I'm sure that after reading many of my more nihilistic works many have wondered just what I believe in or if I believe in anything. It's obvious that I am an atheist of sorts. I doubt god's existence though I remain open to the possibility of some sort of creator and even the possibility of an intelligent creator. Though I seriously doubt that any of man's religions come close to capturing it. I don't believe in an afterlife. No qualifying statements here. I'm as close to positive as anyone who has never died can be that there is no life after death. This life is all we've got. So then what's it all about?
"Why are we here?"Man has asked this question since he first discovered that he could use his mind for more than foraging for food and shelter and avoiding predators. The answers have varied over the millennia yet very few have sufficed. Most of the answers have appealed to our hopes and fears while leaving our intellect wanting, filling in the tremendous voids in our existential knowledge with pacifying fantasies. Science has faired no better in this area, appealing to our intellect with little regard to our emotions. The answer must fulfill both longings, our intellectual longing for truth and our emotional longing for purpose. Anything else misses the mark.
Why is this question so important? Why must it be asked at all? Because life does not come without a price. It is not all sunshine and roses. There is darkness and there are thorns. Every man or woman who has held a loved one in their arms as they suffered and perished has asked. Every sick, starving, bullied, and abused child has asked. Every scorned lover has asked. Every one who has ever experienced any vexation of their will has asked. Anyone who loves humanity and sees the wholesale anguish and death of which the world is everywhere full has asked. Life demands a toll, The toil and struggle necessary to acquire the commodities of existence and the pain of failure. Every moment of existence is taxed with some pain and what sane human being would not ask the worth and value of that which he struggles so hard to preserve, that which he has paid such a price to maintain? Yet, we pay this tax with no knowledge of the meaning, purpose, or value of this prize. I have my suspicions why this is so.
There are six major theories on the meaning of life.
1) Living to do the will of God
2) Living for the betterment of humanity (including one's family)
3) Living for love
4) Living for happiness
5) Living to leave your mark on the world
6) Living to learn lessons and advance to the next higher plane of existence
In my first year as a philosophy major I took on these theories in my thesis-length research paper entitled "Existential Malaise, The Case Against life". I don't have eighty pages here to devote to these arguments as I did in my paper so they will be greatly abbreviated, but I wanted to at least give you a brief synopsis of each. If you've read my work many of these ideas may sound familiar.
"The Will of God Argument"
This one is a long one but I will do my best to be brief. The biggest problem with this argument is that it is based on the unfounded assumption that God's Will and God's plan are good. In fact, it is based on the assumption that God's plan is great, so great as to justify all the suffering of the world, every innocent child that is murdered, abused, dies of disease, starves and every mother that has grieved for them. That's quite a plan. Wouldn't it be nice to know what this plan is and why it requires the suffering of innocents to bring it about? Shouldn't an omnipotent and ominiscient deity be able to fulfill his design without letting millions of innocent children die of disease, starvation, cruelty, and neglect? The faithful would answer that they know God's plan is good because God is good and I know God is good because it says so in the bible and God wrote the bible and if you're not dizzy yet I have more circular reasoning for you.
They say that God works in mysterious ways and all will be revealed at the day of judgment and that you cannot judge "The All-Mighty". As Marc commented on an earlier thread, "...I don't feel it is my place to judge God. I think that he is a lot smarter and wiser than me and he has his reasons for why he does things which may not be completely apparent to us now, but perhaps will be reveal to us later on. I basically think that God has calculus that none of us can understand. Further, he dwarfs the universe, so there must be aspects to him that are unattainable." But isn't saying that God is good a judgment? And if he can be judged good can he not also be judged evil? If we say that he is neither good nor evil but something beyond such judgment than why again would we submit ourselves to something that is beyond our understanding and therefore may not be in our best interest? Why would we assume that a being that "dwarfs the universe" and has "calculus none of us can understand" is necessarily acting in our best interest? I'd be more suspicious of such an entity not less. This falls under the classification of a leap of faith aka a gamble.
