The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
Showing posts with label Meaning of Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meaning of Life. Show all posts
The meaning of life - By Patrick Ainley
The meaning of life
Life, in and of itself, can have no meaning unless it is given meaning. As ‘the movement of albuminous protoplasm’ – or whatever Engels called it in his materialist Dialects of Nature (today we would say the growth and reproduction of complex molecules) – life develops spontaneously from its inorganic background given the right conditions. But even this description is not definitive enough to distinguish the sparks of life that counter with their increasing complexity the entropy of the vast universe expanding to its dissolution. Since ‘All that lives must die/ Passing through nature to eternity,’ as Hamlet’s mother reminds him, it is sometimes difficult to know when something or someone lives or dies. Simple multiplying life forms are not so different from non-living crystals, for instance, or other self-replicating structures that are the ground of more complex and even conscious beings.
Nor is such description or definition of life the same as life’s meaning. Living systems also have purpose to maintain and reproduce themselves but this is not their meaning either, although it may be their meaning for them. As a famous biologist once said, ‘In the world of sea-urchins there are only sea-urchin things’ and observably sea-urchins, like all other organisms under natural conditions of selection, behave and evolve so as to survive and multiply. They do not mean to do so though; it just happens.
Meaning can only be given to nature by beings capable of making meaning. That is, beings with imagination using symbolic language to communicate their imagined and conscious reflections to one another, including importantly their self-consciousness of being conscious. The sort of signaling languages that other animals use to communicate with each other are too limited for this because they can only mean one thing at a time: a blackbird’s alarm call, for instance, means just one thing to other blackbirds and they react to its warning by sounding their own alarm as they fly off.
Human beings also use signals but we have to first agree amongst ourselves what they will mean. A red traffic light means stop, for instance, and there can be no ambiguity about this; although we could choose to change the signal if we decided to do so, as they did throughout China during the Cultural Revolution when red indicated go and green meant stop.
Human symbolic languages however are different from the unambiguous meaning encoded by the signals of other animals in that symbols, whatever form they take, can be and often are deliberately ambiguous. They can mean more than one thing which we have to agree on if we are to communicate effectively with one another. So, unlike Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through The Looking Glass, we can’t just choose what we want words to mean – at least if we want to be understood by other people.
In the case of ‘life’, scientists or medics can perhaps agree on working definitions, as above, to distinguish living from non-living things but this is not life’s meaning, which can only be its meaning for us as human beings agreeing this amongst ourselves for our common human purposes. Humpty Dumpty may get things upside down but he is not so silly; as he tells Alice, ‘The question is which is to be master – that’s all.’
So, unless we think that the meaning of life comes from somewhere else outside of or beyond the universe and its nature that we experience and the MoL is therefore to be discovered – in an old book, perhaps, or through some revelation which we would then have to interpret to make sense of the alien speaker’s symbolic language – we have to agree on as universal a meaning as possible to give it. This would be our master narrative, explanation and meaning that we would all agree upon.
Amazingly, despite all the twaddle about the sacredness and irrepressible vitality of human life, seven billion and more of us seem so far incapable of doing this. This is not just because there are different claims to ‘the truth’ advanced by various religions for example, or because some groups of people regard themselves as the masters who are entitled to impose their views on others at their expense, but because current global capitalist society is dedicated only to its own reproduction and expansion for profit regardless of the consequences for human and other life on this planet.
Of course, economic growth to manufacture more and more commodities for sale at a profit is presented by the few who gain directly and in the short-term from it, as enhancing life to ensure its best future. Many more buy into this illusory future because they cannot imagine any alternative to it and meaning is thus restricted to the terms of existing society.
But to more and more people, it is increasingly obvious, as climate and the seasons become increasingly erratic, while at the same time we reach and pass various natural limits to growth, that we cannot go on producing more and more stuff without physically destroying humanity and turning our environment into a wilderness. It would be a perversion of our situation as the only species and beings that we know of to have self-conscious awareness of our position as – in this sense – the highest form of life on earth, if we were to abrogate that responsibility.
