The first three questions I offered before were these:
- Why do I exist?
- Why does anything exist?
- Does anything really exist at all?
Staring with the third of these is necessary. Removing the doubt from this most basic inquiry allows progress to be made on the more - interesting subjects.
The answer to the third question is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If the answer is ‘maybe’, it isn’t an answer at all. If the answer is yes, something exists, then there is no problem. The real problem seems to be when the second question ‘how do I know that anything exists?’ follows from the first. This is because it takes us into the world of what ‘know’ might mean.
But it is, really, a false dilemma. For the sake of argument, let it be assumed that what we think of as ‘existence’ does not, actually, ‘really’ exist. What is it that we think is going on then? If not ‘actual’, then it must be imagined - perhaps the dream of a butterfly, or of a divine figure, of a ‘cosmic mind’ - who knows? Perhaps all that we imagine exists is our own fevered dream, and we are trapped in ‘the Matrix’, some kind of dream-state, as in the film of that name.
There are two responses to this; first, if it is imagined, then it must be being imagined by a consciousness of some kind, a ‘mind’ must exist to do the imagining. And if a mind must exist, then something exists, there must be something, in or outside the Universe, which actually does exist. Ah, you say, but what if that mind’s existence is also imagined? Then the step goes one stage farther back. It doesn’t make any difference how far back you take it, at some point, infinitely far down the line, perhaps, at bottom, there must be an existence.
‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but all it might be is radio waves, or electromagnetic forces, or the accidental collision of particles of energy.’ it makes no difference; whatever the cause is of imagined existence, it in itself must exist. So, it is not possible for nothing to exist.
Do you see where this takes us?
The second response (roughly) is this: It makes no difference to us and our lives whether what we think existence is is real or imagined; in terms of how it effects us, both the real and the imaginary have equal power; the imagined may only ’seem’ real, but that seeming has the force of reality; it is immanent and experienced (or perceived). The status does not change what happens in our lives one jot, permits no escape from some kind of real. It is simpler, then, to accept that what appears to be real actually is real, rather than worry about how real it might not be. In the end, the question is not worth asking: it makes no difference to us, to you.
So, this is the first axiom, or principle, of the meaning of life: Life is real; the world is real, we are real; everything actually exists as it appears to, by and large. To speculate otherwise is pointless. Accept this first: existence is.
And be loved.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 24, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Barrie Lycett
Hello Fergus. Apart from the obvious answer which is that as individuals we are here to continue the progresion of our species (which in itself is a blind alley until we know what the ultimate destination is for said species), perhaps we are here to acknowledge the existance of the universe! I mean,would the universe really,truly exist without the presence of ‘us’ to be aware of it? I’ve no doubt there must be literally millions of worlds scattered throughout the cosmos which has intelligent life but they are seperated by such truly unimaginable chasms of space and time that they must be considered as unique and alone.
I don’t so much ponder the meaning of life in the usual sense but wonder what the ‘goal’ of the species is,and why. Are the twists and turns of our evolution just responses to our increasing knowledge and environment or are we unconsciously following a ‘master plan’ drawn up for us, to be revealed somewhere in our future? Still begs the question ‘why?’, and what is the motivation behind the perpetrator of any such plan?
August 26, 2007 at 7:24 am
fergusbrown
Hi, Barrie. I am glad that somebody has found there way here. Your first comments deal with the possibility for a meaning for existence. The argument from biology is a interesting one and has some place in further discussion. Dawkins springs to mind, with the ’selfish gene’ concept.
Then you ask ‘would the universe exist without our presence to acknowledge it?’ following which you raise the spectre of other worlds.
Before we look at your second paragraph, I would argue that the universe did exist before there were humans, and will persist after we are no more, therefore it must, does exist irrespective and independently of any observer. What is, is. What our human presence brings to the equation is the possibility of meaning. Even if there is a ‘Supreme Force’, whose ‘plan’ the Universe is, this itself carries no meaning for us except insofar as it incorporates us. What humanity brings, therefore, is the possibility of meaning.
On the matter of life beyond Earth; there are a known set of conditions which would have to be fulfilled before contact with a species from beyond Earth was possible, starting with its existence, and moving to its possession of supraluminal technology, and beyond to the desire, or will, to actually come here. None of these conditions is necessarily impossible, but each carries a set of assumptions which also need to be looked at. If you proceed to the issue of the possibility of interaction with these ‘others’, the set of conditions includes such elements as to conclude that, should such a thing ever happen, the ‘visitors’ would have to be both intelligent and technologically far beyond our abilities, or of a form of existence for whom the rules of physics are different. But this is a bit of a side point.
The ‘goal’ of the species? Why we, collectively, exist? You offer two possible pathways; the biological, mutation in response to conditions and pressure leading to adaptation; us becoming what we are from the proto-cellular by accident. But how can you explain the commonality of DNA, for example, in life-forms, and account for the many alternate pathways of persistence that it follows? If there were a ‘best way’ to survive, there would be only one life-form, probably ameobic. There is no need for DNA to complicate itself beyond a simple level of efficiency, so our existence continues to elude meaning.
Your alternative is to consider the ‘master plan’ suggestion; at base, the Divine Will (irrespective of the nature of that will). I won’t dwell on the ‘unconscious’ bit, as that would lead down theological roads. There is no need to worry about understanding the divine will, as it is by necessity incomprehensible to the non-divine, therefore beyond our reach in total (if we could comprehend it all, we would be divine, too). But can we establish that such a thing exists at all?
