Month: October 2020

“The point of looking at the history of philosophy lies in the recognition that most questions have been asked before, and that some intelligent answers to them have been given in the past.” – Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West.

We have at last come to the focal point of this site’s mission – using the wisdom of the great thinkers to guide one’s life; specifically a life that meets the dual goals of happiness and meaning. I thought I would offer the history of how I came to the approach that follows. Starting over in middle age forced me to rethink the path I had taken – career, family, accumulation of wealth and friends, and what amounted to the hope for fortuitous fulfillment and meaning.

I could not risk that my second and likely last opportunity to find fulfillment and meaning would occur by chance. However, my search for practical guidance proved fruitless, so I resorted to the slow, but rewarding, process of reading the great thinkers of human history to uncover a basic framework of Eudaimonia or a flourishing life. After a few years of reading, I began to see a pattern; the incredibly complex teaching of the great philosophers and spiritual teachers could be distilled into four basic principles that lead  to human happiness. Here is a brief review of what I found.

Socrates, the Greek stoics, Confucius, Kant, and others place the greatest emphasis on virtue. Consider Democritus who once said, “Even if you are alone, neither say nor do anything bad; learn to feel shame before yourself rather than before others.”  Epicurus, the Hindus, the Buddha, and others seek mainly contentment, not pleasure or  elation,  but freedom from pain, tranquility and satisfaction – a state called Ataraxia by the ancient Greeks. Others such as Aristotle, the Roman stoics, and the philosophes find the greatest value in purpose. For example, Lucian tells us, “Pursue one end alone – how you may do what your hands find to do, go your way with never a passion and always a smile.” Last, and perhaps most frequently, thinkers such as Plato, Lao Tze, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Tillich focus on ultimate reality – the Forms of Ideas for Plato, the Tao for Lao Tzu, God for Aquinas and Spinoza, and Being for Tillich.

Interestingly each thinker, despite honing in on one of the four components, usually ties in the other three in seeking the ideal life. In summary the interlocking puzzle pieces of the summum bonum – happiness and meaning – are Virtue, Contentment, Purpose, and Ultimate Reality. In the next four sections I will expand on this basic framework  while forging them into a unified whole. We will begin with virtue next time.

“I have one life and one chance to make it count for something…My faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can with whatever I have to try to make a difference.” – Jimmy Carter.

In 21 of the last 23 blogs, we looked at the question of whether it is reasonable for us to expect life to be meaningful. Our analysis has looked at whether the question makes linguistic sense or should be reformulated, what defines meaning and what criteria apply to make life meaningful, the relevance of a deity to the question, the challenge of nihilism, and a systematic argument in favor of our lives as having the potential to be meaningful. We even considered whether we should want life to be meaningful.

Our conclusions were that most of us will decide that grammatically the question is meaningful or can be rephrased as a cogent inquiry, that human life meets all requirements of definition and possibly all the criteria of valid significance, that the existence of God is not essential or perhaps relevant, and that nihilism can be discredited. As for appeal, a meaningful life seems to be highly desirable even if having a grand purpose may be unattractive because it constrains other features of happiness.

The most difficult facet of the question comes down to whether any person can have objective cosmic or eternal significance. I have offered transcendental possibilities such as (1) life as infinite present moments and continuance within the phenomenal experience of being, (2) human perpetuity within the universe via persistence of mental energies, the chain of causation we initiate, and participation in space-time, (3) our unique participation in the two eternal aspects of the universe – the indestructibility of the subatomic particles that compose us and our knowledge of the sempiternity of the universe as a whole, and (4) our unique participation in the two poles of being – nothingness and ultimate being – the existential summit within the universe.¹

At the end of the day, the desire for a more tangible cosmic meaning derives from our egocentric nature, itself biologically derived from the instinct for survival in a self-conscious creature. This expectation is a mere illusion; logic informs us that no one entity in the universe has that kind of cosmic significance. Wisdom includes distinguishing the value of oneself as an individual from immature self-importance and the desire for egomaniacal impact on the world. The meaning of one life is exactly that and nothing more; it cannot and should not rival the meaning of the cosmos.

—————————————————————-

¹See post on this website, Human Mortality – Conclusions, date 7/5/2019.

Having addressed human life as meaningful from the defining characteristics of the word ‘meaning,’ we now collate human life with the criteria for significance.

Magnitude – the requirement of sufficient importance or depth – likely is the criteria most skeptics would argue is not met by  human life. But magnitude is relative, even subjective. One’s belief in the impact one has on others and on humanity seems sufficient for the attribution of ‘meaningful’; while if appears entirely arbitrary for someone else to discount that meaning. In any case, it seems preposterous  to say no human life  had sufficient effects to be meaningful – consider Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Aristotle, Martin Luther, Da Vinci, Galileo, Darwin, Lincoln, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and many more.  While a bit more subtle, human contemplation of the universe, being, nothingness, infinity, and ultimate reality expand the magnitude of our existence in ways unavailable to other entities in the world.

Duration – the hope of enduring achievement or life – is another criteria skeptics question relative to humankind. Perhaps the existence of 7 billion humans on the planet makes our particular role in continuation of the species appear trivial. However on careful consideration, we see the possibility of the number of our descendants, for example two children who each have two children sequentially leads to 1000 individuals with some of our genes after 10 generations (about 300 years), about 1,000,000 individuals after 20 generations (about the year 2600), and 1,000,000,000 individuals after 30 generations. Meanwhile our actions and impacts on others directly and indirectly are magnified immeasurably over the infinite future. Each interaction with another person influences them, however slightly, in ways that influence others living and as yet unborn. More sublime is the infinite duration time imposes on existent beings, including us, in the countless moments that compose a lifetime, and the permanence of the space-time continuum.

