The Meaning of Life

In most modern philosophy, we begin in a place of radical skepticism.  What if nothing was what we thought it was?  What if all the concepts we lived with, the most significant foundations of our lives didn't actually exist at all?  What if there was no life after death, no soul, no God?  What if there was no real basis for any authority, any social structure?  What if, in reality, there is no meaning to ourselves or anything around us?  How then should we live?  How could we live?

And it's no wonder people don't like reading philosophy.  That's pretty depressing.  Everything we spent our lives on, meaningless.  In the end, nothing.  For the most part, however, philosophy doesn't end in this place.  It tries to build reality from this place in order to establish meaning.  From this place of nothingness, we could establish our meaning.

One option is to just remain in that place.  Okay, so there's no meaning?  Fine, I can live with that.  Or I can't.  It doesn't matter, either way, for all of life is absurd, a silly game, without significance.  So is life, our relationships, our parents, our own existence just an illusion, a smoke-in-mirrors trick?  Or is life so short... the whole existence of humanity and biological life such a brief blip in the history of the universe so quick that our activities aren't worth pursuing or exploring?  If this is the case, what are the options?  Suicide? Lethargy? Reading the same opinion over and over again?

This is the point that most bring in Sarte. In summary, Sarte agrees that there is no meaning in life, but we must create our own meaning.  The true meaning is what we make, based on who we deeply are.  We seek who we are and develop our lives around that.

Are we significant enough to do this?  Well, we are knowledgeable enough to know how small we are, how briefly we live, in the scope of the universe.  We may not be significant to change the course of a solar system, but we can be significant enough to shape ourselves to be in an image of our choosing. This is knowledge and talent that no other life or entity has ever had in all of existence (so says our radically skeptical nature).

So who are we?  Are we religious? Then let us embrace religiosity. Are we sexual? Then let us embrace those pleasures.  Are we consumers of good food?  Are we active? Are we competitive?  Are we depressed?  Are we lovers of power?  We can follow those paths.

As human, however, we find that a single description doesn't suit us.  Each of us is a weave of various threads, a city within a single mind. Every one of us consumes good food, desires human connection, fears threats, wants peace, wants control over our lives.  So this requires wisdom and balance for us to live even a life without meaning.

But is our life without meaning if we speak of balance?  Is there meaning in pursuing knowledge, even if that knowledge dies when we pass on? Is there a meaning in sexual pleasure if that leads to an ongoing relationship and family and continuing generations?  Is our real problem finding a meaning only if our meaning can be cosmic?  Isn't there meaning in raising a single child, even if that child lives a short, insignificant life?  Isn't there enough meaning for that child?

Does a deer in the forest consider their lives without meaning?  No, why should she?  Nor is she filled with despair when she looks at the cosmos, that is meaningless to her.  Even if we have greater understanding of the cosmos, does that mean that we must reject the meaningfulness of the doe, simply because we are human?  The doe exists for herself, for her children.  Can we not pursue that meaning, and find that it is sufficient?

The meaning that we have as humans is not, for most of us, to be found in knowledge of the cosmos, but in other humans.  We see others, and they are a part of ourselves, we are a part of them.  The more we spend time with another human, the more a part of us they are.  This is the function of mirror neurons in our brain, which humans seem to have more developed than other animals.  We can identify not only with other humans, but certain other animals, non-living object and fictions.  This function is a deep part of our meaning.

So should we not explore others, and how they create meaning in us?  Should we not pursue social groups, compassion, love, romance, entertainments, beauty? Should we pursue acts of the human future-- politics, activism, opportunities?

Is there not meaning in the small, as well as the large?

Are Miracles Possible?

Definitions are important.  David Hume defined that a "miracle" is that which is in opposition to the natural laws of the universe.  He defined the "universe" to be all that is, and that the laws are how they ran.  A miracle, by that definition, would be in opposition to reality.  Therefore nothing.

