Meaning The of Life
Swenson: Our happiness is found in our relation to the eternal Pojman: Only belief in God allows us a satisfying and inspiring view of the world Schlick: The meaning of life is not in our purposive activity, but in play Klemke: The meaning of life is in the power and depth of our subjectivity The nature of the philosophical perspective Breaks away from the automatic point of view We have been raised with certain philosophical prejudices Used "my own case" as a springboard to the universal For the vast majority of mankind, they live their lives very close to the specific tasks/chores/demands of thou Our mind starts to wander and raise questions during these mundane tasks; it isn't enslaved to the specific task anymore "I was such a bundle of nerves last week before that test. Why did I take it so seriously? What SHOULD I take seriously? What are the important things in my life? Etc." It uses my experience in the world to become a springboard for the purpose of life itself Therefore, the question of the meaning life is often seen as the paradigmatic philosophical question. Three proposed "necessary conditions" 1. There has to be moral truth. The most important decisions we make in life are our moral decisions, 2. We need free will Unless we hold ultimate responsibility for what we become, human life can't be meaningful
3. God must exist He will lay out and teach us what a meaningful life is, what the meaningful path is to pursue The question of today's lecture Are free will and God compatible? The problem explained Predestination and freedom "God from all eternity did... freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" God's omniscience and freedom There is nothing God does not know- including the entirety of your future God's knowledge is absolute... so if he knows I'm going to get married on x date, how could I possibly get married any other time or not get married at all? Solutions To solve the predestination problem: Adopt the compatibilist position on freedom Our acts are free when they flow without the impediment from our own nature Problem with this proposal: We are not responsible for our natures God becomes responsible for both good and evil Conclusion: Theist must adopt libertarian conception of free will. God in his omnipotence (his ability to predestine every event) chooses instead to give us free will in the strongest sense
To solve the omniscience problem: "God's foreknowledge of future events does not compel them to take place." (Augustine) Just because He knows we're going to do something, doesn't mean he's making us do it. If your friend knows you're going to propose, that doesn't mean that he's making you propose Problem with this solution: If God know now that I will do x, then I cannot do otherwise than x Even if God's foreknowledge doesn't cause our acts, it does make it necessary that I perform them The "Eternalist" Solution (Thomas Aquinas) Since God is outside time, the knowledge he has is of the entire journey all at once. Therefore, God does not have foreknowledge of my acts. Explanation: Let's say one roommate is reading a novel and the other has finished it. The one that is still reading it might GUESS at what's going to happen, but has no knowledge. The other roommate knows what's going to happen, but isn't in the time of the book, so he has no foreknowledge. He just knows what the whole story is. Problem with this solution: Doesn't "timeless knowledge" present just as strong a challenge to our freedom? His knowledge is timeless and unerring. How, then, can I do otherwise?
16th Century Jesuit, Molina's Solution God knows how we will use our freedom in any given circumstance. His foreknowledge is hypothetical: If placed in circumstance C, x will freely do y.
David Swenson: "The Dignity of Human Life"
A different kind of philosophizing A vision of life, an intuitive feeling of one's way How do we evaluate a vision of life? We can extract from what he does say, premises, if we want to put it that way. We can show that he makes an argument for the meaning of life being to find eternal significance. Sometime aesthetic criteria Sometimes, a resonance with one's own life Appeal to the court of reason What is the source of the meaning of human life? Answer: That the source of the meaning of human life, what makes life meaningful, is it being engaged in a certain sort of quest and to the extent that the life is expressive for that quest, the life is meaningful. The quest is for something of eternal significance. What is his case for this answer? The human being is "made for happiness." Happiness for a thinking being must be interpenetrated with meaning. What brings genuine and lasting happiness? Consider wealth, possessions, power, influence, health, strength 1. To belong to the world is to be "split apart." For unity in the self, we need an end intrinsically one.
2. Our happiness is out of our control. Threat of unhappiness in every happy moment. True happiness requires constancy. 3. External goods are morally neutral. Whether they bring good or ill will depend on something deep in one's soul. 4. Happiness that depends upon external goods cannot bind humans to each other. Happiness that can inspire us as an aim must enable us to see humanity as a spiritual unity. Hence, it must be universally accessible. The source of true happiness must be something "underlying and absolute" if our lives are to have perspective and focus, And it must bring unity to the individual soul and bind him or her to humanity. Making this discovery and giving it expression: the fundamental meaning of life and the source of our dignity and worth.
In what dimension of our lives can this be sought? In the moral life Why? Because in our moral crises we are touching our deepest depths, shaping our essential reality, the reality that only we can make. As the artist offers his/her artwork for eternity, so we offer to eternity the soul we have made So the moral life is our connection with the eternal. In moral consciousness, we "sense the presence of God." Why? Because as a "derivative spirit," I cannot impose upon myself the law of my own being. The "thou must" derives from God. Our unique glory: we have the ability to turn from it Not enough that such a truth be grasped by the imagination and intellect.
What makes a general truth my truth A profound movement of the heart The will's decisive commitment
What is this quest? What does it amount to?
