Is Life Worth Living?

The universe is big.  We are not.
Does our puny existence really make any difference?

Yes, we all have an instinct to survive, to thrive, but rarely do we look at the assumptions of this instinct.

Is it better for us to live as individuals?  Are we actually improving other's lives?  Are we causing life to continue or to recess?  Is our life good on its own, without reference to anyone else?  Are we living in joy or even contentment?

All of this causes us to look deeper.  What is the purpose of our lives?  Are we given that purpose by another, or do we create it ourselves?  Is our purpose innate, or is our purpose discovered over time?  Do we not discover our purpose until our life is finished and we can look back on the whole thing and discover the purpose?  Or is there no purpose whatsoever?  Is it that we just are, there is nothing else, no one else, we can really compare or contrast ourselves to because we are and there is nothing else to say about it?

And what about life and existence in general?  Are we a part of a bigger purpose, effort, or are we completely independent?  Does life, all matter in the universe have a purpose, or is it just existing and there is nothing else?  Is matter moving toward a conclusion or is it all waves, temporary patterns and return to the abyss from which matter came?

Or is there any abyss?  After all, if matter exists, did it not always exist?  And if there is existence, then does it not exist for a reason?  Even if that reason is simply to exist?  Is there not joy just in existing, even if the universe at large isn't interested?  Perhaps there is no abyss, but only being?

In the end, perhaps it is enough to know that we exist.  To end our existence is the greatest acts of pride, because that one act takes all the evidence of our existence, and calls them negligible, with less than no purpose. Because if we have no purpose, there is no reason to act.  If we act, we do so with the intent to improve.  Is not living the answer to worth?

What is Marketable?

More and more things are being determined by private industry on the free market instead of the government: prisons, utilities and even street lights in some communities. And even the government and schools are involved in market tactics: you can go to the head of the line in immigration if you have a half a million dollars and some schools are paying kids to read.

We have already made choices as a society about some things that are unacceptable to buy or sell.  We are in agreement that human beings cannot be bought or sold.  Nor endangered species.  Are there other things that are too valuable to put on the open market?  What about human survival?  What about areas that are afflicted by famine or disease?  Shouldn't there be an agreement that no matter how much it costs, we will make sure groups of people have the ability to live, if we can help it?

Also, market forces aren't always successful in accomplishing the purpose of an institution.  Can money really help a child to read, or does it teach the child that reading is supposed to be only for financial gain?  If all things are determined by money, don't we all learn that money is the source of all life?  And is that actually true? 

What arenas in life ought not to be determined by how much money one has? What areas of life shouldn't be given a price at all?

Testing Our Rationality

It is the goal of philosophy to attack the irrational and to accept the rational.  Philosophers like to do this in pristine environments, which allow for the best thinking possible, either alone or with colleagues who have the same intensity to answer the questions asked.

However, what if our very premise of how to do philosophy is irrational?  What if there is no such thing as a pristine, stress-free environment?  What if, in having others participate in our seeking of answers, we are fooling ourselves that our relationships will be stable enough to create a place to produce answers?

Albert Ellis came up with Ten Irrational Beliefs that many of us have about our lives and relationships.  Which of these do you agree are irrational beliefs?  Which of these beliefs do you have a hard time letting go of?  Which of these beliefs do you deny are irrational, but that they are simply necessary for a human life?

1. The idea that you must have love or approval from all the significant people in your life

2. The idea that you absolutely must be thoroughly competent, adequate, and achieving or the idea that you must be competent or talented in some important area.

3. The idea that other people absolutely must not act obnoxiously and unfairly, and that when they do, you should blame and damn them, and see them as bad, wicked, or rotten individuals.

4. The idea that you have to see things as being awful, terrible, and catastrophic when you are seriously frustrated or treated unfairly.

5. The idea that you must be miserable when you have pressures and difficult experiences; and that you have little ability to control, and cannot change, your disturbed feelings.

6. The idea that if something is deemed dangerous or fearsome, you must obsess about it and frantically try to escape from it before it happens.

