Life-arcane... absurd... absurdly arcane?

At critical junctures along one’s path, one may stumble lightly or gravely upon the question, “What is the meaning of life?”

Initially, I erroneously believed this query was universal in its earnest quest for an answer. After painstaking deliberation, I realize one must clarify the question in hairsplitting detail: How a person extracts meaning from life is different from how a person defines the reason for life. The former is intimately intertwined with the belief in God, or the soul, or the denial of both. The latter is equivocally tangled with philosophical manipulations, conditional principles and scrappy rhetoric. Although both agendas swirl along the same plane like the yin yang concept, both questions can be treated independently despite this overlap.

I favor exploring the reason for life.

Trekking through the ages to eavesdrop at the hearths of academic alchemists proved to be a most cumbersome exploit. To avoid sinking helplessly in the abyss of hypotheses and theories, I stolidly clung to a strict interpretation or answer to the question. I discarded decrees of how mankind achieves a meaningful existence, and, instead, pocketed discourses of why mankind exists. Therefore, some well-known philosophical theories were omitted but were not discounted.

Following the trajectory of the sun, I first toiled in the East where minds are ceaselessly riddled by the imprints of Confucius. Confucians imperviously believe that man must attain the ideal—follow the codes of the universe. (How one actually achieves this ideal is highly pervious to the particular Confucian who commands the spotlight; fortunately, that is a quest for another.) As I understand, Confucius accepted the notion of god and spirits; however, the universe was heaven. Though the contrivances of heaven are vague constructs, the moral premise is clear. Therefore, one’s purpose is to personify virtue. An opposing faction to the Confucian school that dared to define life’s purpose is Taoism. The Tao, or, in English, “the way,” is the Chinese character. It is the supreme embodiment of wisdom. A man must learn and define this ultimate truth to fulfill his mortal mission. Finally, the Legalist theorists, a short-lived and ultimately discredited philosophical school, minced elaborate postulations of life and concluded that man’s innate aim is to pursue fame and interest. According to Legalists, thought should not be wasted on elusive concepts with no answer, but invested in practical pursuits that will yield useful paradigms. Feeling shoved and dismissed, I gathered the reason for life lies somewhere among virtue, wisdom and futility.

I set sail feeling optimistic that I may find a more conclusive answer. “Perhaps I shall fare better in the West,” I concluded anchoring along the shores of Greece. Plato was the first to humor my query: Man is obligated to pursue supreme knowledge, the transcendent Form of the Good. Socrates quietly scoffed informing me that I caught his expostulating successor, Plato, in his middle dialog that defines moral quest within a metaphysical context: Had I entreated Plato a dialog sooner than this one, he would confine the moral quest solely within the physical world; had I entreated Plato a dialog later, he would subject the moral quest to the cosmic order. Despite the shifting parameters of virtue, Plato maintains that life’s goal is rooted morally. Turning to Socrates for his thoughts, he resolutely asserts that he preferred Plato’s earlier dialog; in Apology section 38a Plato proclaimed, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Aristotle interjected and quoted his renowned quote, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” A soothing calm insinuated itself among the swirling theories as Epicurus presented the notion of a pleasure principle. Epicurus contended that pleasure is the aim and the end. At a glance one may think he sipped from the god Dionysus’ challis; however, upon closer scrutiny, Epicurus’ hedonism is grounded in the absence of corporeal and spiritual strife. Right when I hoped to crown pleasure the absolute ambition, a Cynic redirected the aim towards virtue in harmony with nature. A Stoic quickly followed and expounded that this marriage between virtue and nature will lead to the definitive purpose—a freedom from suffering through sound judgment and objectivity. Sifting through my deck of aims, I now possessed a constellation of virtue, happiness, pleasure, and the coupling of virtue with nature to define life’s ultimate goal. My hunched shoulders grew weary beneath this expanding, theoretical globe, still I must trudge on if I am to establish a conclusive answer to the meaning of life.

Delving deeper into Europe, I sought Enlightenment (philosophy). I stumbled upon a man who spoke of imperatives, maxims and acts and found myself struggling in a web of confusion. A Kant theorist, the architect of my silky imprisonment, did little to liberate me. Just before I lost consciousness, a snag in the web illuminated the cocoon and, gingerly, I clawed my way to comprehension: the Kant scholar theorized that people act to satisfy desires governed by nature. Though we may maintain the autonomy to act upon them, we ultimately seek to fulfill a principle stirred by a natural element beyond our control. This maxim must be an agent of moral law that can be applied universally to everyone. In other words, our life’s duty is to promote the highest good. Abruptly, a classical liberalist vehemently raised a hand to correctly settle the matter: the meaning of life is to labor, to acquire. The classical liberalist expounded that social contracts must be mutually pursued by independent members and political society. Under his breath a fellow observer implied that the liberalist must be an arriviste, a product of new money. Apparently, those individuals championing this definition sought to stake a claim in society during a time where the nobility, old money, struggled to remain distinct from the industrial capitalists, the nouveau-riche.

