About Life, Universe and Everything-III :Does life have any meaning?

Does life have any meaning?

“Deep in the fundamental heart of mind and Universe,” said Slartibartfast, “there is a reason.”

Ford glanced sharply around. He clearly thought this was taking an optimistic view of things.

-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Is there any meaning for human existence?

A Spinoza quote puts things in perspective:

“We are human. We suppose that all events lead up to man and are designed to sub serve his needs. But this is an anthropocentric delusion, like so much of our thinking.

The root of the greatest errors in philosophy lies in projecting our human purposes, criteria and preferences into the objective universe.”

Nietzsche also got it right.

He said: “The value (and meaning) of life cannot be assessed.” Not by any living person because he is an interested party.  

Hence the attempt by metaphysicians galore, to find order and an ultimate meaning to our existence is bound to fail, as they are all an ‘interested party’.

“The world today doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?”- Pablo Picasso

But even Nietzsche’s ‘Amor Fati’- (i.e celebration of the moment, and accepting things as they    are, with no past and future also is) is an attempt to find some meaning for it all.

But it is in Man’ nature to try and find meaning to our existence.

Aristotle, for instance, believed in a final cause. That everything is guided in a certain direction from within.

He believed that there is purpose behind everything in nature. It rains so plants can grow; oranges and apple grow so that people can eat them.

Spinoza  believed that greatest good is the knowledge of union which mind has with the whole nature. Our Individual separateness is illusory; we are parts of the great stream of law and cause, parts of God. This is ditto Hindu philosophy.

He also said that there is no free will – necessities of survival determines instinct, instinct determines desire and desire determine thought and action.

Free will is compared to a stone’s thinking  as it falls through space, that it determines its own trajectory and selects the place and time of its fall.

Kant believed in a ‘universal moral law’. Basically saying ‘Do unto  others what you would do unto yourself.’

The moral law is absolute and unalterable, according to Kant.

Sartre, the existentialist, said “Man is condemned to be free.”

He saw freedom as a curse. Sartre said.” Man is condemned because he has not created himself-and is nevertheless free. Because having once been hurled into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

He believed that man must therefore create himself. He must create his own nature or “essence,” because it is not fixed in advance.

Bergson (1859–1941)had an undeniable logic for believing that ‘free will’ exists.   

He found it hard to believe that: “…every line of Shakespeare’s plays, and every suffering of his, soul; so that the somber rhetoric of Hamlet and Othello, of Macbeth and Lear, in every clause and every phrase, was written far off there in the distant skies and the distant eons, by the structure and content of that legendary cloud. What a draft upon credulity!”

“If determinists were right, and every act were the automatic and  mechanical resultant of pre-existent forces, motive would flow into action with lubricated ease. But on the contrary, choice is burdensome and effortful, it requires resolution, a lifting up the power of personality against the spiritual gravitation of impulse or habit or sloth, Choice is creation, and creation is labor.

What about Man himself? What is his true nature?

Schopenhauer (1788 –1860) has presented a not too pleasant but possibly a true picture of what human nature is.

Man was always thought as a rational ,conscious animal.

Schopenhauer says that under the conscious intellect, is a ‘will’ of imperious desire’.

The intellect is only a guide to the master-‘ the will’.

Will is ‘the strong blind man who carries on his shoulder the lame man who can see’.

What does the ‘Will’ make us do?

The primary instinct of man is his ‘Will to Reproduce’. We know that man can’t stop thinking about sex. There is a reason for it.

The will to reproduce is the means by which the ‘will’ can conquer death. Reproduction is the ultimate purpose of every organism.

Reproductive organs are the focus of will and form the opposite pole to the brain, which is the representative of knowledge.

Is there such a thing as love?

Not really. The ‘will to reproduce’ has  two parts:

One part is of course ‘Lust’.

The other part is the instinct of man to rear his children so that the ‘will’ is able to achieve immortality.

So love is essentially the ‘law of sexual attraction’  decided by mutual fitness to procreate. And the love that you feel for your children and near and dear ones is essentially aimed at perpetuation of the species.

Marriage is only for perpetuation of the species and not for pleasure of the individual. Nature does not care if the parents are ‘happy forever afterwards’, as long as reproduction is achieved.