Louis Pojman: "Religion Gives Meaning to Life"
Argues for advantages of theism If there is a benevolent, supreme governor of the universe, eight theses follow: 1. Satisfying explanation of origin and sustenance of universe a. Caring God v. cold emptiness of scientific world picture b. From universe without objective value, no value can emerge c. From a universe without purpose, no individual purpose is possible. 2. Universe suffused with good God will win out over evil. Injustice, cruelty, and hatred will not be victorious. 3. We have motivation to live moral lives: deep gratitude for God's love a. Only religion produces moral saints 4. Answer to question, Why be moral? a. God's love guarantees justice: you will get what you deserve 5. Cosmic justice reigns (a good in itself). 6. All persons of equal worth (as children of God) a. Without theism, egalitarianism is indefensible 7. Grace and forgiveness assure endless possibility for moral redemption. 8. Immortality
Moritz Schlick: "On the Meaning of Life"
"The meaning of life is youth." (p. 71) What does he mean? The emptiness of common conceptions of meaning
Focus on a goal To what end? Life-maintenance But meaning can't be in mere maintenance, but in content of life The pendulum of driving desire and boredom (Shopenhauer has a dismal depiction of human life... our life swings between driving desire and boredom) The "gospel of our age:" The deification of work Activity undertaken to achieve a purpose Work cannot be the value of life because the value of work is outside it "Unremitting stern fulfillment of duty" makes us narrow and deprives us of the freedom required for self-development. A life focused on distant goals compared to a bow that is always bent Shifting the center of gravity of your life forward Unceasing concern for the future casts its shadow over every present and clouds the joy of it Schlick's correction of these errors If life has a meaning, it must lie in the present. The ultimate value of life can lie only in activities because the nature of life is in movement and actions. These activities must be undertaken for their own sake and carry their satisfaction in themselves because if the ultimate value lies outside them, but life has its meaning in the present, then we will never have meaning. Free purposeless action, engaged in for its own sake: PLAY We are "most fully ourselves" in play Support from the ancient Greeks
The Olympian gods had no work Heraclitus' creative world-spirit Support from Nietzsche's Zarathustra What kind of support? True because they said so? Or evidence for worthiness of consideration? Objections: 1. Invitation to a life of idle dreams a. No seriousness, no connection with demands of this world 2. Reducing mankind to the level of the beasts Replies to the objections: Play, too can be creative and productive. Its outcome can coincide with that of work. Examples: artist, cobbler, scientist (p. 66) Can liberate from care without reducing power of hope Sees all possible consequences, but not attached to any As in sports (goals needed to supply tension, but the game is reward enough) Image of the mountain trek The "last liberation of man" p. 68 "To would live mean to celebrate the festival of existence." Pleasure v. Joy Both distract us from care, but in different ways Pleasure is sheer distraction, but joy gives us insight Pleasure brings us involvement with common place, but joy soaring above the everyday Pleasure is fleeting excitement but joy is inspiration Pleasure ruffling surface of soul but joy is a deep affirmation of existence
The ardor and enthusiasm of youth The terrible error of seeing youth as preparation for seriousness and work Intrinsic value: a time of play, doing for its own sake; hence youth is the true bearer of meaning of life
E.D. Klemke: Living without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life
Introduction William James' concept of the religious person Consider Swenson's emphasis on our eternal significance The meaning of our life can be found only in our connection with something that transcends this earthly existence Consider Pojman's claims about a satisfying and inspiring conception of the universe and our place in it Klemke sees in these views idle dreams that don't hold up under rational scrutiny He calls this "transcendentalism" 1. An existence claim a. He asks for reasons i. Scripture--- Doesn't actually prove its existence... just shows that there are people who believe there are ii. Testimony of millions--iii. Traditional arguments for God 1. Design--- even if you accept intelligent design, even if there are signs of design in the universe, it doesn't follow from the patterns of nature that they had to be designed 2. Religious experience--- they are moving beyond just an experience to an interpretation of the experience which can easily be doubted iv. Conclusion: none. 1. In this, the believer concurs. But faith... 2. His response: a. Faith still implies evidence
b. A special kind of faith? i. EDK: Of this special kind of faith (a leap into the dark), I have no need ii. Religious person says: Without the transcendent and your faith in the transcendent, human existence is without meaning purpose, and integration 2. Indispensable to meaning, purpose, integration a. Meaning i. Must make a distinction between objective and subjective 1. Objective: the meaning itself is part/ property of the universe a. Dependent on external agency 2. Subjective: a person supposes the meaning and imposes it on the universe a. Dependent on the person ii. EDK: 1. Objective meaning does no require the transcendent 2. Problems with objective meaning a. No evidence b. Subjective meaning tied to transcendent is unintelligible iii. Only faith in the transcendent is needed for meaning? 1. EDK: a. The generalization is false i. Lots of people don't believe, but still have meaningful lives b. Even if true, I would reject it i. Meaning must be within my comprehension as a rational inquirer 2. Purpose without the transcendent? a. Evidence? i. Integration 1. EDK: Psychological integration doesn't require faith in transcendent a. Claim is false... Lots of people are friends with themselves 2. Metaphysical integration
