[467] in Depressing_Thoughts
Beyond Depression
celine@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (celine@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Oct 23 01:01:35 1988
satistfactory
no...
A Rational Conception
Does anybody out there ever wonder why they are here, on this
planet, or, more fundamentally, why they even exist? I have wrestled
with many conceptions of authors who have dealy with the subject, to
the extent that my preoccupation with the meaning of life had become
an all consuming passion. Pointless questioning, you might say. But
why is it pointless? Because we can never determine the meaning of
life? Because there is no meaning of life? The more I've examined
the problem, the deeper my concern is that I really have no _rational_
justification for continued existence. How did I come to this
conclusion?
Accept as given, if you will, that I need, at a fundamental
level, a coherent and consistent purpose for my own existence. There
might have been a time, though I cannot remember one, when I could
live day by day and never question what I existed for. That day is
gone. So I began to look at the arguments offered by philosophers
such as Schopenhauer, Mill, Stace, Camus, Baier, and Taylor for the
meaning of life. There are basically three schools of thought. The
first is subscribed to by those who believe in a diety (or dieties) of
some sort, whether it be Judeo-Christian, Hinduism, Buddism, Islam, or
any other religion. There are too many inconsistencies in these
religions to subscribe to them at the orthodox level, however, I
sought to examine the idea that _any_ diety was likely given the
nature of the world.
As I see it, at any given moment, the suffering in the world
outweighs the happiness (more on happiness later) many times over.
Perhaps this is not a valid basis for judgement whether a diety
exists, but rather an argument against the idea that such an existing
diety could be accurately described as _good_, that is acting out of
love and compassion both in the creation and the supervision of the
race it created. By why can't there be a diety, given that this diety
not necessarily be good? No reason there _can't_ be. But it is not
rational (that word again) for me to believe in a diety, simply
because I cannot prove one does not exist. So I looked at the problem
from the other side. Given my failure to have a 'faith', why should I
believe that there is a diety or dieties? Well, there is the prime
cause argument. That is, even if one believed in a completely
scientific view, as far back as the point of the big bang; something
must have made that first ball of matter, right? But no, I couldn't
accept this. If something was there to create the matter, than it
existed _before_ the matter. Was it created? No, it always existed
is the pat answer. But, why, then, could the matter itself not have
always existed? There is nothing so strange and wonderous to me in
this life that I can only imagine some superior being to have created
it. There are better explanations in science.
So I moved on. The second school of thought is generally
entitled 'humanism'. These people argue that there can be meaning
_in_ life, though they can never truly tackle the question "What is
the meaning _of_ life?". I was dissatistfied with this, it is the
meaning of life I seek, but I felt it would probably be worth my while
to see what they had to say. "What is it", they asked, "to live a
meaningful life?". The answers vary widely. A popular belief is that
a meaningful life is a happy life, or better yet, a life that has
meaning _to that person_. Why is the first idea unsatisfactory? It
is far too easy to conceive of an existence where a person is
perfectly happy going to the same job every day where the work is
such that it need be repeated every day, say, doing dishes. Can we
objectively say that that person's life has any meaning? No. It has
meaning _to them_, the humanists cry. But we are in effect begging the
question if we say that anyone's life is meaningful as long as they
believe it to be so. Those that believe this need not ask of life's
meaning. "I believe my life is meaningful, ergo, my life is
meaningful." I cannot accept this.
One author makes a deliberate argument (and, unfortunately, a
very good one), as to what criterion a life would have to contain for
it to be _objectively_ meaningful. There are four conditions:
1. The purpose be truly noble and good.
2. The goal be attainable.
3. The end achieved be lasting.
4. The purpose be conceived by the individual.
Throwing out the second point, which is obviously flawed, I will
freely admit that any life that satistfies these criterion would be
objectively purposeful. From an objective viewpoint, though, can we
say that any life can be _objectively_ purposeful if it does not meet
these requirements? Can a person's life be purposeful in an objective
sense if they are striving towards a goal that is in conflict with the
interests of his fellow men. We would like to think not. But evil
purpose can lend meaning, I argue, as well as good. So the first
point can be discarded as well. Must it be the conception of that
individual though? Not objectively, no. A slave that could build a
lasting monument for all mankind to use forever would have a
purposeful life. We, looking back on the slaves that constructed the
pyramids, would not say their life was without purpose...but for the
final point, permanence.
Ahh, yes, permanence and decay. This is the pivotal criterion
for objective purpose. I could see the meaning in the life of one
that fashioned an object or idea that existed permantently, so when
that persons dust is no longer even recognizable there could still be
a landmark to his or her existence. But nothing is, except matter and
energy. These, we cannot create. We form them into shapes, but they
always return to chaos in time. And of thought? If there is no one
there to think them, they are as dead as the one who conceived them.
It was the result of this train of thought that I came to the
conclusion that life is without objective meaning. I already have
discarded subjective meaning. Humanism provided no solutions.
This leaves only the last of the three schools, which is
pessimism. It is into this group of misfits that my beliefs are
roughly encapsuled. These are the ones that believe either there is
no meaning of life, or we will never find it. Of meaning in life,
most of them believed, as I now do, that there can be none. How did
they justify their existence then. Camus believed that there is a
sense of purpose in recognizing the absurd state we are in, and that
there is nobility in rebellion against the absurd state, this
juxtiposition of matter and consciousness, and this noble rebellion is
enough to continue existence. Schopenhauer believed that there is an
impartial force he called "the Wille", something like 'mother nature'
and yet not the same. But mother nature has generally positive
connotations, not so for the Wille. Though it is a part of us, in
that we are at some level biological creatures, Schopenhauer urges us
to recognize the Wille for what it is, an impartial force, devoid of
compassion, and to resist it for the brutality it represents. To me,
Schopenhauers beliefs are almost religious, and Camus sounds like he
is rationalizing his continuance, rather than justifying it.
And as for me...
This is why this essay belongs in coatrack. I essentially have
_no_ justification for existence. I continue to look for the meaning
of life, though I have no reason to suspect I will ever find it. This
is the fundamental tenet of my life. To me, my life has null value.
I don't choose to take my life because, frankly, the idea of oblivion
is too powerful and irrevocable to surmount. And, worse, what if
there is a meaning of life, unlikely as it may seem, and because of my
immolation I fail to find it? So I live on. But I live as I believe.
Entering romantic relationships with women is impossible for me. I
have nothing to offer, for in the depths of my self is this belief I
cannot shake and would not share with anyone who cared for me. The
stronger my affection for someone, the stronger my urge to distance
myself from them and not share what I truly believe. Yes, I am a
vegatarian. How could I be anything else, when every animal life is
of greater value to its possessor than mine. Lasting happiness in
this world seems to be beyond our reach (I could not embrace it even
if it were possible to attain); I search for knowledge, and
often, I simply try to ignore what I believe to be true, though my
beliefs never go away.
Why post this? My beliefs are based on rational arguments. I
have searched for flaws, but without much success. Point them out to
me, if you see them. But please, make the points the result of
rational argument, not personal belief. Reason is the tool that got
me into this, no other will extract me. Not that I expect there to be
any answers.
