Krisis
Patience
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2024
- Posts
- 1,575
- Reputation
- 2,126
Every single member of our species bestowed with the gift of consciousness has in some sense encountered the following conundrum: What is the purpose of it all? Is there even supposed to be one? In fact, I'd argue that the question, in and of itself, has taken on a life of its own; it's escaped the realm of importance and fallen below into that of the cliché. It's meaningless--tried and true, absorbent and evocative of platitudinous descriptions.
I for one believe perhaps the most attractive trait in a person is whether they seriously contemplate this question, whether they reject conventional wisdom and refuse to acquiesce to normalization and allow others to make sense of their existence for them. People who are truly connected to their own mortality in a meaningful way are able to separate themselves from artificial and material forms in our world that dominate our environment. They are able to remove themselves from civilization, and come to an understanding of how meaninglessness reigns.
Let's first consider a few conventional responses to the question.
"There is no universal meaning to life. Each one of us has to create our own meaning."
You have no doubt encountered this particular bit of wisdom before. In spite of how unoriginal it has become, I actually am quite empathetic towards it because I believe it holds significant truth. For one, the very essence of the notion of meaning itself contains subjectivity. I can, through scientific means, define certain properties I perceive in nature, but as for what these properties actually mean to people, in truth, anything is possible.
One shouldn't spend their existence attempting to fit in with preestablished tenets of wisdom. Of course, to a certain extent, one has to, but true fulfillment is contingent on the extent to which an individual can live truly independent of those who've come before him, those who surround him, and those who are set to come after him. I, therefore, like this response, but there is of course more room for depth here, so I must press on.
"The meaning of life is to procreate."
This is perhaps one that many here would lend significant credence to. But I for one am not one of them. Procreation, biologically, holds the most obvious significance in this context because it is an imperative. However, it's already been established that meaning is subjective, and even if one were willing to ignore or reject this, this response is irrefutably flawed, even in a purely biological sense. How then are we to regard those whose biological predispositions prevent them from having children? What about those who choose not to? What about those who tragically fail in finding a mating partner? If the meaning of life was truly to procreate, then it would render certain people's existence meaningless by default, in many cases independent of their own free will. For this reason, I must conclude that this is a suboptimal response to the question. Procreation is a biological need, but taken in isolation, there is nothing by way of meaning to be mined from it.
"Life holds no inherent meaning. Therefore, human beings must rely on religion."
I chose not to make any mention of religion in the previous paragraph, despite its striking significance in that context. Religion is a tough one. I personally am not religious even in the slightest, and however interesting this may be, it wasn't by choice. In fact, throughout my life, I've made serious attempts at trying to perceive the divine as many have purported to be able to do, but my efforts were to no avail. I have vivid memories as a child of outright rejecting religion, citing its unimportance to me, but I never consciously arrived there. It just never resonated with me.
Many people argue similarly about morality, and that, in particular, the existence of morality itself is contingent on religious interpretations. My response to this is in the same vein as the one that I am currently espousing. One of the fundamental problems with religion is that there is no proof whatsoever to be associated with any of the religions that can be observed in our world. Ascribing what would have to be an undeniable level of truth to something for which there is no evidence is a futile effort. And similar to the procreation problem, what about those who aren't religious like myself? What about mentally disabled individuals who cannot even conceive of religion? If we are to rely on religion, which one are we to rely on? The existence of multiple religions itself proves the impossibility of an objective status being justifiably attributed to it. By virtue of there being not only more than one religion in the world, but several, religion itself is provably artificial. Why else is there religious diversification and variability across space and time? If you are privy to the argument that there is an inherent instinct for religion in humans, I'd disagree. There is an inherent instinct for meaning, and historically, when faced with the unknown, with the mysterious, with the incomprehensible, people have introduced religion into the mix as a comforting medium of thought and enterprise to assuage their burdens. Therefore, there is not an instinct for religion but rather meaning itself, which is of course obvious and is the crux of this thread.
"Life holds no inherent meaning. Therefore, life is meaningless."
I do not regard myself as a pessimistic person, but I am empathetic towards those who would answer with something like the above statement, many of whom exist on this very forum of course. That being said, I do not, and have not ever, for one second, believe that life holds no meaning. There is something about existence pushing all of us forward. There is something about existence of which, if we are deprived, we suffer. It is difficulty itself that propels people into this search for meaning. In other words, it is through difficulty that we even arrive at this question in the first place. However, I don't think it is satisfying enough to suggest that life is about struggle. In an obvious sense, this holds some degree of truth; utopic societies exist in only fairy tales. "The meaning of life is to struggle" just doesn't hold very pleasing implications, and it feels incomplete. Of course, we must all struggle, but there has to be something which justifies the struggle. If life truly were meaningless, why is there suffering? We suffer because there's something about life that is invisible to us. We suffer because there is something about life that we are deprived of. We do not suffer because of life itself.