We would then renege on the long eons of evolution of life on earth and the possibly unique physical conditions preceding them if we reverted to the level of unselfconscious life. Then we would have to ‘Think…’ with the recently deceased and sadly lamented Gore Vidal, ‘of the earth as a living organism that is being attacked by billions of bacteria whose numbers double every 40 years.’ Then, ‘Either the host dies, or the virus dies, or both die.’
To avoid this sui-species-cide we have therefore to inaugurate new shared meaning and value for human life to preserve its future survival on earth.
By Patrick Ainley
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
Purpose of Life (ii) - By Johannon Davis
Purpose of Life (ii)
This piece is a continuation of the previous work 'Purpose of Life' and is a revision of its two tier approach. This two tier purpose concerned itself with survival and of continuing in ones existence and the acquisition of knowledge, however should we consider those individuals unable to communicate their experiences of sensory input and are thus unable to display knowledge i.e. the comprehension of information.
If one cannot know what it is like to be a bat, can one hope to be understand the guarded mind that lies without expression of itself? Put bluntly, as current science stands, no. This then poses the question that if such persons (and person is used intentionally) are unable to express knowledge in ways commonly observed through speech, action and reaction, then according to the previous proposal, are they then to be classed not as man but animal, achieving only their own survival through the involuntary continuation of organ function? Here we must note that whilst the acquisition of knowledge of such individuals cannot be proved, it must not be discounted and taken for non existence on grounds of current scientific limitation since it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the functioning of the mind of a man held captive by an uncooperative body should be just as well developed and knowledgeable as that of a man who believing his words without consequence should take to his bed and learn to cease all displays of consciousness.
Whilst a host of difficulties here arise as to the nature of the mind in relation to the brain which may or may not be capable of directing bodily expression, should we remain rigid in our requirements of some proof of knowledge acquisition as an essential component in the purpose of life which here is debatable, with knowledge remaining the great divide between man and beast, whilst our lived experience of the world about us does not allow such persons to be classed as less than man with purpose, what then shall we say? It seems this raises a significant flaw in the previously proposed two tier argument as it does not allow for the application of common sense. As such a third tier of purpose is here presented, that is, the ability for moral development in ones fellow man.
The act of being tended to by others allows for the development of virtues by both parties. There virtues not only promote a moral code in the community but allows the simultaneous migration of knowledge from passive to active through its application in meeting the requirements of the vulnerable person. As knowledge deepens through the lived experience of its application, the capacity for continued survival grows also as such knowledge when directed by the moral compass may drive forward the sciences and skills for extension and improvement of life.
This three fold approach to the purpose of life 1. To continue to survive 2. To acquire knowledge 3. To promote the virtues and moral compass of others - allows for the core of the self to be nurtured in its state of existence.
This piece is a continuation of the previous work 'Purpose of Life' and is a revision of its two tier approach. This two tier purpose concerned itself with survival and of continuing in ones existence and the acquisition of knowledge, however should we consider those individuals unable to communicate their experiences of sensory input and are thus unable to display knowledge i.e. the comprehension of information.
If one cannot know what it is like to be a bat, can one hope to be understand the guarded mind that lies without expression of itself? Put bluntly, as current science stands, no. This then poses the question that if such persons (and person is used intentionally) are unable to express knowledge in ways commonly observed through speech, action and reaction, then according to the previous proposal, are they then to be classed not as man but animal, achieving only their own survival through the involuntary continuation of organ function? Here we must note that whilst the acquisition of knowledge of such individuals cannot be proved, it must not be discounted and taken for non existence on grounds of current scientific limitation since it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the functioning of the mind of a man held captive by an uncooperative body should be just as well developed and knowledgeable as that of a man who believing his words without consequence should take to his bed and learn to cease all displays of consciousness.
Whilst a host of difficulties here arise as to the nature of the mind in relation to the brain which may or may not be capable of directing bodily expression, should we remain rigid in our requirements of some proof of knowledge acquisition as an essential component in the purpose of life which here is debatable, with knowledge remaining the great divide between man and beast, whilst our lived experience of the world about us does not allow such persons to be classed as less than man with purpose, what then shall we say? It seems this raises a significant flaw in the previously proposed two tier argument as it does not allow for the application of common sense. As such a third tier of purpose is here presented, that is, the ability for moral development in ones fellow man.