Feeling tension brewing over coins and bills, I was greatly relieved when a utilitarian theorist spoke up and firmly declared there be happiness for all. (A bit of an embellishment, my apologies.) The theory less theatrically states that life should be devoted to make the experience of mankind better, to ensure the pleasure of the majority. The author coined this utility the greatest happiness principle. Only seconds passed before a surly contention possessed the discussion. The nihilist doggedly determined that life lacks objective meaning. Naturally, given the implications of a godless world and no higher value for man to orient himself around, the room was abuzz with inflamed temperaments. Cautiously, inconspicuously I excused myself from the company. Poring over the loot I amassed thus far, it seems life defines itself morally (solely or with nature) or happily or pleasurably (the state itself may or may not be synonymous with happiness) or wisely or practically or monetarily or socially or not at all.

Perplexed, I returned to the U.S. Customs reviewed my claims and hastily dismissed my contents as fool’s gold. Nevertheless, I persevered. Settling in a nook, a nosy pragmatist sifted through my sack. He said I will never find what I seek in that sack. Annoyed yet intrigued I implored he continue. The meaning of life as a pragmatist determines can be defined only by the experience of it. He said the truth to life can be created but not sought. In essence, there is no script to read or draw upon. Instead man must live his own personal life, and through his personal experiences meaning will be defined by the purpose he has created. So does that imply that life is actively acquiring meaning and only upon death will one be able to answer the question? Is there no universal meaning? An excited gentleman drew near and congratulated me on my efforts to embrace the truth as the existentialist determined it to be. However, it seemed I was amiss of certain details. In existentialism there is less focus on a well-defined purpose; instead one’s fancy—personal choices and commitments—in the absence of authority (physical or metaphysical alike) determines life’s purpose.

A humanist who had been eavesdropping held up a finger to quiet the group. His platform of life’s meaning derived from the greater welfare of mankind. Although he acceded with the assertion that no supernatural forces participate in man’s purpose, he rebutted the notion of individuality. Rather, an individual should strive to achieve personal fulfillment that promotes the well-being of the collective population. An exasperated retort just beyond the perimeter of the group questioned how anyone can think there is meaning to life when the sole reason man exists is that we simply evolved to this state of being. Several theorists eyed the evolutionary psychologist then deemed his stance a mere tool of basic, human instinct. A smirk flirting with his lips, a logical positivist declared the evolutionist to be quite sound in his conclusion that no meaning to life exists. In fact he decided the question itself is meaningless. Abruptly, a rather impatient fellow chortled. Absurd is the only coherent word he verbalized. Once he ensnared the attention of all, he derisively concluded: This quest for significance in this trivial world is futile. He then encouraged all to liberate themselves from this mental rubbish by embracing the absurdity of their lives and by returning to their useless drudgeries.

Pandemonium erupted! Flecks of moustaches, beards, wigs and several questionable strands peppered the floor upon which I crawled in search of asylum. Secure in an alcove far from belligerently tickled theorists, I rummaged through my contents. A bit of a blur at this moment, I cannot crown any theory the trophy of truth.

From virtue, wisdom and futility to more virtue, nature and pleasure to nature, the highest good, profits, and social contracts to the greatest happiness and no meaning at all to sheer experience, personal fancy, the collective wealth of mankind and a byproduct of evolution to utter absurdity, life evades reasoning, sensing and all other styles of processing in between.

If my meaningless or meaningful or meaning-huh life depended on drawing a definitive conclusion, then I will take a stance: After grave deliberation, I firmly declare that the purpose of life is to amuse ourselves with its meaning.

References

Aftab, M. Awais, “Albert Camus (1913-1960) and Absurdism.” A Journey Through Modern Philosophy, 2008. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Baltzly, Dirk, "Stoicism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 15 Apr. 1996. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

"Existentialism." New World Encyclopedia, 3 Apr 2008. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Frede, Dorothea, "Plato's Ethics: An Overview", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 16 Sep 2003. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Jeff, “Confucian philosophy.” ChinaCultre.org, 27 Sep 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Jeff, “Legalist philosophy.” ChinaCultre.org, 27 Sep 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Jeff, “Taoist philosophy.” ChinaCultre.org, 27 Sep 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Kemerling, Garth, “Epicurus.” Philosophy Pages, 22 Nov 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Kemerling, Garth, “Socrates: Philosophical Life.” Philosophy Pages, 12 Nov 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

"Logical positivism." New World Encyclopedia, 29 Aug 2008. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

"Meaning of life." New World Encyclopedia. 28 Aug 2008. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Metz, Thaddeus, "The Meaning of Life", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 15 May 2007. Web. 7 Feb.2012.

Metz, Thaddeus. “Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life.” Utilitas, 15, 1 (26 Jan. 2009): pp 50-70. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Piering, Julie, “Cynics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jeremy Kirby (ed.), 18 Apr. 2006. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

"Pragmatism." New World Encyclopedia, 4 Apr 2008. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Rohlf, Michael, "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 20 May 2010. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Shields, Christopher, "Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 25 Sep 2008. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Stewart-Williams, Steve, “The Meaning of Life Revealed!” Psychology Today, 8 Jan 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

“Tao.” ChinaCultre.org, 27 Sep 2009. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

"Utilitarianism." New World Encyclopedia, 22 Nov 2008. Web. 7 Feb 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. "Age of Enlightenment." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Feb. 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. "Classical liberalism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. "Evolutionary psychology." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 5 Feb. 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.

Wikipedia contributors. "Secular humanism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 4 Feb. 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.