I believe above I have outlined pretty conventional responses to the question of the meaning of life. Now I would like to move to some less conventional responses before I start actually getting to the meat of this.
"To live, one must create."
Human beings carry a certain instinct towards creation. We, each of us, want to establish ourselves in this world. We want others to feel our presence and acknowledge our individuality. In order to achieve this, we must create. There are no limitations on what human beings are to create. Of course, other human beings is an obvious example, but that is all it is: but one example. Many create art in the form of vibrant paintings, momentous sculptures, mesmerizing pictures in motion in the form of cinema, heavenly emotions in the form of poetry, and etc. Scientists experience a genuine feeling of creative satisfaction when they devise their theories, when they publish papers, etc. Chefs, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, gardeners, hunters--the list is practically endless of occupations and lifestyles by which people achieve this euphoric feeling of creation. In truth, anything worth doing in this world would fit. It is for all of these reasons that I do believe this particular response holds great wisdom, but I also am of the belief that one can go deeper. That is, there is something about the act of creation that draws us to it.
"To live, one must learn."
The pursuit of knowledge is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of existence, which goes without saying. Unfortunately, in our capitalist society, what would be a noble pursuit has been lost under the corporate weight of our educational systems. Civilized humans don't have educational systems forced upon them in the name of the beauty of learning but rather in the name of financial survival, and by extension, a kind of servitude. It's these very systems that prohibit people from truly appreciating learning as the heavenly experience that it is. The question arises, then, of what it is we are to learn exactly. In truth, the most important body of knowledge to explore is that which has to do with our selves. Learning is important, but there is something deeper for which we must learn in the first place.
"To live, one must gain power."
This statement may bring to mind implications of authoritative power, but when I speak of power, I am referring to it in an all-encompassing sense. One should have power over themselves and aspire to a certain degree of power over others--but in a just sense. It is a worthwhile pursuit to establish oneself in a particular discipline, for instance, such that one attains a certain level of authority within the community that comprises said discipline. This authority amounts in turn to a kind of power that we should all aspire to. I believe every individual holds value, which stems from the interplay between their unique experiences and genetic predispositions. We all have power deep within us; discover it, cling to it, lest the feeble, authoritative powers that be siphon it out. But there's no such thing as power for power's sake. There must be some sort of guiding light to which we all, in a sense, are extending our hands, a radiant kind of light, that stabilizes us and carries the potential of creating utter chaotic collapse in its name, from which an ethereal beauty shines, the ethereal beauty.
"To live, one must survive."
Is this world one where the weak die off, and the strong survive? If that were the case, then it'd be an observable truth. In the earliest stages of humanity, this was true, but in the current moment, the weak reach incomprehensible heights all the time. In truth, the weak dominate in this world, and they do so because humanity have evolved to a point where weakness is rewarded, and strength is discouraged, suppressed, and punished as much as possible. Survival itself is no longer a pressing concern at this stage in our evolution beyond an obvious sense, and still, we must survive for something.
"To live, one must be free."
This one does not need to be elaborated much on. Freedom is of prime importance in this world, but there is always going to be significant limits placed on it if one wants to integrate themselves into society. (Absolute freedom is of course an incoherent idea, and I know not much of its philosophical importance, so I won't speak on it here.) Look no further than Jean-Jacques Rousseau's momentous declaration: "Man is born free but everywhere is in chains." Therefore, we must try to loosen these chains as much as we can or, at the very least, become aware of them. But the question then crystalizes in front of us of exactly what our freedom is supposed to be donned in service of.
If you've read up until now, you clearly have been able to discern that I am building towards something here. I do not for one second want to even make it appear that I am attempting to answer this question here because I truly do not think the question is supposed to be answered.
However, I do think there is one thing, one aspect of existence, that does serve as a satisfying enough blink of truth in this vast landscape of meaninglessness, a vibrancy set against a seemingly endless dull canvas, a beauty in us all.
"To live is to love."
There is nothing in existence that takes precedence over love. There is nothing in existence but love. Love is everything. This includes self-love, love that the individual extends to others, love that others extend to the individual. If anything is meaningful in this behemoth of a world, it is love. Many here may purport that they've never felt love in the entirety of their lives, which is questionable. You've often overlooked seemingly meaningless interactions with people whom you don't in the slightest know. But perhaps you're referring to the supreme form of love, romantic love. However, even romantic love cannot possibly be achieved unless one attains a satisfying enough level of self-love. Do not allow for the horrors in this world to overwhelm you to the point where your sight becomes impaired. Love cannot be understood, and yet it is in all of us. Every individual is capable of being loved, of loving others, of loving oneself. Love is the only thing that is real; everything else in our purview is a mirage.