The act of being tended to by others allows for the development of virtues by both parties. There virtues not only promote a moral code in the community but allows the simultaneous migration of knowledge from passive to active through its application in meeting the requirements of the vulnerable person. As knowledge deepens through the lived experience of its application, the capacity for continued survival grows also as such knowledge when directed by the moral compass may drive forward the sciences and skills for extension and improvement of life.
This three fold approach to the purpose of life 1. To continue to survive 2. To acquire knowledge 3. To promote the virtues and moral compass of others - allows for the core of the self to be nurtured in its state of existence.
By Johannon Davis
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
What do we mean by life? - By Lloyd Duddridge
We have all often asked what the meaning of life is. We have all heard the stock answers: God truth love. However, does the question not begin with a question of definition? What do we mean by life? The word is not often examined.
Could it be as simple as existence? Is life the act of breathing? There is something in this idea that unsettles us. Life is more than existence. When we see someone terminally ill, we say that person has no life. Yet they are still alive. It appears that we see life as something bigger than existence. However this can be a dangerous move to make. For if life is more than existence, who gets to decide what a real life is? If we decided that someone is not really living is it permissible to exterminate that person? Is the basis of all totalitarian regimes, the idea that only a few people are actually living? However the thought persists in us. Life is more than breathing.
So just what is this life that is more than existence? It appears that if we argue that it is more than existence,then it must be more than physical. It seems that we view life as something we cannot measure or quantify, but can recognise when we see it. You will often hear people described as full of life. So life seems to have some spiritual component to it. Yet this spiritual understanding of life seems to be based around a conception of freedom. We seem to think those that are full of life are also full of freedom.
Could this be the difference between existence and life? Existence is given to use. Some believe it is given by God,others by our parents. Either way it is given to us. We have no choice at all to exist. We either do or we don’t. In fact both ends of existence are in the main outside of our control. We do not choose when we are born or when we die, in the obvious exception of suicide.
However it appears that we do choose to live. In fact life seeks to be conditioned around participation. It requires an active spirit. Does this mean then, that the passive are not really living? The answer may be to split the passive in two. Those that see being passive as superior lifestyle choice, and those that are simply lethargic. The first group is passive through action, the second is not. The first group it could be argued still retain the spirit of life, and that the second do not.
The second component of what we mean by life is also spiritual. That being memory. We believe that a person has had a life,if they are able to remember it. We are interested in a person’s history. Once they lose memory of who they are, we start to say things such as ‘what kind of life is this? ’ This is because we regard life as a process. Something that does not just happen but the requires experience and time. We believe that one that has many choices and has both won and lost,has lived a ‘real life’. This is also why the insult, ‘get a life’ has meaning. If life depended on existence alone the insult would have no meaning. What it means is that one needs to gain experiences. That the person they are aiming the insult has done nothing.
It must thus follow that the core of what we mean by life lies in action. That when a person is no longer to act,they are no longer really living. It could be argued that breathing itself is an action, and that just surviving then also involves action. However as argued earlier, this is not the sort of action that we mean. We mean action as choice, action that has come from us. This is why we view life as something subjective. It is why we can see things like get out of my life. It can only be our life, and not a collective form of being, because we judge life to be our choices and our ideas. Thus I define life as the ability to at least want to act, and the ability to remember these actions or at least remember why we desired to act. To live is to act.
Could it be as simple as existence? Is life the act of breathing? There is something in this idea that unsettles us. Life is more than existence. When we see someone terminally ill, we say that person has no life. Yet they are still alive. It appears that we see life as something bigger than existence. However this can be a dangerous move to make. For if life is more than existence, who gets to decide what a real life is? If we decided that someone is not really living is it permissible to exterminate that person? Is the basis of all totalitarian regimes, the idea that only a few people are actually living? However the thought persists in us. Life is more than breathing.
So just what is this life that is more than existence? It appears that if we argue that it is more than existence,then it must be more than physical. It seems that we view life as something we cannot measure or quantify, but can recognise when we see it. You will often hear people described as full of life. So life seems to have some spiritual component to it. Yet this spiritual understanding of life seems to be based around a conception of freedom. We seem to think those that are full of life are also full of freedom.
