It has been said that indoctrination and education are polar opposites and absolutely incompatible.
In an ideal world, but certainly not in practice. To a large measure, education indoctrinates us into believing that our modern "scientific" picture of the world has more or less given us a correct picture of what reality is with only the details needing to be filled in. Thus, there is no God, no afterlife, no magic, no ghosts, no psi, no objective morality, no "free will", no ultimate given purpose to our lives, no colours, sounds or smells in the external world.
I surmise my "education" has been very poor since I believe in all of these things (possibly not magic, I lack sufficient information to reach a conclusion here).
Showing posts with label purpose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label purpose. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 April 2021
Sunday, 12 February 2017
Is suffering incompatible with a higher purpose?
If it's considered that suffering is incompatible with some higher purpose to our existence, then what would the world have to be like so that it is compatible with some higher purpose? Perhaps if no one ever experienced any pain; not just physical but mental pain too? And no one ever experienced misery, least of all depression? Indeed, that our lives are in a constant state of maximum happiness?
And what would such happiness consist in? Pleasures? Or the feeling like you had as a child when you woke up on a Christmas day morning? Or if you were in a permanent state of a certain type of intellectual satisfaction?
Obviously that's silly. But perhaps people mean there's too much suffering -- not that we shouldn't have any suffering at all. But how do we work out how much suffering would be compatible with some higher purpose?
I think arguably suffering, pain, anguish, despair, loss of a loved one etc, could conceivably be held to be compatible with some higher purpose. For much of history, mankind lived a life full of dangers with the constant threat of death, and suffering, and loss. Close brushes with death from predators with the consequent comradeship and camaraderie when others save your life, and you theirs. The collective outpouring of emotions, the bitter and sweet taste of life in the raw.
In the modern west we are cosseted from all the harsh elements of life. I'll probably die an old man rather than get eaten by a predator. But perhaps, safe and rich as we are, the modern western way of life loses something. It loses the sheer rapture of being alive. If we never experience any dangers, then the sheer thrill of having overcome dangers is also lacking.
So it's not clear to me that suffering is necessarily incompatible with some higher purpose. The problem here is we don't know what the purpose of life is! Hence I think it's impossible to answer such a question.
Maybe it is, but until we know what the purpose of life is, why we are here, how can we say what the nature of our lives should be like?
And what would such happiness consist in? Pleasures? Or the feeling like you had as a child when you woke up on a Christmas day morning? Or if you were in a permanent state of a certain type of intellectual satisfaction?
Obviously that's silly. But perhaps people mean there's too much suffering -- not that we shouldn't have any suffering at all. But how do we work out how much suffering would be compatible with some higher purpose?
I think arguably suffering, pain, anguish, despair, loss of a loved one etc, could conceivably be held to be compatible with some higher purpose. For much of history, mankind lived a life full of dangers with the constant threat of death, and suffering, and loss. Close brushes with death from predators with the consequent comradeship and camaraderie when others save your life, and you theirs. The collective outpouring of emotions, the bitter and sweet taste of life in the raw.
In the modern west we are cosseted from all the harsh elements of life. I'll probably die an old man rather than get eaten by a predator. But perhaps, safe and rich as we are, the modern western way of life loses something. It loses the sheer rapture of being alive. If we never experience any dangers, then the sheer thrill of having overcome dangers is also lacking.
So it's not clear to me that suffering is necessarily incompatible with some higher purpose. The problem here is we don't know what the purpose of life is! Hence I think it's impossible to answer such a question.
Maybe it is, but until we know what the purpose of life is, why we are here, how can we say what the nature of our lives should be like?
Thursday, 2 February 2017
Feel the rapture of being alive!
Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth said:
Our modern world is not ideal for experiencing the rapture of being alive -- indeed the precise opposite. I reckon that's why so many people get depressed. Instead, life has to be an adventure. Like it might well have been in the stone age. A journey with ongoing meaningful experiences. Close brushes with death with the consequent comradeship and camaraderie when others save your life, and you theirs. The collective outpouring of emotions, the bitter and sweet taste of life in the raw. All this with the implicit feeling that death is just another journey and all will come right in the end.
Of course what Joseph Campbell articulating here is how we get satisfaction and fulfilment in life. Which is a different question to what the meaning of life is, as in the sense of what is the purpose or ultimate goal of existence is. See a blog entry by me here. Having said that, I do agree that perhaps most people, when lamenting about what the meaning of life might be, are motivated by a dissatisfaction with their own lives that they undoubtedly would not express if they felt the rapture of being alive.
“People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t
think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking
is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the
purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being
and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.”
Our modern world is not ideal for experiencing the rapture of being alive -- indeed the precise opposite. I reckon that's why so many people get depressed. Instead, life has to be an adventure. Like it might well have been in the stone age. A journey with ongoing meaningful experiences. Close brushes with death with the consequent comradeship and camaraderie when others save your life, and you theirs. The collective outpouring of emotions, the bitter and sweet taste of life in the raw. All this with the implicit feeling that death is just another journey and all will come right in the end.