Love is a deception practiced by nature; Marriage is attrition of love, and must be disillusioning.

The deception vanishes, once procreation is done – The individual discovers that he has been the dupe of the species.

“Life,” said Marvin dolefully, “loathe it or ignore it, you can’t like it.”

-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

My take: Life, Universe and Everything

Let me try to make sense of what I have read so far.

First things first.                                                    

About Reality.

There is some merit in what Descartes, Locke, Kant etc said

That what we see of this world could possibly be only an apparent reality.

What the world is really like could be a matter of speculation. We see the world with the inherent limitations of our sense organs.

So you cannot dispute that.

But does it matter? Not really, I think.

This world as we see it, is our reality. Hence that is all that matters. We need to find ways and means to come to terms with it. Period.

All talks of what the ‘Ultimate reality’ could really be like should be left for idle chat with your drinking  buddies.

About God?

Well, I believe in what Kant  said.

You cannot speculate in a rational manner on the existence of God. It is best left to matters of ‘Faith’.

Theories of Aristotle that  ‘God’ is the ‘Prime Mover’, or Spinoza’s ‘God as ‘substance’, ‘the structure that holds the world together’  or Berkeley’s ‘the world existing only in the mind of God’ (akin to Advaita’s ‘Maya’ or illusion) etc are just that: Theories.

There’s no way of knowing what the truth is. All talk of God are pure speculation.

God of all religions is a matter of ‘Faith’ alone and should not be subject to theological nitpicking.

What about human existence?

“You know,” said Arthur thoughtfully, “all this explains a lot of things. All through my life I’ve had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going in the world, something big, even sinister, and no would tell me what it was.”

            “No,” said the old man, “that’s just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in Universe has that.”

            “Everyone?” said Arthur. “Well, if everyone has that perhaps it means something! Perhaps somewhere outside the Universe we know ….”

            “Maybe. Who cares?” said Slartibartfast before Arthur got too excited. “Perhaps I’m old and tired,” he continued, “but I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied.

Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Firstly, Man is not the centre of the Universe.

That the world should make any ‘sense’ and that events should lead to some kind of ‘ultimate reality’ is as Spinoza speculated, ‘an anthropocentric delusion’.

So is there any scope of any ‘limited’ meaning to human existence?

Well, what’s  stopping us from speculating?

Let’s start with some facts we know:

Every species on earth has one known common instinct: ‘Instinct for survival’. No dispute there.

Every living being would like to live forever, be immortal.

That’s not possible. So what’s the next best thing?

Immortality for the species? Well, why not?

How does one ensure immortality for the species? By reproduction, of course.

This would explain a lot, with respect to the behavioral pattern of all species on Earth, be it Plants, Animals and finally Humans.

Consider the facts.

The Plant Kingdom.

There’s not much complication here. Of course every Individual plant fights for its survival. And spreads its seeds to ensure immortality of its species.

The Animal Kingdom.

Animals are slightly more complicated than Plants. They can move, right? So their degree of intelligence will be more than plants.

But the primary instinct is still ‘the instinct for survival’. So they copulate and reproduce.

There are two aspects of Animals that are different from plants though.

One, the Animals takes care of their young.

Two, Animals tend to form ‘groups’, such as a ‘pack of wolves’ or ‘pride of lions’ etc.

But ,both ends are towards one aim: Propagation of  their species.

Animals need to care for their young, if their offspring   have to survive.

What about animal species apart from birds and mammals who do not care for their young like worms, squids, insects etc?

Well, they seem to ensure perpetuation of their species by laying more number of eggs, it seems.This will ensure that at least some will survive. Security in numbers.

And why do animals move in packs? Same thing- security in numbers.

What about Human Beings? They appear to be more complicated, of course.

But are they?

Firstly, similar to plants and animals, they have the same instinct for survival.

They copulate, reproduce and tend to their young. No complications there.

Why do we form societies? Simple answer is of course that it is same as animals- security in numbers.

But the wise Spinoza puts in nicely . I will quote him here:

“Fear of solitude is there in all men, as no one in solitude is strong enough to defend himself. Hence man tends towards social organization.”

“Men are not by nature meant for mutual forbearance of social order. Men are not born for citizenship, but must be made for it.”