Could this be the difference between existence and life? Existence is given to use. Some believe it is given by God,others by our parents. Either way it is given to us. We have no choice at all to exist. We either do or we don’t. In fact both ends of existence are in the main outside of our control. We do not choose when we are born or when we die, in the obvious exception of suicide.
However it appears that we do choose to live. In fact life seeks to be conditioned around participation. It requires an active spirit. Does this mean then, that the passive are not really living? The answer may be to split the passive in two. Those that see being passive as superior lifestyle choice, and those that are simply lethargic. The first group is passive through action, the second is not. The first group it could be argued still retain the spirit of life, and that the second do not.
The second component of what we mean by life is also spiritual. That being memory. We believe that a person has had a life,if they are able to remember it. We are interested in a person’s history. Once they lose memory of who they are, we start to say things such as ‘what kind of life is this? ’ This is because we regard life as a process. Something that does not just happen but the requires experience and time. We believe that one that has many choices and has both won and lost,has lived a ‘real life’. This is also why the insult, ‘get a life’ has meaning. If life depended on existence alone the insult would have no meaning. What it means is that one needs to gain experiences. That the person they are aiming the insult has done nothing.
It must thus follow that the core of what we mean by life lies in action. That when a person is no longer to act,they are no longer really living. It could be argued that breathing itself is an action, and that just surviving then also involves action. However as argued earlier, this is not the sort of action that we mean. We mean action as choice, action that has come from us. This is why we view life as something subjective. It is why we can see things like get out of my life. It can only be our life, and not a collective form of being, because we judge life to be our choices and our ideas. Thus I define life as the ability to at least want to act, and the ability to remember these actions or at least remember why we desired to act. To live is to act.
By Lloyd Duddridge
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
This story is about a boy and his search for the meaning of life - By Thor Schuitemaker
This story is about a boy and his search for the meaning of life
Born in the tropics, on an island far by
Surrounded by palm trees, and spiny cacti
His Norwegian mom, wanted to give him a troll
But for his birthday, he preferred a barbie doll
Sadly this freedom of choice didn't last long
As soon as papa told him, that it was wrong
This was his earliest, memory of rules
His first realisation, that humans are fools
Disappointed he was, from that day on
Rules everywhere, thus he became withdrawn
Yet unable to see them, they must be a lie
Their existence was invented, but he didn't know why
His mom saw in him the question, thank God she did
So she read him the Bible, when he was an 8 year-old kid
He contemplated finity, in total despond
And the opposite, that is the World and Beyond
He was shocked to learn, about cruelty and war
And it made him wonder, what we grow up for
Being hopeful and naïve, was light and clean
But people gave up, to become selfish and mean
This forlorn knowledge, had created a hierarchy
Between Jesus and those, who needed to be set free
He painfully had to admit, the difference that was there
While his heart urged back to before there was division
Before there was prayer
After a period of loss, he briefly thought he could play
Groundlessness spread, as he fucked all belief away
Opposites merged, being straight and gay
His youthful innocence wasted, rebellion against night and day
This existential suffering, became his excuse for sin
He confided in empty space, distrusting the skin
Words were of the body, nothingness never told
His mind sceptic and bitter, it quickly turned old
And being indisposed, he could no longer give
But he decided to find a rock, for he wanted to live
To learn the art of Philosophy, this was his fate
No longer alone, now that he could communicate
He was able to describe, both the circle and the line
The evolution of existence, that divided evil and benign
Plus the roundness of the earth, that brings us back and forth
An arrow pointing towards itself, therein lies its worth
Life is about the search, which itself is the core
That can only truly and beautifully, be said in metaphor
Thus the architect describes, a world already filled
And with his words, the many forms are build
Yet he questioned, was the real philosopher playing football
Did he return to the cave, to enjoy the puppet show after all
The only ever real question, which will never be surpassed
As we live to express, while reflecting the distance
Why does God want us so much, to prove his fuckin existence
Is it because otherwise, all else would unravel
Killing the seasons, the philosopher's travel
The boy has stopped for now, with trying to find out
And started living, without doubting what it's all about
Because whether it’s a question or an answer, changes from time to time
But he believes in the purpose, or else he wouldn't have made it rhyme
By Thor Schuitemaker
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
The Source of Meaning - By Kevin Solway
The Source of Meaning
The King is dead. Long live the King.
