a part of a social, ideological movement. But then the question of meaning just switches to this bigger phenomenon. What makes this more meaningful with respect to true reality?
> I bring in the above examples again. This question arises *because* one *chose* to create the meaning for the present time, from the future possibility. If one chooses to create the meaning, and decide to experience the results *during* the course of his lifetime, with respect to his reality, this question would not arise.
From here on, you base your arguments on the conclusions derived till now. Incidentally, I do not understand how some of the statements are derived, especially, "Where an act just exists, and no meaning is required for its existance". I don't know why this is inserted in the place it is inserted.
The issue arises from my claim it is possible to experience the ultimate *reason to live* during the course of one's life. When an individual decides, possibly without conscious recognition of his decision, that such an experience is impossible during his lifetime, he seeks to find a motive for his actions outside his life - such as in the strength of the impressions he creates (or thinks he does) in others, the strength of the impressions he might leave behind after his death, the number of people he might influence, the number of years his influence might last, etc. I cannot prove my claim, but I bring it to your notice.
Firstly, thanks for reading and presenting your views.
I will try to answer your queries as lucidly as I can.
The post is basically about the futile search for the 'true objective undeniable' meaning of life, not an individual's specific opinions, which you seem to be focusing on.
The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual do not form his personal reality, completely. Others' actions are a part of his reality. This is a key point - reality does not constitute yourself alone, and an attempt to create reality out of your own perceptions alone is an attempt at pretence.
This is easier to explain with a little functional algebra(which is in general a very pathetic way for approaching, but I think it will suffice here)
Suppose
X = true reality
Y = an individual's reality
Then, Y = AX , where
A = a person's befiefs and opinions.
Example: I see a beggar, my decision to help him depends now on my own perceptions, my opinion of beggars in general, of humanity, my mindframe at the point, i.e. my personal reality.
There is no mirage. Reality, to a person, is what he knows to be unchallenge-ably true. The significance of anything one does, of going about life itself, when as soon as two hundred years in the future, one's life and most traces of it will cease to exist, is to generate as much happiness out of it as possible, DURING his lifetime. I don't see how an open discussion starts here.
Here you are mistaking btw the objective and subjective answers of meaning, as I mentioned at the start. The reason for altruism of the dying man is his own reason. If helping others is the purpose of one's life, what is the meaning of existence of the entire human race?
Where an act just exists, and no meaning is required for its existance
Again, objectiveness. I refer to an act for which we stop our thought processes and decide that it just is.
I hope that clarifies my points. Give the post another reading, I think it will appear more logical. :D
What you said: "The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual form his personal reality, and in our personal belief system, we attempt to find motivation for going about everyday tasks."
What I said: "The beliefs, principles and memories of an individual do not form his personal reality, completely. Others' actions are a part of his reality. This is a key point - reality does not constitute yourself alone, and an attempt to create reality out of your own perceptions alone is an attempt at pretence."
What you said: "This is easier to explain with a little functional algebra(which is in general a very pathetic way for approaching, but I think it will suffice here)
Suppose
X = true reality
Y = an individual's reality
Then, Y = AX , where
A = a person's befiefs and opinions.
Example: I see a beggar, my decision to help him depends now on my own perceptions, my opinion of beggars in general, of humanity, my mindframe at the point, i.e. my personal reality."
We lost the thread here. My comment was posted in protest of your first statement above. This example serves to help my argument, not yours. ;)
ohkk..
I never attempted to imply that the actual state of the world(involving actions of other people) does not effect a person. I meant that, the reality experience by a person, ie what he makes out of the world(involving actions of other people), is affected by his beliefs, principles, memories etc.
So we are probably saying the same thing.
What you said: "However, this mirage is shattered, when one tries to takes an perspective from outside oneself, a view of our actions at a cosmic/philosophical stage. This starts an open discussion on the significance of anything we do, of going about life itself, if as soon as two hundred years in the future, our life and most traces of it will cease to exist."
What I said: "There is no mirage. Reality, to a person, is what he knows to be unchallenge-ably true. The significance of anything one does, of going about life itself, when as soon as two hundred years in the future, one's life and most traces of it will cease to exist, is to generate as much happiness out of it as possible, DURING his lifetime. I don't see how an open discussion starts here."
What you said: "Here you are mistaking btw the objective and subjective answers of meaning, as I mentioned at the start. The reason for altruism of the dying man is his own reason. If helping others is the purpose of one's life, what is the meaning of existence of the entire human race?"
Reply to the dying-man reference:
Firstly, I was explaining why the act was not altruistic, not the reverse, and how he derives the meaning of his life by believing that in future, his actions remain influential. Secondly, I hope nowhere in my arguments did I suggest that helping others is the purpose of one's life. Don't jump the objectivist bandwagon yet.
Reply to the rest, which is the line "Here you are mistaking...": I missed exactly where you speak of objectve and subjective interpretations of "meaning". You stated what meaning meant, and that's why I liked that first paragraph in the first place.
"Again, objectiveness. I refer to an act for which we stop our thought processes and decide that it just is."
Okay. :)
Firstly, I was explaining why the act was not altruistic, not the reverse, and how he derives the meaning of his life by believing that in future, his actions remain influential.
Again, I don't care how he derives meaning of his life. I care about the meaning of his life. In absolute sense.
Secondly, I hope nowhere in my arguments did I suggest that helping others is the purpose of one's life. Don't jump the objectivist bandwagon yet.
I was speaking to the dying man here, not to you. (Incidentally, I belive helping others is as close to a satisfying answer to the meaning of life as we will ever come. (written in subjective sense, not to be used in further discussions) ).
Reply to the rest, which is the line "Here you are mistaking...": I missed exactly where you speak of objectve and subjective interpretations of "meaning". You stated what meaning meant, and that's why I liked that first paragraph in the first place.
I actually didn't get the problem.
Let me reiterate -
I want to know the 'actual true ultimate reason' of myself existing.
Post a Comment