7. The idea that you can easily avoid facing challenges and responsibilities and still lead a highly fulfilling existence.

8. The idea that your past remains all-important and because something once strongly influenced your life, it has to keep determining your feelings and behavior today.

9. The idea that people and things absolutely must be better than they are and that it is awful and horrible if you cannot change life’s grim facts to suit you.

10. The idea that you can achieve maximum happiness by inertia and inaction or by passively enjoying yourself.

One more question: How do you usually respond to such a circumstance as it is described?  Is your response rational or irrational?

The biggest issue here is the relationship between personal need and what we can actually demand from our environment.  Rationally, we cannot demand from our environment what the environment does not have.  But even the most rational of us do just that, and when our expectations our dashed we are angry and we might lash out.  Yet the issue is not a lack in our environment, but the lack within ourselves.  How can we rationally deal with that? 

Why Are Addictions Unacceptable?

Hi, my name is Steve and I’m an addict. 

Of course, we are all addicted to something.  Sleep or chocolate or coffee or something.  Addiction isn’t always the mine field we need to walk through, but often addictions are the archipelagos on which life is contained.  What is the difference between a drunk and a person who eats a candy bar every day?

Perhaps the difference is between what harms ourselves and what doesn’t.  Certainly too much alcohol and too many cigarettes are harmful, and so they are a bad addiction, while having a sweet tooth, especially if we exercise enough and have good dental hygiene, isn’t so bad.  Of course, anything in excess will kill us, and we don’t consider the items themselves to be problematic.  Why is addiction to meth—which destroys oneself completely— unacceptable and illegal, but addiction to Big Macs aren’t?  Why don’t the all you can eat pizza bar managers go around telling people, “I think you’ve had enough” like a bartender? 

Perhaps an unacceptable addiction is due to the harm that it causes others?  Alcohol addiction destroys families but an addiction to porn rarely harms anyone (at least physically.  Socially it may be a problem).  Yet we seem to judge addictions according to type, not to harm done.  If a person has meth on their person, they are arrested not because they have done harm to others, but simply because they have the drug. 

The other issue is that especially in the West, we almost all have addictions that causes harm to others.  Chocolate is often picked by slaves, that’s why it is so cheap.  Our addiction to cheap gas has killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world.  Yet few people (or nations) go to 12 step groups about their dependence on oil.  There are some kind of addictions that are completely acceptable not because the harm to others isn’t known, but because the harm is an acceptable price for the addiction.  While other addictions it is not.

Perhaps some addictions are acceptable because of the level of dependence.  A person who is addicted to drugs is consumed by it, where their life revolves around it.  They eat, drink and sleep their addiction and nothing is done without reference to that addiction.  Like a young mother about her children, or an older person about a bowel movement.  Or like a cancer patient about their disease.  Actually, we recognize that there are some obsessions that are important.

Then perhaps what society doesn’t accept is the cost to society at large.  Alcohol-related diseases take a huge toll on lives and the health industry.  But not as much as lack of exercise.   And the United States’ addiction to meddling in other nation’s affairs is far more expensive than any other addiction on the planet.   No, there are certain costs society is willing to pay, even if they are unhealthy.

Perhaps the real issue is the lack of productivity.  A serious addict is a person whose addiction causes them to be fruitless, listless, lazy.  So the addict is compared to the chronically ill, or the mentally ill, who have little capacity to be productive in society.  But the addict is anathema, because they “chose” to be addicts, while the ill have no choice.  Although personal choice certainly has an aspect in the disability of the addict, that could also be said for some chronically ill or mentally ill.  And the route out of addiction isn’t as simple as “making a choice”—rather, it is a long, complicated road that often requires a will and self-examination that few have.   And the reason we all have some addictions is because some are forced to deal with their addictions, while others are not.  We have all made compromises and allow harm to come to ourselves and others because of the addictions we have because we find them to be acceptable.  Not because they are right.

Perhaps some addictions are acceptable and others aren’t because we are hypocrites?

When Should We Not Forgive?

"There is a time for peace, a time for war; a time to sow, a time to reap;" a time to forgive and a time to... what?