Religion is succeeded by the blind worship of science. Scientism, the religion of "Science" - ironically distinct and remotely distant from real science - is becoming the source of meaning in our age. We scoundrels must of necessity choose our own values and meaning, but we invariably choose them to be dictated by the authority of fantasy.
Why do we live? "Because that's the purpose of our genes", say the adherents of scientism. Yet genes do not have purpose, says science and reason. Genes are mere bunches of atoms, that either replicate or not. They have no purpose, and Nature cares not what they do. Nature isn't the slightest bit pleased when things replicate, and nor is it at all concerned when they don't. Science, and not scientism, seeks to map this Nature - to reflect its form.
Science is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It cannot tell us what is good or bad. It cannot provide us with value. If we value truth, then we take that value with us to science. We don't get it from science. There's no scientific experiment that can prove the value of truth, just as there's no scientific experiment that can prove the value of life or of death. Scientism, however, is not science, and it has a proof for everything.
In scientism, truth and value are quite literally in numbers. "Many people believe X." "The consensus is X." "My colleagues agree." "There are a number of books on the subject." "I have received no complaints." "There is much support." Truth is by popular vote. The more Nature does it, the more right it is. It is the authority of DNA - the authority of the tradition of Nature itself. And whereas in ordinary religion the logical fallacy of choice is the appeal to the authority of some holy book, in scientism it is the appeal to the authority of the number (argumentum ad numerum). For the adherents of scientism, numbers represent the only real value, and these become the very substance of their life.
People become numbers. The numbers become their horizon - their all. They are just copies.
- Kierkegaard
If you explain to these numerous fellows that they are constantly, in every waking moment, appealing to the fallacy of the number, you are wasting your breath, because they don't know anything except the number. They cannot hear you, because existence requires contrast. And for this same reason such people don't exist as individuals. They have no self, and no soul, since the soul is precisely the self, and is the genius in man.
Samuel Butler accurately describes this soulless culture - the culture of the number - in his novel Erewhon, when he visits the hallowed "Colleges of Unreason".
"It is not our business," he said, "to help students to think for themselves. Surely this is the very last thing which one who wishes them well should encourage them to do. . . ." In some respects, however, he was thought to hold somewhat radical opinions, for he was President of the Society for the Suppression of Useless Knowledge, and for the Completer Obliteration of the Past.
Ours is an age in which the man who thinks for himself is deemed to be a dangerous megalomaniac, and if he should dare to share his thoughts with even one other person then he is also a "cult leader" to be feared and reviled. Ours is a culture that is geared to minimize such unpleasantness by discouraging, and denying the individual thinker, who creates his own values, shines his own light, and follows his own star.
The hate and the fear that the common people have for the individual thinker is the hate and the fear they have for their own true, buried, selves. What they see in the individual thinker is what they fear for themselves.
Can thou give thyself thine evil and thy good, setting up thy will as a law? Canst thou be thine own judge and the avenger of thine own law? Even so is a star cast out into the void, and into the icy breath of solitude.
- Nietzsche, in "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
What people don't want to be reminded of, is that, to the degree that one has a mind at all, and to the degree that one makes conscious choices, then it is impossible to obtain values from anywhere other than oneself. For if a person gets their values from a book, then they are personally choosing to believe that book. And if they get their values from another person, then they are choosing to believe that person. And if they get their values from a dream, they are choosing to believe the dream. Therefore, for the sake of "sanity", and for the sake of "others", conscious choice is denied. Not only is the individual thinker denied, but the mind and the very self are denied. Human becomes machine, and the sleeper is lost in a dream.
Science arose by accident in the brief space when one great orthodoxy was loosening its hold and the new great orthodoxy had not yet reached its full strength. The first orthodoxy was that of religion which dominated the dark ages. The second orthodoxy is that of the belief in society, which is dominating the dark age now beginning.