I for one believe perhaps the most attractive trait in a person is whether they seriously contemplate this question, whether they reject conventional wisdom and refuse to acquiesce to normalization and allow others to make sense of their existence for them. People who are truly connected to their own mortality in a meaningful way are able to separate themselves from artificial and material forms in our world that dominate our environment. They are able to remove themselves from civilization, and come to an understanding of how meaninglessness reigns.
Let's first consider a few conventional responses to the question.
"There is no universal meaning to life. Each one of us has to create our own meaning."
You have no doubt encountered this particular bit of wisdom before. In spite of how unoriginal it has become, I actually am quite empathetic towards it because I believe it holds significant truth. For one, the very essence of the notion of meaning itself contains subjectivity. I can, through scientific means, define certain properties I perceive in nature, but as for what these properties actually mean to people, in truth, anything is possible.
One shouldn't spend their existence attempting to fit in with preestablished tenets of wisdom. Of course, to a certain extent, one has to, but true fulfillment is contingent on the extent to which an individual can live truly independent of those who've come before him, those who surround him, and those who are set to come after him. I, therefore, like this response, but there is of course more room for depth here, so I must press on.
"The meaning of life is to procreate."
This is perhaps one that many here would lend significant credence to. But I for one am not one of them. Procreation, biologically, holds the most obvious significance in this context because it is an imperative. However, it's already been established that meaning is subjective, and even if one were willing to ignore or reject this, this response is irrefutably flawed, even in a purely biological sense. How then are we to regard those whose biological predispositions prevent them from having children? What about those who choose not to? What about those who tragically fail in finding a mating partner? If the meaning of life was truly to procreate, then it would render certain people's existence meaningless by default, in many cases independent of their own free will. For this reason, I must conclude that this is a suboptimal response to the question. Procreation is a biological need, but taken in isolation, there is nothing by way of meaning to be mined from it.
"Life holds no inherent meaning. Therefore, human beings must rely on religion."
I chose not to make any mention of religion in the previous paragraph, despite its striking significance in that context. Religion is a tough one. I personally am not religious even in the slightest, and however interesting this may be, it wasn't by choice. In fact, throughout my life, I've made serious attempts at trying to perceive the divine as many have purported to be able to do, but my efforts were to no avail. I have vivid memories as a child of outright rejecting religion, citing its unimportance to me, but I never consciously arrived there. It just never resonated with me.
Many people argue similarly about morality, and that, in particular, the existence of morality itself is contingent on religious interpretations. My response to this is in the same vein as the one that I am currently espousing. One of the fundamental problems with religion is that there is no proof whatsoever to be associated with any of the religions that can be observed in our world. Ascribing what would have to be an undeniable level of truth to something for which there is no evidence is a futile effort. And similar to the procreation problem, what about those who aren't religious like myself? What about mentally disabled individuals who cannot even conceive of religion? If we are to rely on religion, which one are we to rely on? The existence of multiple religions itself proves the impossibility of an objective status being justifiably attributed to it. By virtue of there being not only more than one religion in the world, but several, religion itself is provably artificial. Why else is there religious diversification and variability across space and time? If you are privy to the argument that there is an inherent instinct for religion in humans, I'd disagree. There is an inherent instinct for meaning, and historically, when faced with the unknown, with the mysterious, with the incomprehensible, people have introduced religion into the mix as a comforting medium of thought and enterprise to assuage their burdens. Therefore, there is not an instinct for religion but rather meaning itself, which is of course obvious and is the crux of this thread.
"Life holds no inherent meaning. Therefore, life is meaningless."
I do not regard myself as a pessimistic person, but I am empathetic towards those who would answer with something like the above statement, many of whom exist on this very forum of course. That being said, I do not, and have not ever, for one second, believe that life holds no meaning. There is something about existence pushing all of us forward. There is something about existence of which, if we are deprived, we suffer. It is difficulty itself that propels people into this search for meaning. In other words, it is through difficulty that we even arrive at this question in the first place. However, I don't think it is satisfying enough to suggest that life is about struggle. In an obvious sense, this holds some degree of truth; utopic societies exist in only fairy tales. "The meaning of life is to struggle" just doesn't hold very pleasing implications, and it feels incomplete. Of course, we must all struggle, but there has to be something which justifies the struggle. If life truly were meaningless, why is there suffering? We suffer because there's something about life that is invisible to us. We suffer because there is something about life that we are deprived of. We do not suffer because of life itself.