The other problem with the assumption that God's plan which we suffer and die for is so great as to merit all the pain and misery of life is that nothing about life indicates that the force, entity, intelligence, or whatever you believe that created life is capable of doing better than he has here. There is nothing to indicate that the creator is capable of creating a paradise. In fact, our lives here on earth would actually lead us to surmise that the force of creation is completely incapable of creating anything greater than what he has on earth. And to believe based on the evidence that we have, that this creator would be capable of a reward so great as to excuse all the evils of this world from famine, disease, and natural disasters to war, oppression, serial serial killers, and child molesters is completely absurd. The most reasonable thing I ever heard anyone say was that to know God you must examine his works, his creation, and not look to what man wrote in some book. I agree. Of course most of the people I've heard say this weren't talking about famine and disease and lions murdering other male lions, taking all the female lions and murdering all the children they fathered with the deposed lion. They were talking about his good works. Anything bad they say was caused by the devil, which doesn't let God off the hook because he created him, or freewill, which would only work if God were not omniscient or not particularly intelligent at all since a reasonably intelligent human being could predict the behavior of most people after one semester of Psychology and a few self-help books once he knew their background. It also doesn't explain children dying of diseases and natural disasters or why animals seem to display all the same behaviors man has decreed sinful from child abuse to necrophilia and they aren't supposed to have free-will. If we were to judge our creator based on the behavior of animals alone, which are solely instinctual and thus programmed directly by our creator to act according to his will, we might conclude that the creator was a sadistic lunatic.
The same force that created the sunrise created the man that invented the nuclear bomb. The same force that created children created the diseases that kill them and the people that abuse them. The same force that created the ocean and the sky created tsunamis and hurricanes. So, based on what we know for a fact about our creator as evidenced by his works, whatever force that created this world of ours would not be capable of or perhaps not even interested in creating paradise.
Living for God's will thus is pure self-sacrifice without justification or reward. This would not satisfy any reasonable search for meaning.
"Living for the betterment of humanity"
Emotionally and politically I like this one. I really do. But it still does not do it. Let us assume for an instance that every human being from the most benevolent and altruistic peace activist who volunteers at orphanages and cleanses the wounds of lepers to the lowliest criminal scum who rapes babies, pushes drugs to school children, and robs old ladies of thier social security checks is worth saving, and that in itself is a leap of faith. Is it even possible to save them all? Even if we say the value lies not in saving all but in even bettering the life of one person how does this work? What makes that one person's happiness such a valuable thing as to excuse the pain in your life? It's great to say that your life has been worth while if you've helped even one person to live a better life but what if that better life still sucks? And forget what I said about assuming the intrinsic value of every life, what gives that one life so much value that saving it gives your life value? It's a circle. You can't say, "My life is valuable because I saved his life and his life is valuable" without answering the question, "Why is his life valuable?" This leads to the question of why is any life valuable, which puts us right back where we started.
What if that one person whose life you saved grows up to rob old ladies and sell drugs to school kids? What if he invents weapons of mass-destruction that lead to extinction class catastrophes? If this person grows up to be a saint and touches the lives of a hundred people who touch the lives of a hundred more and then they all die like an ever widening ripple in a pond that eventually dissipates, what have you accomplished? When everyone that ever knew you and whose lives you ever affected directly and indirectly dies it will be as though you had never existed. How does this justify your existence? There are few whose influence live on eternally. Blaise Pascal affected the lives of countless millions by curing Polio. Now they die of Cancer and Aids and Heart disease and stroke and automobile accidents, drug overdoses, gunshot wounds, surgical complications, malpractice, etc. etc. We save the cat from drowning so that it can be eaten by the dog. What have we accomplished?
Then there is the fact of our own finite existence. In many ways man
is an island unto himself. Our pleasure and our pain is ours alone. Others may empathize, sympathize, experience some vicarious emotions, but the real experience is isolated and exclusive. Your pleasure cannot ease my pain in any real sense. It may justify it somewhat because I value you as a loved one or even as a fellow human being. It may be a sacrifice that gives me a sense of satisfaction that is greater than the pain I experience as a result but the problem is that the majority of the pain you experience in life is not of this type. The majority of the pain we experience in life arise from the needs and necessities required to maintain our lives. And when we die we no longer experience the satisfaction that comes from sacrificing ourselves for our loved ones. We may experience it right up until the moment of death but then there is nothing. I still find this one extremely appealing emotionally because if you value another's life above your own than it is theoretically possible to derive a pleasurable sense of satisfaction regardless of how much pain you experience in life just by the knowledge that you are doing good and helping others. The problem is that like religion there is no more logical reason why you should value another's life so highly than why you should value the will of god. It would have to be an a priori value, something valued just because and excepted without reason, which will only appeal to a few. We could say that we should value other humans because we are humans and thus should have an interest in seeing that all humans lead good lives but since it is possible for some humans to lead good lives while others do not this argument falls flat. You would either have to love humanity or not. No one could talk you into it anymore than someone could talk you into falling romantically in love with someone. As I said, this argument holds great emotional appeal but logically it fails.