- Celia Green
By Kevin Solway
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
The Purpose of Life is Circular; the Meaning of Life is Fractal. - By Martin Prior
The Purpose of Life is Circular; the Meaning of Life is Fractal.
Before we proceed let us look at the following questions:
(i) What is the meaning of ‘life’?
(ii) What is the meaning of life?
(iii) What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?
(iv) What is the meaning of meaning?
What we can see clearly here is that sometimes ‘meaning’ has to have a precise meaning, namely when followed by an expression in quotes, but when the expression has no quotes, it is far less clear. Thus we can ask, what does ‘tax bills’ mean (singular in fact), and some bureaucrat will be able to give you an exact definition, but ask what do tax bills mean (plural), and I might well say they mean a bloody nightmare.
We then come to the question of the meaning of ‘meaning’ is the field of semantics when ‘meaning of’ is followed by something in quotes. It lies more in the field of pragmatics when ‘meaning of’ is not followed by an expression in quotes.
Item (iv) is very questionable outside literature: one could paraphrase it to ask what it is to make a meaningful utterance.
But some might say that the meaning of life is the same idea as the purpose of life. But it is not: I argued in Issue 21 (26/04/2012) that the purpose of life is love and the purpose of love is life – a circularity – but one could say that the meaning of life is not love, but love and hate. And this is not circular: one might say the meaning of love is the desire to protect, whereas the meaning of hate is the desire to destroy. Thus we can compare the following two pictures:
the circularity of life: one could show it over and over again
Picture One shows the circularity I was talking about – and indeed it appeared in the last Issue, no. 28 on War. But Picture Two shows a continual divergence, where nothing completes a full circle: when reading out the caption one should follow a prevailing fashion and twiggle two fingers on each hand for the quoted phrase (which I shall otherwise not discuss here), since an ignorant philosopher might see it as something which creates in its own image, but in fact I doubt whether the above is mathematically possible in Mandelbrot terms.
So what I really want to say is that the meaning of ‘meaning’ when not followed by something in quotes is so vague that one must wonder whether it lies in the realm of philosophy, other than to pass the buck and say that it lies in the realm of pragmatics and sociology.
I prefer to say that if the purpose of life is love, etc. etc. Then
(i) the meaning of life is love and hate,
(ii) (i) the meaning of love is the desire to protect,
(ii) the meaning of the desire to protect is either convenience or possessiveness ...
(iii) (i) the meaning of hate is trying to pin your opponent down with philosophy …
By Martin Prior
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
A serious look at a silly question (?) -- What is the meaning of life? - By Samuel Poole
A serious look at a silly question (?) -- What is the meaning of life?
After living with the vice-president of the Texas Atheist Association for six months, I have been forced, yes, forced, to contemplate the value of certain grand, philosophical questions. My room-mate, who was an intolerable human being, was a scientific materialist. As such, he regarded many of the questions I put before him as, and I quote, “senseless”. Now, please don’t think that I’m dismissing all scientific materialists into a box. No. This isn’t what this is about. However, I think contextualising his belief system, one which I think he dogmatically adhered to, is of the utmost salience.
A classic, if trite, philosophical question has been mentioned in the title. Those of you whom love Douglas Adams will be, no doubt, shouting forty-two at the computer screen. Excellent, side-splitting sci-fi aside, I would like to examine this profound question from a linguistic perspective.
Being an English teacher, I have an obsession with language. Consequently, my favourite philosophers are linguists. Wittgenstein and Chomsky top my list; they do so because language is the tool of philosophy. Without it, we would not be able to explore the abstract nature of life. Meaning is conveyed through language – for me, it is the essence of philosophy.
So. Enough with the blathering context that inspired this humble analysis!
I will deconstruct the sentence and aim to analyse it as such. As words comprise language, each word’s definition, function and validity should be questioned as the parts constitute the whole. The grand, trite question begins with one of the five Ws: what. But what does “what” mean?!