a. Referring to our place in the scheme of things 3. What is metaphysical integration? What does it amount to? a. Mystical experience of oneness? b. EDK: not intersubjectively testable... Most believers n trans. Have no had this experience, hence, no need for faith. Therefore faith clearly not enough for this kind of integration 4. Even if such faith were necessary to meaning, purpose, integration, I cannot place a meaningful faith in something incomprehensible to me 3. Without these, human life is not worthwhile a. EDK: Confusion between objective and subjective meaning i. Lacking objective meaning, life can still have subjective meaning, the only important kind ii. Objective meaning "an outer, neutral thing, rather than an inner, dynamic achievement" iii. Glory of human life is in the forging of our own meaning 1. Meaningfulness of our life dependent upon the richness of our own psyches: intelligence, sensitivity to beauty, sensuality, passion 2. Some sources of worthwhileness for me: knowledge, art love, work 3. It is human consciousness along that endows events, objects persons, achievements with value (totally against S-L)
Albert Camus: "The Myth of Sisyphus"
There is one "truly serious" philosophical question: "Is life worth living?" Why? Aren't many philosophical problems closely connected to the meaning of life? Is this a reasonable criterion? Consider E=mc^2 Can grant its importance, even if his initial statement is a little exaggerated
Introduces the "feeling of absurdity" Divorce between oneself and one's life, between the actor and the setting. His question: Does the absurd dictate suicide? Because we don't only live in this world with our minds, we live with our bodies. The body has its own opinion and maintains an irreparable lead over the mind. Giving us a feeling for the sense of life's absurdity ("the absurd") Estrangement without memory of our lost home or hope of the promised land "void becomes eloquent" Five occasions for the realization of "the absurd" 1. "chain of daily gestures broken" "stage sets collapse" a. Routine, routine, routine... But why am I going through the motions? 2. "primitive hostility of the world" 3. Sudden strangeness of other people a. Watching someone you love at a mirror and it occurring to you that they have an existence quite separate from you 4. Sudden strangeness of oneself a. Catching yourself in a mirror as you walk by 5. Death a. "Everyone lives as if no one knew this" b. But we are aware of its "mathematical certainty." c. "Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, the uselessness *of our life's adventure+ becomes evident" i. Why? 1. We always live for tomorrow. We always have our plans, and it's those plans that enliven our life. Those plans make the past more relevant, more important. What is the absurd? We want to understand the world. To understand is to reduce it to human terms.
"If the universe could love and suffer, we would be reconciled." We want a rational understanding of the universe and a sense of kinship with the world. But, my only certainty: myself at this moment in the world But even this quickly becomes "water slipping through my fingers" because as soon as I ask "but what am I?" it becomes uncertain The absurd is a confrontation between two irreconcilables: "wild longing that I have for clarity" to make my existence rational Incomprehensibility and indifference of the world Leap of faith? If you take a leap of faith to believe in God, wouldn't it end the problem with the absurd? "I don't fully understand." The sin of pride... your unwillingness to turn to God What is sin? All I feel is my innocence. I can't take a leap into something I don't understand His demand of himself: "to live solely with what he knows, to accommodate himself to what is, to bring in nothing that is not certain." This seems a sort of philosophical suicide. Can I live without appeal? Can I live with what I know? To believe life has meaning is to believe in a scale of values, a better tomorrow, toward which we struggle. Belief in the absurd teaches the contrary: There is no future. Now I can substitute quantity of experience for quality. But quantity does not depend on circumstances; it depends solely on us. Revolt against the absurd By wholly engaging this moment
All the while wholly aware of the absurdity of my condition Lucid, without hope and without despair, and undefeated The ancient myth of Sisyphus A thought experiment: What props of the world are required for honor? Sisyphus is the absurd hero. "The lucidity that was to constitute his torture... crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." "Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world." "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
Thomas Nagel: "The Absurd"
Reading tip: sections He begins with a general observation Turns to the "inadequate arguments" 1. In a million years... anything we do now won't count much... But if I'm to accept that, why can't I say by parody of reason, the judgment of a million years from now is irrelevant? 2. A jot in time and space... Suppose we live for a million years instead of being a jot in time... that wouldn't make our life meaningful. 3. Death and justification... it's simply not true that we live postponing the justification for our argument to a future time. If we insist on more justification than just "to protect the child from harm" when we remove its hand from the stove, it becomes "a vacuous demand"... we will never be able to justify anything Analysis of Absurdity The ordinary sense of the absurd Philosophical sense The collision that makes life absurd: it collides with the fact that, as an intelligent rational person, you're capable of taking a step back from the life that you're so energetically
into. When you take that step back, there's no final justification to lead the life you do, nor any life for that matter. Can we escape the absurd by adopting broader concerns? Ex. Elimination of poverty, advancement of science, glory of God Contrast Camus: In the backward step, are we turning to a higher standard of justification? The bad arguments are metaphors for the backward step. How, then, ought we to see it? A problem to be solved? An occasion for dramatic defiance? Neither... for "a manifestation of our most advanced and interesting characteristics the capacity to transcend ourselves in thought." And the raised fist against the heavens "betrays a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation."