I guess the best place to start is with some fundamentals. Today's post is about the "Meaning of Life", but it also touch’s on the idea of the existence of God. Below is en edited version of a paper I wrote for my college “Intro to Philosophy” course. Please feel free to comment!
* * * * * * * * *
I have asked myself what meaning, if any, life has. If philosophy is a study of fundamentals, then this question may be ultimately fundamental, as questions of theology, morals, ethics and other beliefs may rely on the answer.
Before I ask what the meaning of life is, I must ask if there even is a meaning to life; a yes or no question. I believe this can only be answered on the basis of whether humans are simply and only biological life forms, or whether there is such a thing as a human soul.
If the answer were that we are simply biological creatures, the evolutionary product of nothing more than the fortuitous joining of the correct combinations of certain molecules, then I would have to say that there is no meaning to life. We simply exist for existence’s sake. There is no guiding purpose other than base needs: self-preservation and reproduction. There is no higher basis for ethics or morality, law or selflessness, and the question of the meaning of life ends here, as do any questions of philosophy that attempt to delve deeper than basic natural instincts.
I do not believe humanity would have advanced to it’s present stage had this been the case, as there would have been no check on the savagery and selfishness that humans, as any animal, are capable of. Some might say that civilization advances because it addresses a natural instinct for self-preservation that recognizes the need for cooperation among people.
However, civilization is not required for survival. In fact, civilization over-rides some of nature’s rules of survival that are observed by the rest of the animal kingdom, such as over-population and the sharing of resources in ways that do not benefit the owner of the resources. In fact, I believe that, while certain societies today show the base and animal nature of humanity, other societies, like that of the United States, are the result of a growing evolution of humanity that transcends basic biological necessity.
Therefore, I will approach this question from the standpoint that we are not simply biological creatures, but that we do have a soul. Now the question of whether there is a meaning to life may be asked. If human beings do have an existence beyond the biological, namely a soul, why would there be a need for an earthly existence?
Certainly, as we imagine the nature of the soul to be, there is nothing that a free soul would lack. There is no pain, so sorrow, no questions, no loss, no hunger, no weakness, no failure, no death. Why come to an earthly existence and experience all of these negative, uncomfortable things?
Perhaps there is something missing! If you never experience sorrow, how can you know happiness? Considering there is nothing to bring sorrow, the opposite, happiness, must be the natural state. Yet it could at best be felt as contentment. No lows, no highs. If there are no questions, where is the wonder of discovery? If there is nothing to bring failure, where is the sense of accomplishment? If an earthly existence brings lows to an even existence, it also brings highs.
What could the ultimate result of these experiences be? If we do have a spiritual existence, there is no reason to believe that God does not exist, though in some form as difficult to comprehend as the concept of infinity.
I have come to believe that we are given life, and all the sorrows that come with it, as a gift. An omniscient God already has a full understanding of everything. Yet, if we are “His” creations, our souls cannot possibly have the level of understanding that He has. I draw a parallel between this and the relationship of parents and their children.
Parents love their children, and want the best for them. They usually also come to realize that they must allow their children to fall and get back up on their own in order to grow and develop. Additionally, a parent cannot have the same relationship with their young child that they have with a peer. Yet as the child develops and grows into an adult, the gap in maturity, wisdom and understanding narrows between the parent and child, allowing them to develop a closer relationship. I have come to notice this with my own parents and my own children.
I believe God wants a relationship with His children in the same way, and gives us the gift of life in the hope that we will grow and develop and come closer to being able to have an adult relationship with Him. People who witness or experience a tragedy have asked, “If a loving God exists, how could He let (or cause) this to happen?” Having witnessed a large number of tragedies as a police officer, I have come to notice that, for instance, the death of a loved one has far more impact on the survivors. The troubles are over for the one (or three thousand) who have died. It is now up to the survivors to adapt, overcome and go on. Tragedies can even be a catalyst for an even greater good. World War II, for example; and perhaps even September 11th.
I have come to see every setback, failure and sorrow as a learning experience and opportunity to overcome and become greater, and to come closer to God. For me, this philosophy has resulted in a greater peace in life, and a greater ability to calmly and effectively deal with all of life’s “setbacks”.
3 comments:
I'm posting this for my dad, who checked this out. He's quite the skeptic and agnostic, believing that if a higher entity exists, "he" is very unlikely to be interested in anything as mundane as us.
As for the meaning of life, my dad said that if you assume there is no soul, you can say that the meaning of life is to enjoy it as much as possible. My brother, Jason, and I were talking with him about this (I'm not sure what Jason's opinion is, but he seemed to agree with me), and I suggested that if there is nothing permanent, than nothing really has any meaning. Imagine you went on a vacation and had the best time of your life, but forget about it as soon as you finished with the vacation. It wouldn't have much of a meaning, no opportunity to talk to others about it, no ability to learn anything from it, no chance of looking back and enjoying the memory of it.
After reading through this, I notice that I use the traditional "He" when referring to God. That sounds kind of misogynistic, but not if you understand where I come from on that. First, wen I refer to God, it is with a sense of having only the vaguest idea of who or what "He" is. (I capitalize it out of respect for the convention.)
More importantly, unless I were to say "God" in every place instead of a pronoun, it would make for pretty unwieldy writing. So which pronoun? "He" or "She"?
Some people refer to God as "She", I think out of some sense that saying God is a "He" is implying a lesser place for women.
I don't see it that way. In fact, the convention in our language is that the male form of words is applied to everything, while applying the female to something means something very specific, as in traits or views.
So in a sense, referring to something unknown as "he", or "mankind", etc, relegates males to the status of everyday, humdrum. Reserving "She" and other female word forms to specific things, I think, points out the specialness of women. Kind of like chivalry.
Post a Comment