Possibility – reasonable opportunity to achieve meaning – is perhaps the most easily defensible. Since magnitude is subjective and we can itemize historical persons who achieved meaning in their lives, it stands that this applies to most able-bodied, mentally sound people. Only the severely impaired can rationally doubt the possibility of a meaningful life, for the rest of us it is merely a question of whether we succeed or not.

Desirability of one’s actions – for oneself and for others or the greater whole – is not assured, but clearly rests on choices made out of wisdom and deliberation. In general ethical behavior, the pursuit of the good, and resistance to evil are the means to meet this criteria of a meaningful life.

Understanding  – the recognition of one’s own meaning – is dependent only on one’s effort to decipher reality, display virtue, and analyze the results. At the end of the day, a thoughtful person with a meaningful life should recognize that fact. The examination of one’s life and environment is the means to achieve the highest level of certainty of one’s meaning.

In summary, in some way, even if not immediately known to us, most able-bodied humans can meet all of the defining characteristics of a meaningful being and can with effort meet the criteria of a highly significant life. In fact, to our knowledge, human life best meets these defining features and offers the greatest opportunity for meaning compared to any other entity known to us other than perhaps the universe itself of God should He exist.

” ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many things.’

‘The question is said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’ ”

– Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

In the first part, we reviewed defining characteristics of meaning and criteria for a life to be meaningful. Today we will see how well human life fits both.

Function or role for us permeates every aspect of our lives. A child’s role is to continue the genetic line of the parent, enhance the happiness of family and friends, and mature into an adult. The adult has many roles as a member of a family and community, and perhaps as a spouse and a parent. An adult with an occupation or cause clearly fills a function, however small, in the structure of a society.

Value – independent worth, merit, or instrumentality – applies to humans as well. In addition to roles described above, we serve instrumentally as continuation of our species which required nearly 14 billion years of development of (by?) the universe. Here the issue is less about meeting the requirement of valuable than choosing actions of sufficient value to the universe and humanity that exceed those detrimental to them – i.e. ethical conduct and being a proponent of good.

Viability is unfortunately not automatic; some humans are impaired, diseased, have too short a life span or are otherwise unable to attain consequence. While some solace may be possible in these unfortunate cases, it is noteworthy that this is a tiny minority of people and almost certainly will not apply to any readers.

Justification –the balance of value against cost – is possible for all of us, but requires thoughtful action. None of us should choose a life where our external value is outweighed by our negatives. As Muhammad Ali once said. “Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.”

Intention – an explicit or implicit aim by the originator of a thing – may be difficult to demonstrate in the case of homo sapiens. If there is a traditional God, most will agree we were created intentionally. The question is whether God is required. I would argue that our very existence is evidence of an implicit ‘intention’ of the universe. In earlier blogs I concluded that all things in the universe develop via emergence through complexity and this serves as cosmic ‘intention’. I have also argued that the universe, whether appearing spontaneously or eternal, could not have been otherwise, i.e. all discussion of an ‘alternative’ to this universe is pure speculation.

Individual human relevance to some external entity or absolute standard appears, in the cosmic sense, to be assured by either the interest of a deity of by virtue of the course of the universe. There is also our ability to contemplate ultimate reality that ties our finitude to the infinite. Alternatively, tangible external relevance is confirmed by the significance each of us has in the lives of our family, friends, and community, and through the interest of the whole of humanity.

(continued next post)

“What man seeks to the point of anguish, in his gods, in his art, in his science, is meaning. He cannot bear the void. He pours meaning on events like salt on his food.” – Francois Jacob, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, 1965.

Having responded to the arguments against the meaning of life – linguistic objections, reliance on deity, and the threat of nihilism – I will now attempt to outline a systematic argument (admittedly not meeting the requirements of a logical proof) that human life can be meaningful without resorting to self-deception. I would like to interlace the defining features of the word ‘meaning’ listed in an earlier post, Teleology – Criteria of Meaning (1/17/2020)  with the criteria for a significant life listed in the more recent post The Meaning of Life – Criteria  (9/16/2020 and 9/18/2020).

In the former, I proposed six characteristics which define something as having meaning: function, value, viability, justification, intention (by an agent), and external or absolute relevance. By function I mean a role or purpose, such as the kidney functioning to clean the blood of toxic substances. Value is independent worth or merit or instrumentality such as a college education with its tangible and intangible benefits. Viability refers to the implicit assumption that its referent has the ability to fulfill its role. Justification imposes a balance of value against cost; a contrary example being a bridge across a river without connecting roads or paths. Intention is an explicit or implicit aim by the originator of a thing. Relevance to some external entity or absolute standard requires significance outside the thing itself. Ideally human life will have all of these characteristics.

The criteria of significance when applied to human life are magnitude, duration, possibility, desirability, and understanding. Magnitude refers to the idea that for anything to contribute to the meaning of life, it must be of sufficient importance or depth: trivial purpose undermines meaning and suggests absurdity. Human meaning increases in light of an adequate scale of the effects of one’s living. Duration refers to the hope of more enduring achievement. Possibility means that whatever significance human life could have must be consistent with human abilities and limitations. Desirability means the existence and actions of a being are desirable not only for that being, but for others or the greater whole. Understanding means that a being’s actions and their effects are recognized as such by that being. Again, ideally human life will meet all of these criteria.

It is worth noting that there is some overlap here, but in the next post I hope to demonstrate that human life meets the definition and criteria for the qualification of ‘meaningful.’