But a standard definition of "miracle" wouldn't be understood that way.  A "miracle" might be understood to be the action of a power of reality ( a subgroup of all that exists) that is beyond the perception of humanity to explain.  Then a miracle would just mean that the universe contains more than humanity can see.

Science has no problem with this.  They admit that gravity exists, but they do not know how or even how it works or where this force comes from. No one would call gravity a "miracle", because it follows certain predictable laws, but perhaps the origin of gravity is.  It is certainly beyond human comprehension.

A chronically ill person is sick, they are prayed for and then they are healed.  Is that not a miracle, whether you believe in God or not?  We experience hope with no reason to found it on and our hope is realized.  Is that not a miracle?  Science claims humanity will cease by a certain date, but humanity continues.  Is that a miracle, or simply progress?

The problem of a miracle is when we take a event or experience that is beyond human explanation or knowledge and determine absolutely what the source of that miracle is.  A miracle is, by its very nature, mysterious.  To claim that a source of a miracle is a powerful being or to claim it is a psychological phenomena are both equally premature.

Perhaps we need to embrace the mysterious nature of the universe?  Recognizing that we simply will not know all there is to be known?  Can we ever understand all causes of all things?

What is the Significance of Death?

For some, the cessation of life is a bad thing.  It means no more energy, no more activity, no more pursuing, no more forcing of one's will, no more hoping, no more joy.  For others, death is a positive thing.  It means rest, it means peace, it is the end of oppression, then end of suffering.  Death might look horrible on the surface, but that is our experience of deaths of those whom we love.

Every person is connected to another, and each person we know makes up part of who we are (through mirror neurons).  So when we experience their death, we experience a loss of a part ourselves.  Does this mean that our experience of death must also be dreadful?  Might the different perspective equate a different experience? Might death be positive.

Is it possible that the cessation of our life could be positive?  After all, the end of our existence means the end of our universe.  We have only one perspective to understand the world from, and our whole universe takes place in our brains.  Without our brains, all of reality, all of the universe ceases to exist from our perspective.  How can this be good?  All that we have done fades and all that we have accomplished is for naught.

On the other hand, from our perspective, all of our striving and trials and difficulties are faded as well.  There is no longer any evil.  And since our brain is no longer functioning, we cannot experience any angst about our cessation.  Non-existence means no emotional insecurities.

But does death automatically mean the end of our existence?  Plato held that our bodies, including our brains, are just holding us back from true freedom.  Since we have lived, can we cease from living?  Is there not some way in which existence might always be, but without the constraints and shackles of the body?

And even if our life and existence is trapped to the body, is it not possible that a future entity, a future humanity, might take our DNA and re-create us, giving us a new chance at life?  Is our life really over?  Can it ever really be over?

Demons: A Philosophic Introduction

Historically, demons played a significant place in history.  Millions have died because of the assumption of demonic influence, by monotheists and polytheists and spiritualists.  Some see demons behind every corner, even today.  Demons are the epitome of evil, the enemy of humankind and of all that is good.  From a philosophic standpoint, how do we consider the demonic, or that which is called demonic?

Many call demons just a myth, just stories to entertain and to encourage certain moral practices.  Certainly the tales of Faust and Hellboy are but stories. But how does one explain the many, many experiences of evil spirits that people claim are true?  The story of The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty is supposed to be based on true events, and other exorcisms are confirmed.  What do these real events mean?  Are they all mechanisms of the insane? 

Eugene Thacker, in his philosophic work, In the Dust of this Planet, suggests that the demonic is a method by which we culturally explore the reality of nothingness. The absence of life, of meaning, of purpose frightens us so that we personify it and label it as a being itself.  This would make sense with demons being our own temptations, and evil circumstances.  But what about the stories of spirits who attack?  Of those who are innocent, but experiencing judgment?  Are demons just a way to speak of evil coincidence? Of statistical probability that bad circumstances will happen to us?