Forgiveness is often stated as a general virtue: "To forgive, divine"; "Forgive and forget"; "I'm not perfect just forgiven."  To forgive is something that is an assumption, the moral equivalent of following the rules in a game-- of course you do that.  But should we always forgive?  Are there times when it is better for everyone that we not forgive?

Before we begin our questions, we must first know that when we speak about forgiveness, we are talking about three different actions.  The first action is releasing one's bitterness against a wrong done.  This is the kind of forgiveness that is being spoken of in the statement, "To not forgive is like punishing another by cutting your own hands off."  To not be bitter is to stop being angry about the situation, and it is a personal psychological state.

Honestly, there is no real reason not to forgive in this context.  The question is often whether a person is psychologically able to release the thoughts of anger against another.  As the statement above says, not to psychologically forgive only harms the one not forgiving.

The second action of forgiveness is at the root of the word.  Originally to "forgive" means to wipe away a debt. This means that there was money or some other debt that is no longer held to another's account.  The slate is wiped clean, there is a "zero" in the account book instead of a negative number.  This has the moral connotation of complete mercy.  There is no moral requirement for a person to not demand what was owed to them.  However, at times compassion overrules quid pro quo.

The question of not forgiving in this context is more complicated.  For some, there is a moral lapse in forgiving what was owed you.  For many people there is a basic principle upon which the world works: You reap what you sow; Nothing in life is free; You must pay for what you use.  If one forgives what was clearly owed (whether it be economically or some other kind of agreement), then that system breaks down, and people begin to assume that you don't have to pay for anything.  Is that really true?  Do we have to pay for everything-- the air we breathe is free, you are reading this post for free.  Does use or ownership always require payment?  Or are there aspects of life in which barter isn't ever required?  There are large chunks of the internet that are free, including valuable software and hardware.  Craigslist and other classifieds have whole communities that exchange items without cost.  Do these communities hurt the normal way the world work?

There is a different question if someone is demanding forgiveness of what is owed.  Clearly, forgiveness is something one asks for, not one demands.  Grace is a gift, but it is not a principle of life.  Unless one is in a community of giving, in which grace can be a demand.  If one is in Craigslist "free" listing, is one right to be angry if money is required when you come to look at the item?

The third kind of forgiveness is related, but goes a step further, which is to release from punishment.  Often there is a punitive requirement beyond a quid pro quo.  If someone steals from a grocery store, the store not only demands the item returned (or the financial equivalent) but also will have the person arrested and punished for theft.  Punishment is also meted out in everyday relationships.  To insult a teenage girl is to be "punished" by her not speaking to you for a time.  To sin and not repent in an Amish community is to receive shunning, or cutting off from the community. Adultery often ends in divorce, rejection of one friendship often means cutting the ties with other friends, to hit a person can mean to be hit back twice, or shot.

To forgive in this punitive context is to release one from any kind of continuing punishment.  This is not necessarily releasing one from a quid pro quo (although it might include that), but it is releasing one from any other requirements.  Once the debt is paid, the incident is set aside, not mentioned, as if the incident had never happened.

Why should we punish a wrong done?  Some say that it prevents wrongs from being done.  A person doesn't steal not only because it's wrong, but because there is an attached punishment that prevents one from doing that crime.  A person doesn't commit adultery not only because it would be breaking their commitment, but there are also consequences to such action.  But does forgiveness in one instance mean that all crimes are allowable?  Will people really do whatever they want because wrongs are at times unpunished?

Other times we punish because it is emotionally satisfying.  It is not enough for a person to pay back the same amount lost, there must be an additional payback. If our kid brother hits us, then we will hit back harder (unless he cries, which makes our dad hit us-- and he hits a lot harder). Unless we hurt a person a little more than they hurt us, we don't feel like we are able to forgive.  Is this emotion morally correct?  Is there a benefit of increasing punishment?  Or does "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind" like Gandhi says?

Where Does Morality Come From?