There is no form of argument or logic which allows us to reason from first principles the existence of a ‘Divine Will’. Many attempts have been made, but ultimately, it must be accepted that, insofar as there is no manifestation of the divine which can be explained without circularity, contradiction or doubt, no rational ‘proof’ of the existence of ‘God’ from design is possible.
This does not mean there is therefore no God, only that we can’t prove that there is. Which in turn leads us to Kierkegaard’s conclusion, that, ultimately, the existence of a Divine Will must be determined by the individual as an act of faith (or lack of it). We must choose to believe, or not believe, each for ourselves.
But, consider this. Either of these notions may be the case or not, or some other arguments about the possibility of original purpose, meaning from being, if you like, could be proposed. It would be hard to find certainty for any one suggestion (though it is easier to prove doubt).
Regardless of any prime cause, be it biological or divine, we can reach the conclusion that we should be able to create for ourselves a ‘purpose’ in relation to the future; we can impose a collective meaning on existence by the choices we make and the desires we enact into the future. It is possible to have a plan. The motivation is, at first, simple; to allow us and our descendants to live in the best of all possible worlds (ultimately). It can get complicated very quickly, but never mind.
The advantage of drawing up our own plan is that we can tailor it to suit the conditions we find ourselves in. We can be practical and principled. And if such a plan existed in a world which came about by accident, then it is a step in our evolutionary progress to be able to cooperate on a large enough scale to prevent the planet from being damaged by our collective accidental interventions. If there is a divine will then, inasmuch as that will is good, or at least creative, then by making a plan which is good, we are likely to be conforming to the purpose of the divine.
Once again, the conclusion is the same regardless of the original ’cause’ of existence; we can have a plan for the future. There is also a line of argument which can demonstrate why we should have such a plan, but that, I think, is for another time.
‘Till later,
August 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Barrie Lycett
Hello Fergus. What an amazing response,thank you. I think however that the points you raise have served to confuse me even more! That’s not a criticism of course,just a little eye-opener to the dilemmas that have plagued philosophers since Man first looked to the heavens and wondered ‘why,how’ etc. Every time one avenue is started down it inevitably leads to another question,and another,and so on. I suspect that the answer to the question ‘why are we here?’ will never be conclusively answered by a supreme being,only by the conclusions we as individuals reach. But such an answer can never be satisfactory.
Whatever we as individuals make of our existance,or indeed if the time comes when humanity has a collective vision and ‘goal’,there will of course come the time when human life on this planet is extinguished. There would be no-one there to pose the question,but if I was the sole survivor and I could regard the Earth from a vantage point in space,my question would be ‘what was all THAT about?’,with reference to our appearance on this planet,our evolution,culture,achievements,war and final demise. The question ‘why?’ would not go away. Of course,we and every other living thing could have come about purely by chance,the ultimate eventuality of countless trillions of chemical and environmental factors which statistacally had to result in the seed of ‘life’ at some point. Perhaps to keep asking ‘why?’ is folly,there is no ‘why?’ or reason or motive-it just IS.
Now,I know a little about biology and that deoxy ribonucleic acid (see!) is the common denominator of living things,but isn’t it the number and orientation of genes within that double helix molecule which defines a species? Why are WE the ’special’ ones? Again,is it just chance or has that particular chemical designation been bestowed upon us? Silly question really,as I don’t know what role DNA has in the intelligence and therefore reasoning ability of a species,the ability to ponder factors other than those immediately necessary for survival.
Got to go now,thanks again for your response which will result in sleep loss as I ponder your words!
August 28, 2007 at 2:45 pm
fergusbrown
Hi, Barry.
First of all, are we really sure that ‘why are we here?’ is the question we want answered? When you break down that question into several alternative meanings, it becomes clear that some at least are impossible to answer except by expressing a statement of belief or opinion. The point is, if you can’t get a determinate answer by virtue of the nature of the question, what is the point in answering the question?
The recognition that everything is, as it is, and needs no ‘essential’ being or ‘causal’ meaning in order to be both wonderful and absolutely itself-within-itself, is somewhere near the starting point of Existentialism. It is important to remember Sartre’s reaction to the irreducible reality of the other; the ‘existential anxiety’ which assails us. And don’t imagine it is a purely philosophical or imaginary reaction: I have had the experience myself, and seen it in others.
One of the places where my personal search for meaning diverges from Sartre’s is that he does not seem to allow for the possibility of wonder, or ‘joy’ in recognising the existence of others, whereas this is, to me, one of the points of ‘revelation’ or ‘enlightenment’ which can be seen in many different philosophical traditions.
If you are interested, try reading Sartre’s ‘Nausea’, and see how you react to it. Then go outside and do as he does; face yourself with the absolute, irreducible, alien otherness of a simple everyday object and look, really ’sense’ that it is. Whatever the response, it is often revelatory in its impact.
Finally for now, I suggested that questions about ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ only make sense at all if we first recognise that they are about being human, specifically. What we seem to want to know, beneath the question ‘why do we exist?’, is ‘Why do I exist, and why do others (people) exist?’
If this is correct, then what we want to ask might be; ‘Where can the possibility of having a meaning or purpose have meaning in itself?’ One answer to this is: such questions only make sense in our humanity and our belonging a the human group (family).
‘Till later,