What's the point of life, what's the point of the Universe, indeed what's the point of the whole shebang? What's the point of ourselves existing at all? Why wasn't there just eternal nothingness? Why wasn't there no Universe, no consciousness at all? Nothing at all, forever? All similar questions.
We do not know what we are, why we're here, where we're going. Life, our existence, all things, are wholly mysterious.
However, my reaction to this is very different to all these other people. Rather than it depressing me, it intrigues me. It makes our lives, all things, ultimately mysterious. And very interesting.
Maybe deep inside they think that life and the Universe is absurd? I definitely don't even though I think such questions are beyond our ken.
From an Idealist perspective, what we are at our fundamental core is no different from what the Universe itself is. So if we had to ask ourselves what is the essential nature of a conscious being, the only answer I could give is that is to exist is to be happy. There's no reason insofar as we're talking about a premeditated plan or something like that, but there is a telos in that it's our very nature to inquire about who and what we are and to find continual fulfillment in the reaffirmation of our own existence.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is a process without end, and I would submit at least an attempt at an answer to someone who'd ask about the point of an afterlife. Wouldn't it become unbearably tortuous after some point? I would respectfully argue against that. We can go back and forth on the particulars of what an afterlife realm(s) would be like all day long (assuming that they do in fact exist, and I happen to think that they do) - but to my mind the essential issue always comes down to the issue of self-love.
Does one enjoy the simple fact of being alive? Forget the materialist idea that some number of objects and/or things will eventually bring you happiness (that's complete nonsense, IMO). At your core, are you somehow who enjoys being you? Irrespective of your position in life or how much money you have in the bank, can you look in the mirror and say that, without devolving into narcissm, you honestly love yourself?
I would submit that if the answer to that is an honest yes, then that's all you need to know. You're going to be just fine. If that's your foundation of self, then eternity's just an open candy store w/ no end to the possibilities it holds.
I enjoy being Me, but I don't always enjoy being in this world...which may be, in a very real sense, part of Me.
DeleteIf I had to guess what the purpose of life/existence is, I'd say it's to collect/create experiences. But as to *why* we should collect/create experiences, I'm not really sure. I guess doing so is what creates reality...? š¤·š»♂️
BTW, yes; I do lean towards some kind of idealist metaphysical worldview.
I would submit that, perhaps, there's no reason insofar as humans tend to conceive of it. Is there some grand premeditated plan hatched by the universal mind towards some ultimate purpose? I don't think so.
DeleteThat said, just because there's not a reason doesn't mean there isn't a telos. There is an aim in the continual reaffirmation of our existence because, in a very real way, that's what we are. It's simply in our nature to do so. It's what drives us unceasingly. It's what we've always done and always will do.
Yeah, that all makes a lot of sense to me.
DeleteWell, in my opinion, Buddhism, much more plausibly than other religions, supplies a sort of answer to this question. As far as I can gather, Buddhism does not supply an answer as to explicitly why we are here (and I would welcome a correction of this statement if such exists), but it does supply an answer to what to do while we are here, and an ultimate goal for our existence. I recommend further reading on the subject. (The main advantage of Buddhism is that it does not require belief [particularly in a 'God'] but instead urges one to decide by experience of the practice).
ReplyDeleteTo expand slightly on the above, the 'mainspring' of Buddhism is an investigation of consciousness using one's own personal and subjective version of that quality. Of course, that cannot, by definition, be a 'scientific' investigation, but at the end of the day all investigation comes down to being a subjective experience on the part of the experimenter, so I don't think there is a significant problem there except with proof to others. This can be provided to a certain extent by the reported repeatability of the experiences of experts, although of course this is still 'subjective'. This is a problem for science, but not for Buddhism, as the individual experience is the whole content of the exercise.
Delete>>>an investigation of consciousness using one's own personal and subjective version of that quality. Of course, that cannot, by definition, be a 'scientific' investigation, but at the end of the day all investigation comes down to being a subjective experience on the part of the experimenter, so I don't think there is a significant problem there except with proof to others.<<<
DeleteThis is a really good point that seems to get overlooked by a lot of smart physicalists! Empiricism--which is the true basis of science, not physicalism!--is literally the investigation of reality based on our conscious experiences. I mean, that's what "empiricism" actually means!
And that's why a 1st-person science of consciousness based on introspection and analysis of our own experiences while in various different states (e.g. psychedelic states, meditative states, etc.), rather than just 3rd-person observation of brains processes and behaviors, is a valid idea. IMHO.
We know to incredible precision how the universe evolved over 13.7 billion years according to the observed laws of physics, and we know many of the details of the evolution of life on Earth.
ReplyDeleteSo the only mystery concerns the existence of a tiny, hot, dense quark-gluon soup 13.7 billion years ago. To ask human-like questions about this like "Why is it there?" may make no sense as it is a quantum-gravitational environment and therefore beyond human intuition. The only known way to deal with this situation is to come up with a mathematical model of the quark-gluon soup and see what it tells us.
No such confirmed model currently exists and the 'Big Bang' period is not observable in the electromagnetic field, but it is possible that future gravitational wave detectors in space could detect primordial gravitational waves from the Big Bang period and provide information about the quark-gluon soup.
So "philosophical" questions like "Why are we here?" or "Why is there not just nothing?" are not known to make any sense. These are not deep questions, they are simply born from ignorance.
This is why it is important to learn basic natural science - to avoid wasting time on nonsensical questions.
I don't think this addresses anything I said. For one thing, you're taking the scientific story literally. But even if we do accept this story, it doesn't remotely address any philosophical questions.
Delete"So "philosophical" questions like "Why are we here?" or "Why is there not just nothing?" are not known to make any sense. These are not deep questions, they are simply born from ignorance.
DeleteThis is why it is important to learn basic natural science - to avoid wasting time on nonsensical questions."
With all due respect, you seem to be focusing on material science so as to handwave away the clearly important philosophical questions relating to who we are as human beings.
We're not robots. We're sentient beings that discern meaning in things, ourselves most importantly of all. It's not enough to just lay out a timeline for how we think the physical universe got to where it is and expect that to satisfy anyone. You cannot separate the individual from any explanation of the universe.