I think it is pretty clear that grasshopper morality comes from grasshoppers.  Even crickets, while they might occasionally be irritated at grasshoppers for their quiet, manipulative ways, agree in the end, "Well, they are grasshoppers.  They don't operate by our rules."  The same with dogs, sparrows, dinosaurs, and mosquitoes (although the latter's morality still encourages humans to kill them coldly, occasionally gleefully).

Thus, human morality comes from humans. While some might claim that God is the source of human morality, one would have to claim that God made humans to be a certain way.  Sacred texts give some general direction, but none say, "Yes, give 20 dollars to the beggar on 20th and Main on Tuesday of next week because it will change his life."  No, we figure out what to do, every day, with a holy book only giving us the most general of directions.

So where is the source of human morality?  Where does it come from?  This has been argued since the day of Plato's Republic, and is still being discussed today. The three main contenders are: a.Self interest; b. Moral reasoning and c. Emotion.  Let's take a moment to look at each.

Self Interest
Glaucon in The Republic presented this case long before social Darwinists did.  His argument is this: If a normal human being (not some goody-two-shoes Harry Potter) had an invisible cloak, he would get away with as much as he could.  He would steal, have sex with whoever he wanted, find out secrets to cut down his enemies, etc.  On the surface, if we have a fairly critical eye on human nature, we might agree. Micro economics is based on the idea that groups of people will always act in their own self interest.  Studies have been done to show that if a person thought no one was looking, people-- almost all people-- would certainly cheat.  However, those same studies show that people only cheat a little bit.  The cheating might increase over time, if they were allowed, but most people aren't interested in stealing Ft. Knox, but only a little bit more than they have right now.  Very few would become criminal masterminds.  Yet this doesn't deny the power of self-interest in morality.  But can we say that self-interest is the basis for all morality?  Darwin speculated that morality is based on what is best for the group or species, not the individual, which accounts for traits of  altruism.  But does that really explain a person jumping into a river to save a drowning child, although he might himself die?  Does it explain that we, as a species, are willing to let five people die as long as we don't kill one person?

Reason
The Enlightenment scholars said that the best kind of morality is reasoned morality, that which is considered and plotted.  Plato agrees, which is why he felt that the Philosopher King is the one to rule.   John Stuart Mill thought that morality could be measured like a mathematical formula, quantifying the right morality by measuring the total amount of pleasure by all people in any one action.  Kant felt that reason can determine the correct action, by determining the most consistent good, without contradiction.  But is reason actually the way we ever determine the right course of action?  If so, why do all of the moral principles determined by strict reason seem to be missing something?  Should we, like Kant says, never lie without exception?  Certainly it is wrong to lie most of the time, but sometimes isn't it the right thing to do (like when my wife asks me how she looks before we go out)?  Is the majority of pleasure really the best course of action, always?  If an entire city could live in complete happiness for a year if a single, young child is tortured and killed, does that equation really equal morality?  And in fact, studies have found that more often than not, reason is used after a moral course has been chosen.  Do we reason to determine morality, or to make our actions seem more moral, no matter what we have chosen?

Emotion
Emotion isn't, strictly speaking, irrational. When we are angry, we sense injustice and we respond to that injustice.  When we are fearful, we sense a danger to ourselves or our loved ones, and the emotion of "fear" drives us to respond to that.  So emotions are less "irrational" and more of an innate, intuitive rationality.  We are responding to a hidden reasoning that isn't necessarily conscious or even knowable.  And it could be that our morality is based on that?  How often is it that we know what is right or wrong instantly, without a moment's thought, even if we had never done a certain action before?  And we do not always choose self interest as our motivating factor.  People who make great sacrifices for others often do so instantly, without a thought for themselves, or really, thinking at all.

And yet, is morality strictly instinct?  After all, people can be trained in certain moral thinking, even as a martial artist is skilled in precise movements. Certain Buddhists, Jews and Christians live a very peculiar mode of life, based on a certain morality given to them from their teachings.  Is this a special kind of reasoning, or some divine guidance that allows them to live differently?  Or is it their society that molds them and trains them to become so morally unique, until their moral decisions become just as quick as capitalists? And is society completely to be blamed or praised for the creation of saints or serial killers, neither of which is trained by any society at all?  They seem to have their own set of moral codes that they follow, whether for ill or for good.