Of course what Joseph Campbell articulating here is how we get satisfaction and fulfilment in life. Which is a different question to what the meaning of life is, as in the sense of what is the purpose or ultimate goal of existence is. See a blog entry by me here. Having said that, I do agree that perhaps most people, when lamenting about what the meaning of life might be, are motivated by a dissatisfaction with their own lives that they undoubtedly would not express if they felt the rapture of being alive.
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
What we are and why we're here
Just read the following article:
Science and Mysticism
Both the Copernican Revolution and Darwin's theory of evolution have been utterly devastating in transforming the image we had of ourselves as spiritual beings living in a world full of magic and ultimate purpose. The lack of a story of what we are, where we come from, why we're here, has wrought unparalleled damage to our collective psyches.
Science and Mysticism
Both the Copernican Revolution and Darwin's theory of evolution have been utterly devastating in transforming the image we had of ourselves as spiritual beings living in a world full of magic and ultimate purpose. The lack of a story of what we are, where we come from, why we're here, has wrought unparalleled damage to our collective psyches.
Sunday, 12 October 2014
Meaning or Purpose?
There seems to be a lot of talking at cross purposes when people who believe in a "God" and a "life after death" argue with materialists/atheists. Many of the former claim that if the atheists/materialists are right, then there is no meaning to life so we might as well just kill ourselves now. Many atheists, on the other hand, seem to be genuinely bewildered by this and claim that of course there is meaning to life! We form friendships and relationships with others, achieve various goals, experience many pleasures. And even after death our lives might not have been in vain since we will have affected many other peoples' lives, hopefully for the better!
I want to draw a distinction between the words "purpose" and "meaning". If there is no "God", no "life after death", and we are merely complex biological machines, then I would submit our lives have no purpose. By this I mean that there is no ultimate goal to our lives. There is no becoming one with "God" or whatever form that purpose might take. That is to say that we live out our lives, and they might well be very satisfactory in terms of pleasures experienced, various satisfactions attained, but ultimately there is no reason for ones existence over and above that which we ourselves give to our lives. On the other hand our lives certainly have meaning due to the aforementioned positive aspects to our existence.
But is having meaning, but no purpose to our lives, enough?
Although I emphatically disagree with Bertrand Russell in the following quote that we are compelled to accept the conclusion he outlines, he nevertheless nicely captures the dissatisfactory consequence of accepting that our lives have no purpose.
If we are mere biological machines, then yes, life has meaning. And I find it absurd for people to suggest that if there is no "God" etc we might as well just kill ourselves now. But nevertheless it remains the case that the Universe and our lives are ultimately to no avail. Whatever goals are achieved, whatever satisfactions are attained, whatever pleasures we experience, ultimately it is all pointless in the grand scheme of things. Eventually the last human being will die, the last sentient being on Earth will die and eventually the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun when it ends its life as a red giant.
With the death of the Earth we might legitimately conclude that the whole history of the human race -- every thought, every action, every emotion experienced -- might as well never have occurred.
If we gravitate towards materialism perhaps it is best to put aside such thoughts and lose ourselves in our day to day lives; care about the concrete things in life such as making a living, forming relationships, and just marvel at our fortune to be priveleged to have this brief spark of sentience before the veil of forever nothingness descends upon us.
I want to draw a distinction between the words "purpose" and "meaning". If there is no "God", no "life after death", and we are merely complex biological machines, then I would submit our lives have no purpose. By this I mean that there is no ultimate goal to our lives. There is no becoming one with "God" or whatever form that purpose might take. That is to say that we live out our lives, and they might well be very satisfactory in terms of pleasures experienced, various satisfactions attained, but ultimately there is no reason for ones existence over and above that which we ourselves give to our lives. On the other hand our lives certainly have meaning due to the aforementioned positive aspects to our existence.
But is having meaning, but no purpose to our lives, enough?
Although I emphatically disagree with Bertrand Russell in the following quote that we are compelled to accept the conclusion he outlines, he nevertheless nicely captures the dissatisfactory consequence of accepting that our lives have no purpose.
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision
of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth,
his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the
outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire,
no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve
an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours
of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the
noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction
in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple
of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the
debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite
beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy
which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding
of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair
can the soul’s habitation be safely built.
Bertrand Russell (from A Free Man's Worship, 1903)
If we are mere biological machines, then yes, life has meaning. And I find it absurd for people to suggest that if there is no "God" etc we might as well just kill ourselves now. But nevertheless it remains the case that the Universe and our lives are ultimately to no avail. Whatever goals are achieved, whatever satisfactions are attained, whatever pleasures we experience, ultimately it is all pointless in the grand scheme of things. Eventually the last human being will die, the last sentient being on Earth will die and eventually the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun when it ends its life as a red giant.
With the death of the Earth we might legitimately conclude that the whole history of the human race -- every thought, every action, every emotion experienced -- might as well never have occurred.
If we gravitate towards materialism perhaps it is best to put aside such thoughts and lose ourselves in our day to day lives; care about the concrete things in life such as making a living, forming relationships, and just marvel at our fortune to be priveleged to have this brief spark of sentience before the veil of forever nothingness descends upon us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)