It is also true that in ages past many items that we have labels and some understanding of were called demonic in the ancient and medieval world. Schizophrenia, seizures, fits of rage and fevers were often “caused” by evil spirits in the ancient world.  So is that which we do not really understand (like schizophrenia, which we can describe and label, but not really determine the cause), or cure still a black box, even though we do not call it “demonic”?  Are we really any better off than those who called it demonic?  Is a book collecting a list and descriptions of mental disorders really any better than a witch hunter’s manual which catalogs and describes demonic activity? What is really the difference?

Associated with mental disorders are those who cannot fit into society or belong to a different culture. In the past, some were called demonic, even though they had a place in their original society, such as spiritualist healers and astrologers.  The foreign or strange is often called demonic by those who do not understand certain actions.  Is the demonic fundamentally a way of us describing our own discomfort of those who act in a socially awkward or unacceptable manner?  Are those who cannot understand or appreciate societal nuances still make outcast in the same way, even if we do not use the term “demonic”?  Are the labels that separate the unwanted any better or worse than the term “demonic”?

A Life of Questions is the Answer

Wonderfully animated film about a life of seeking truth, Stairs to No End:

http://vimeo.com/42507822

Solitude v. Community

Some consider the path of Solitude the best path of living.

Solitude allows the contemplation of a deeper reality, which the distractions of everyday busy life do not allow.
Solitude allows there to be personal authenticity, so we can know who we are and not just who we seem to be before others.
Solitude develops self-discipline and self-reliance, which leads to self-empowerment.
And, it is said, solitude alone can give us the peace of mind and reflection to consider how best to act and live.

Others consider Solitude to be a danger.

Alone, a person has no real purpose or focus, but instead only falls deeper into the self which is an empty hole.
Solitude leads to madness, fear of others, paranoia and self-delusion.
In fact, they say, the right way to live can only be discovered with others.  Without others, we cannot love, we cannot be faced with uncomfortable truths, and we cannot build on other's strengths.
If we are to be our real selves, we discover that self by connecting in community.  Without community, we are only a shadow of our deepest selves.

Some say that our lives and communities should be a balance between solitude and community.

Too much solitude or too much community is dangerous.  In solitude, we cannot empathize.  In community, we can become numb from overwhelming empathy.
Some gain much from solitude, while others gain nothing from constant relation in community.  Different people are different.  To say that only one is beneficial is like saying that it is a moral requirement for everyone to be married or for everyone to be single.
There are different purposes for each activity.  Community teaches us love.  Solitude gives us the opportunity to consider pure truth.  In the balance of these two activities is the real truth.

What do you think?

Impossible Questions

At a move theatre, which armrest is yours?

At what point does a day stop being partly sunny and become partly cloudy?

What would happen if Pinocchio said, "My nose will grow longer!"?

If vampires can't see their reflections, why is their hair always so neat?

What do you do when you see an endangered animal that is eating an endangered plant?

Is it rude for a deaf person to sign with food in their hands?

Can a short person talk down to a tall person?

What was Captain Hook’s name before the alligator bit off his hand?

Do graveyard caretakers get a cost of living increase?

Why are builders afraid to have a 13th floor but book publishers aren't afraid to have a Chapter 11?

If you ate pasta and antipasti, would you still be hungry?

Can an illiterate person really appreciate alphabet soup?

If there's an exception to every rule, is there an exception to that rule?

Why is it that when a person tells you there's over a million stars in the universe you believe them, but if someone tells you there's wet paint somewhere, you have to touch it to make sure?

Aren't all generalizations false?

How do you treat someone addicted to counselling and self-help groups?

If women ran the Pentagon, would missiles and submarines be shaped differently?

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

Why isn’t phonetic spelled like it sounds?

Shouldn’t monosyllabic be shorter?

Should burn victims get a discount at a crematorium?

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

How much deeper would the ocean be if it had no sponges?

If quizzes are quizzical, then what are tests?

When the police arrests a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent?

If the world didn't suck, would we all fall off?

What does it make me when someone calls me gullible and I believe them?

If a deaf person is taken to court, is it still called a hearing?

How important does a person have to be when they are no longer "murdered" but "assassinated"?

What if the hokey-pokey really is what it's all about?