Or is it simply too complex to be determined?

What Is Philosophy?

It is fairly common knowledge that the root of the word "philosophy" means "love of wisdom".  We've already discussed how complicated the idea of love is.  What about wisdom?

Is "wisdom" just knowledge, especially knowledge that perhaps isn't widely known?  Like the numerals of pi up to 200 places. Perhaps not.  Often "wisdom" is spoken of as practical knowledge, the knowledge of good living.  Some of philosophy deals with that, but much of it does not.  Often, especially when we read many of the "classic" philosophers, from Aristotle to Descartes to Wittgenstein we don't see much practical living tips.  That seems more for the realm of self-help, instead of philosophy classes.

The fact that we talk about books and classes in connection to philosophy seems to mean that it is an intellectual pursuit, something the learned pursue, but not the everyday person.  And yet, the everyday person may have a "philosophy of life", or the principles by which they live.  While it may seem that the philosopher-- or perhaps better titled "experts in studies of classic philosophers"-- has more knowledge about ethics or metaphysics, are they really any better prepared to deal with their rebellious teenager?  Do they have a better idea of who is the best candidate to vote for?

In the ancient world, philosophy covered a lot more territory than it does today.  It covered all of what we call "science" and science really grew out of philosophical speculations. In the middle ages, theology was considered the "queen of the sciences" and was a part of philosophy. Psychology and sociology grew out of philosophical speculations, as did political science.   Nowadays we oppose philosophy from theology and science.  We consider them different disciplines.  It seems that philosophy has grown smaller.

Some even wonder whether philosophy is necessary now.  After all, experimentation is a much better method to determine truth than reasoning.  After all, reasoning has led humanity down many wrong paths.  But it isn't the reasoning that led down the wrong path but reasoning that becomes solidified, unchangeable, unquestionable.  Aristotle was one of the smartest men in the ancient world, but when he became the only teacher allowed, he was a monster, a cage to keep wisdom locked.

It seems then that philosophy, at it's best, is when it breaks the mold and asks questions no one is asking, when it speculates in areas which are taboo.  Philosophy gave birth to many sciences and disciplines of thought because it is the originator of new thoughts, the poking and prodding of concepts which have never been explored before. A playground of ideas never contemplated.   Perhaps philosophy didn't get the answers all the time, but the questions are glorious, and pave the way for better answers than would happen without such speculations.

"It's Only Words...

...but words are all I have to take your heart away."  So goes the Bee Gees song.  But is language really all we have?  In the 20th century a number of thinkers considered that language was the only thing that separated humanity from the animals.  However, since that time we have taught apes sign language.  And we have studied the natural language of many animals, including prairie dogs (Really, prairie dogs? Yep. Just check this out).

But whether animals have language or not, the question remains: is language what makes us think?  If we didn't have language, would we be able to communicate?  Could we warn, "A flood is coming" if we didn't have words?

Certainly Stan Brakhage doesn't think so.  He created many abstract shorts in order to communicate without language, or without normal narrative.

Of course, the question remains as to whether Stan communicates anything.

But we don't have to go as far as abstract to reach for communication without words.  We don't need words to understand this film by Buster Keaton:

On the other hand, we can say that to take language away from a world built with language is disingenuous. Without language, there couldn't be a police force, nor need for a fence, nor buildings to run around-- let alone movie cameras or actors.  To make that world built on language and make it silent doesn't mean that language isn't involved.

A recent film, Tree of Life, uses many metaphorical images to communicate it's theme of Grace and Nature. But without understanding the ideas of Grace and Nature (and perhaps having those specific terms defined for us) the visual metaphors don't make any sense.

Perhaps without language our society wouldn't be as complex as it is.  But without language can we really say that we have no thought at all?  Or is language only necessary for communication?  Is there really thought without communicating with others?  Just because most of our thoughts are derived from the internet, does that mean that there is not thought without the internet?  Given the fact that we live in a world filled with language, can we even answer this question?