It’s used every single day, perhaps billions of times. Yet if I asked you to define the word, could you do so, perfectly? I doubt it. And that’s no assault on your intelligence, or your intellect. This is because the word “what” can be utilised in a plethora of ways. It can be an interrogative pronoun, an adjective, an adverb, an interjection, a noun, a conjunction, it is used in idioms, and somewhat classically, it has been adopted in colloquial British English – mainly by the upper crust of society, to seek agreement (a fine party, what?). However, in the sentence, “What is the meaning of life?” ‘what’ is used as an interrogative pronoun. It is used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something.
The word “is” has been utilised as a linking verb . It is not an auxiliary verb (however, just to confuse you, this is sometimes an ambiguous area in linguistics) in the context of this sentence. “Is” is used to relate the interrogative pronoun to the main noun, that’s for sure. “Is” is not used to assist a main verb, which seems incontrovertible.
What I find most interesting is the use of definite article. The use of “the” explicitly directs the question into a singular, narrow yet broad avenue. Unlike the indefinite articles “a” and “an”, “the” indicates that something specific, perhaps unique, may be able to be identified in the answer. Whether this is wise, well, I will tackle that point later.
The word “meaning” has various…meanings. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that line. To be more mature about it, the word “meaning” has multiple definitions. Yet – yet! – in regard to the question above, I believe everyone should look at the second definition on ww.dictionary.com. The word “meaning”, within this context, means the end, purpose, or significance of something.
Penultimately, at least when analysing the individual units of language, that is to say words, the word “of” must be tackled. It is, of course, a preposition. Whilst teaching in Saudi Arabia, I always stressed the importance of prepositions to those who spoke English at a very basic level. Whilst there are many, many words within the English language, as they (mainly) indicate spatial relations, and there are only 150 prepositions in the English language. I am, however, digressing.
The word “of” is used in syntactic functions or semantic roles: the word isn’t used for spatial relations; it is, at least within this sentence, used to denote that “meaning” is a component part of “life”.
Lastly, we get to the word “life”. Now, that really is an interesting word. How do we define life? Scientifically, I guess. On Wikipedia, life is defined as: “Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signalling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.”
But how do we define “life” in the context of the question? The context of the question presupposes human life, doesn’t it? Or does it transcend that – especially if one allows the premise: the true meaning of life encompasses an omniscient and omnipotent deity (if such a deity could be both). Does the question include all life, even that of a may fly?
And that’s just it. The question is too broad in one sense and too narrow in another. It is formed of too few words to allow one to answer it with any sense of credibility. The question is too narrow because of the definite article that is used. I think a better question is: what is a meaning of life? This question allows for an indefinite amount of answers, instead of one absolute answer. Yet the question is too broad because the answer that is desired should encapsulate everything. It is impossible to rectify the obtuse with the acute and that’s why all attempts to answer this grand, bland question are so unfulfilling.
Why do we strive for these absolute answers? Something within the human spirit yearns for knowledge but through the virtue of that self-same yearning we create unsolvable questions.
What really interests me is the fact that the question that inspired this answer does carry meaning. If someone asks you “what is the meaning of life?”, you know that they are searching for an answer. It may not be “the” answer, but perhaps striving to find one is what is really important.
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
The briefest look at a Western storm and the still Chinese sea - By Selim 'Selim' Talat
The briefest look at a Western storm and the still Chinese sea
Is there some great foundation to our western search for meaning, which contains us in its bosom?
How better to expand our knowledge than to understand the philosophy of another culture, to expand our ever-open sphere of knowledge. Then, we can look back on ourselves and see how much of our seemingly objective attitudes may not be quite so universal.
For we in the West find ourselves uncomfortably settled in nature, searching for something greater beyond us; and we cannot trust our flawed selves, so we must have proof of something outside of us, something objective: First God, and at his silent death, science.
Yet many a chinese writer took for granted that we were part of nature, with the philosophy aimed to gently remind us all of this! So this existential torment, this seemingly objective search for the meaning of life; is it not just the refraction of the light of truth through a certain cultural lens?
(All a great generalization: For 'West' is varied and 'Chinese' broad, and my knowledge of the far east is slight, but let it do as a taster for things to come!)
The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