I believe above I have outlined pretty conventional responses to the question of the meaning of life. Now I would like to move to some less conventional responses before I start actually getting to the meat of this.
"To live, one must create."
Human beings carry a certain instinct towards creation. We, each of us, want to establish ourselves in this world. We want others to feel our presence and acknowledge our individuality. In order to achieve this, we must create. There are no limitations on what human beings are to create. Of course, other human beings is an obvious example, but that is all it is: but one example. Many create art in the form of vibrant paintings, momentous sculptures, mesmerizing pictures in motion in the form of cinema, heavenly emotions in the form of poetry, and etc. Scientists experience a genuine feeling of creative satisfaction when they devise their theories, when they publish papers, etc. Chefs, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, gardeners, hunters--the list is practically endless of occupations and lifestyles by which people achieve this euphoric feeling of creation. In truth, anything worth doing in this world would fit. It is for all of these reasons that I do believe this particular response holds great wisdom, but I also am of the belief that one can go deeper. That is, there is something about the act of creation that draws us to it.
"To live, one must learn."
The pursuit of knowledge is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of existence, which goes without saying. Unfortunately, in our capitalist society, what would be a noble pursuit has been lost under the corporate weight of our educational systems. Civilized humans don't have educational systems forced upon them in the name of the beauty of learning but rather in the name of financial survival, and by extension, a kind of servitude. It's these very systems that prohibit people from truly appreciating learning as the heavenly experience that it is. The question arises, then, of what it is we are to learn exactly. In truth, the most important body of knowledge to explore is that which has to do with our selves. Learning is important, but there is something deeper for which we must learn in the first place.
"To live, one must gain power."
This statement may bring to mind implications of authoritative power, but when I speak of power, I am referring to it in an all-encompassing sense. One should have power over themselves and aspire to a certain degree of power over others--but in a just sense. It is a worthwhile pursuit to establish oneself in a particular discipline, for instance, such that one attains a certain level of authority within the community that comprises said discipline. This authority amounts in turn to a kind of power that we should all aspire to. I believe every individual holds value, which stems from the interplay between their unique experiences and genetic predispositions. We all have power deep within us; discover it, cling to it, lest the feeble, authoritative powers that be siphon it out. But there's no such thing as power for power's sake. There must be some sort of guiding light to which we all, in a sense, are extending our hands, a radiant kind of light, that stabilizes us and carries the potential of creating utter chaotic collapse in its name, from which an ethereal beauty shines, the ethereal beauty.
"To live, one must survive."
Is this world one where the weak die off, and the strong survive? If that were the case, then it'd be an observable truth. In the earliest stages of humanity, this was true, but in the current moment, the weak reach incomprehensible heights all the time. In truth, the weak dominate in this world, and they do so because humanity have evolved to a point where weakness is rewarded, and strength is discouraged, suppressed, and punished as much as possible. Survival itself is no longer a pressing concern at this stage in our evolution beyond an obvious sense, and still, we must survive for something.
"To live, one must be free."
This one does not need to be elaborated much on. Freedom is of prime importance in this world, but there is always going to be significant limits placed on it if one wants to integrate themselves into society. (Absolute freedom is of course an incoherent idea, and I know not much of its philosophical importance, so I won't speak on it here.) Look no further than Jean-Jacques Rousseau's momentous declaration: "Man is born free but everywhere is in chains." Therefore, we must try to loosen these chains as much as we can or, at the very least, become aware of them. But the question then crystalizes in front of us of exactly what our freedom is supposed to be donned in service of.
If you've read up until now, you clearly have been able to discern that I am building towards something here. I do not for one second want to even make it appear that I am attempting to answer this question here because I truly do not think the question is supposed to be answered.
However, I do think there is one thing, one aspect of existence, that does serve as a satisfying enough blink of truth in this vast landscape of meaninglessness, a vibrancy set against a seemingly endless dull canvas, a beauty in us all.
"To live is to love."
There is nothing in existence that takes precedence over love. There is nothing in existence but love. Love is everything. This includes self-love, love that the individual extends to others, love that others extend to the individual. If anything is meaningful in this behemoth of a world, it is love. Many here may purport that they've never felt love in the entirety of their lives, which is questionable. You've often overlooked seemingly meaningless interactions with people whom you don't in the slightest know. But perhaps you're referring to the supreme form of love, romantic love. However, even romantic love cannot possibly be achieved unless one attains a satisfying enough level of self-love. Do not allow for the horrors in this world to overwhelm you to the point where your sight becomes impaired. Love cannot be understood, and yet it is in all of us. Every individual is capable of being loved, of loving others, of loving oneself. Love is the only thing that is real; everything else in our purview is a mirage.