So the immortal song by Pink Floyd:

“We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control” 

reverberates in our soul, because as Spinoza rightly said  “we are not meant for social forbearance”.

But we must simply lump it and be good members of society, because that is the only way we can survive as a species.

But that’s not all. Men are more complicated than Animals. In what sense?

An animal will eat, breed and sleep throughout its life, without a thought or ambition to do anything more.

Here Man is different. Eating, sleeping and breeding are not enough for man.

He wants more. He gets miserable and bored easily.

Why so? What’s the difference? Plants and animals have only one instinct, i.e ‘Instinct for survival’.

Man has also the same instinct- ‘Instinct for survival’. But he has one thing more, and this is what makes a man different.

He is a ‘Restless spirit’, born with ‘Strife within’.

You can never find ways and means to completely satisfy a man. He is born ‘restless’ and he will die ‘restless’, even if you give him the world and all the power and money.

He will still be bored or unhappy.

To paraphrase Schopenhauer:

“Pain is its basic stimulus and reality(of life), and pleasure is merely a negative cessation of pain”.

‘Restless’ or ‘miserable’. It’s your take. And that is the reality of human nature .

Buddha got it wrong: Desire is not the root cause of misery.

We are ‘miserable’ by nature, and hence we desire to get rid of the ‘misery’ or ‘restlessness’. 

That is human nature. And there is no ‘Nirvana’ or escaping being a ‘restless human’ till the day you die.

Because that is our nature. You can’t escape it.

There is no  ‘Happiness’ or ‘Sadness’ either. It is simply a human condition. Nature does not recognize ‘Happiness’ or ‘Sadness’. Only the ‘Restlessness in you, is the reality.

Nothing either good or bad,but thinking makes it so- Shakespeare

Religions which propagate 'eternal happiness' are talking of a state which is not ‘human’.

For one, it is not possible to be eternally happy (or sad for that matter). Secondly it is not desirable also.

It is not desirable because as Kant says: … (restlessness) is nature’s method of developing hidden capacities of life; Struggle is indispensible to accompaniment of progress.

Kant further says that if it were possible for men to be happy and content with what they have then:

“Men might have led an Arcadian shepherd life in complete harmony, contentment, and mutual love; but in that case all their talents would have forever remained hidden in their germ.”

“… Man wishes concord; but nature knows better what is good for his species; and she wills discord, in order that man may be impelled to a new exertion of his powers, and to the further development of his natural capacities.”

So this is the bad news:

Are you unhappy or bored? Well, fret not!  Because you are now one with nature! You are in sync with your soul!

And nature knows that you will do something , anything to get rid of this ‘restlessness’ or ‘misery’.

Maybe create beautiful music, make great works of art, build bridges, discover religion or give to charity…

Something , anything…As long as you get going and strive.

 “If ease of use were the only requirement, we would all be using tricycles.- Engelbert

And what about, when you are feeling ‘happy and blissful’?

Well, be rest assured that nature is now busy plotting to ruin your day. And get you back on grid. That is, to get you to being  ‘restless’ or ‘miserable’.

So the truth of human existence is:

‘Strife within’ is your true nature. Because that is the only secret of human progress.

You are born ‘restless’ and will die ‘restless’.

No religion can cure you, No money or power will quench your tempestuous soul.

And the day any religion or metaphysician is able to work out a ‘magic formula’ for eternal happiness, be rest assured:

That will be the end of human species as we know it. It will be decay and decadence.

So ‘Internal strife’ or ‘Restlessness’ is natural. Understand that  it is just nature’s way of asking you to move, to just do your thing.

Tendulkar, probably the greatest batsmen the world has known, mentioned about his ‘restlessness’ recently in an interview:

“…..Restlessness brings the best out of me, it’s a healthy sign. At the start of my career, when I used to toss and turn at night, I was fighting that feeling and wanting to go to sleep. Now I know that’s normal, so I’ll just get up and watch TV or something. I know it’s just my subconscious mind getting ready for a game. It’s about knowing yourself, and I know myself better now.

Tendulakar is wiser than we give him credit.

The more restless you are, the more successful you will be in life. Because the fire is within you.

So embrace your restlessness. It should not be a cause of misery anymore.

There has never yet been a man in our history who led a life of ease whose name is worth remembering. - Theodore Roosevelt