"Living for love"
Love is the desire to unite with the love object. It is an impossible ambition because individuals will always remain individuals. You can never feel another's sensations or emotions or even know another's thoughts but can only trust them when they tell you about them and make inferences and comparisons based on your own behavior when feeling or experiencing certain stimuli. We don't really know if everyone experiences pain or pleasure the same way but only how we experience these sensations. But love is not the act of uniting but the desire to unite and like all desires were it capable of being fulfilled it would be destroyed just like the desire for food is quelled by eating or the desire to rest sated by sleeping. Love is valued not for it's promise but for the desire itself. The problem is that this desire fades when it is not realized. It goes from the burning maddening passion of being "in love" to the content, docile, and domesticated feeling of merely loving someone and too few ever even experience this let alone the former. But for me only the former could be great enough to negate all the pain and frustration of life. When you are "in love" the sun is always shining and everything smells like roses when you merely love someone you remain aware of every minor vexation and annoyance let alone the major catastrophes that seem so trivial when you are in love.
The other problem is that Love is even more fragile and impermanent than life itself. People fall in and out of love constantly. And if love is a reason to live does the opposite then hold true and getting your heart trampled under become a reason to die? If your life is loveless should you then end it? If your love ends in heartbreak, tragedy, or betrayal should you play the tragic hero and fall on your sword?
The romantic in me loves this one but the reasonable part of me finds it wanting.
"Living for Happiness"
This one suffers from the same problems as love and even more so because it is far easier to love for long periods of time than it is to be happy for long intervals. In general happiness is just a brief respite between periods of disappointment and pain and, as Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out at the beginning of the last century, pain is a far more immediate and intense experience than pleasure and leaves a much more lasting impression. Even now I bet it would be easier for you to recall the most painful moments in your life than the most pleasurable. And, as noted before, pain is far more likely to destroy a wonderful day than pleasure to turn an otherwise horrible day into something glorious. You may have a few memories of wonderful days that started badly, but I bet you have countless examples of good days that were ruined by some tragedy or minor crisis or disturbance. Happiness is neither powerful enough nor constant enough to justify the pain of existence.
"Living to leave your mark on the world"
This is one of my favorites but the hardest to defend. To express themselves and leave an everlasting impression on humanity's collective consciousness is the goal of every great and minor artist and I am no different. I want to live forever and I want my art to make that happen for me by transferring my thoughts, ideas and opinions to others so that it can live and grow beyond my death. Despite the awesome odds against this happening this is still what gets me out of bed everyday. Still, this idea suffers from the same flaws as "Living for the betterment of humanity" in that your mark on the world will only last as long as those who choose to remember you. There are Gods who were worshipped by hundreds of thousands for thousands of years that have now been forgotten. It would be hard to ensure that your legacy would hold greater permanence than the legacy of say, Huitzilopochtli, a God once worshipped by thousands of Aztecs, now no one even remembers his name and those who do can't pronounce it. Sorry, but when it comes to leaving your mark on the world we are all dust in the wind.
Finally there's the idea of, "Living to learn lessons here on earth and advance to the next higher plane of existence."
Oh, but if only this were true. Sadly, if you go back and read my post "The Myth of The Afterlife" you would realize how terribly unlikely this one is.
So what does that leave us with? There is simply no one answer. I live for a combination of some of these ideas, namely Love, Happiness, Family and Humanity, and to leave my mark on the world for as long as it may last. Sometimes it's enough and sometimes it isn't. The reality is that you are here. You are alive. So perhaps asking why isn't really even an issue. Once you are born it may already be too late to ask why. Once you have suffered for even one day you have invested too much in this life to give it up without a fight. So the question perhaps is not "why?" but "how?"
"How do I make this life worth while for me?"And while this is a personal question with answers that will be unique to the individual I don't think it can reasonably be answered without considering some of the things I have mentioned above. I think that this is one of those discussions people should have with themselves at the beginning of every day. It is a question that should be asked at the onset of every major undertaking and before every major decision.
"How do I make this life worth while for me?"Don't take the easy answer. Look for it. Search yourself for it. The answer isn't in a book and regrettably you won't find it in this blog either. Though, if I had the answer I would certainly share it with you. The answer is in you. Question everything. Doubt everything. Believe nothing. And whatever is left after you have questioned and criticized it to death is your truth.