Or is language just one tool of communication?  Are pictures really the same as language?  But don't they still communicate?  Without any language, without ever having language, doesn't this picture communicate something?:

And what about people who don't share the same language?  Can't they communicate with each other without understanding a single comprehensible word?  What about non-verbal communication, some of which is universal?  A smile always means the same thing, although there are a variety of smiles.  Again, this isn't as complex as language can give, but isn't it communication?

One last thing:  Do words communicate more than we know?  Our word for "compassion" comes from the Latin, but because of the inclusion of the word "passion" communicates strong feeling, not objectivity, although the word doesn't necessarily communicate a concept that includes deep feeling.  Wouldn't we get a different meaning from the Greek word for "compassion", splakchna?  It comes from a Greek word which originally meant "bowels".  It also implies a deep feeling, but perhaps a different kind of deep feeling?

Just how deeply does language effect our thinking?  Do English-only speakers think differently than Chinese-only thinkers, simply because different languages are involved?  If so, how could they communicate, even with a translator?  Wouldn't that mean that an interpreter would have to be more than a translator of words, but of culture and of values-- the meaning of the terms in a different mindset, not just a one-for-one meaning?

What is Religion?

One of the most interesting turns in religion in the last few decades is committed religious people rejecting "religion".  They will say "I have a relationship, not religion" or "religion is man seeking God, Christianity is God seeking man." or "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual."  Aren't they redefining what religion is?  Isn't religion any of thousands of ways to connect with or appease a god or spirit world?  What actually is religion?

Perhaps some think that religion relates only to ritual, the repeating of certain words or actions on a regular basis to appease the spirit world.  Certainly primitive religion is pure ritual with stories to explain the meaning of the actions. Perhaps that is what they are rejecting.  But isn't life filled with positive ritual?  We brush our teeth every day, we go to bed at the same time, we have little habits with our significant other.  Since our lives our filled with ritual, doesn't it seem natural that our religious life is filled with ritual?  Even the least ritualistic have rituals they enact. Those who speak in tongues, often repeat the same sound phrases.  Those who pray often repeat the same words.  Those who sing new songs also sing the old ones.  Is it possible to escape ritual in religion?  But in this way, ritual isn't a very significant concept in religion because ritual is a normal part of life.

Religion can also be seen as action without intent.  Religious people often have a problem with saying they believe one thing but their actions show another.  So perhaps these religious people are rejecting hypocrisy.  To a certain degree, however, hypocrisy is simply lack of awareness.  We all state a reason for one action, but our actions show we are doing it for another.  Or our actions have mixed motivations.  Hypocrisy is a part of life because we are often unaware of our own motivations-- a careful analysis from the outside might show more clearly why we do something rather than internal consideration.  If hypocrisy is a part of life, then hypocrisy is a part of religion, as it is in our family, in our marriages and in our workplace.

Some would reject "organized" religion, or spirituality with a hierarchy, separations of insiders and outsiders, corporate worship, and group dynamics.  They consider their spirituality to be personal, and not shared with anyone else.  But I wonder about the separation between "spiritual" and "religious" on this basis.  If a person reads a holy book daily and interacts with the spirit world regularly, and allows such interactions to effect one's life, isn't that a "religious" person?

The very idea of religion is difficult to pin down.  Although most people consider religion to have to do with a  god or gods, many "religions" are closer to philosophies, like many forms of Buddhism.  Most religions have an authority that they depend on, but many religious people are guided by their own personal spirituality without a holy book or leader.  Religion usually includes the belief of unseen personal spirits, but many religions hold these spirits to be insignificant for their daily life.  In the end, what is the core of religion?  What does a religion actually consist of?  When we define "religion" we usually can find a religion that is an exception to that definition.

In a sense, this question relates to a question about words in general.  A word like "religion" is messy, as clear as the ocean, as distinct as a fuzzy photo. In some contexts, it has a clear meaning, but if the context is vague, then the meaning of the word is vague.  I think we need to remember that words aren't scalpels, but chameleons.