Book on the Meaning of Life

After having human reason and truth crumple under my musings, I think I've reached an existential crisis. I would appreciate any suggestions finding a book that proposes the reason of existence (besides consumption of resources and reproduction). I'm not particularly interested in self-help books and memoirs, unless you think it's exceptional.

I've touched on Nietzsche and have looked into Sartre and Camus. Please also bear in mind I'm agnostic, so overt theism and atheism will not help me.

Any help will be appreciated. Thank you.

After having human reason and truth crumple under my musings, I think I've reached an existential crisis.

Any chance you might elaborate on this?

Hmm, I'm kind of curious too.

I was working on my math and re-learning the axioms (a=a, a+b=b+a, etc.), and I over extended my curiosity to ask why those axioms are accepted; I've long known mathematics is a human invention, but took axioms as being self-evident. I learned that the axiom is nothing but a leap of faith, and essentially writing the rules so you win the game (dividing by zero is the new negative numbers). Suddenly math, the foundation of reason, to me completely lost its meaning; I have no reason to believe 1=1, because nothing about it is self-evident.

By extension, most of science and philosophy fell apart. Now I don't know what to think.

I learned that the axiom is nothing but a leap of faith, and essentially writing the rules so you win the game (dividing by zero is the new negative numbers).

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to make of this (although I believe I have a friend I need to make a call to given the parenthetical, he told me I was insane when I told him this would happen years ago.) If these things are turtles all the way down, does this mean it's turtles all the way up?

I can definitely sympathise with losing one's grounding. It can be a motherfucker. And I mean that in a pretty literal sense, though. Not that I believe we've interacted much before, but I've faced the same predicament many times in my life and to say that it's disorienting is to understate the problem. Most days, I'm not even sure that language truly works.

As far as axioms being a leap of faith, though, that's an interesting quandary (and really, the history of mathematics is pretty replete with such examples, from Hippasus to Cantor...) Mayhap a better lens to view the problem with would be somehing like the non-euclidean Geometries. What we once thought was axiomatic was purely assumption. Which doesn't mean that the standard geometries are not applicable.

I've always been enamored with the title of an album by a singer-songwriter from San Francisco named Mirah. Her album is titled You Think It's Like This, but Really It's Like This. I laugh my ass off every time I hear that title.

G.H. Hardy, at one point, is said to have relayed a joke to Wittgenstein. They found the joke amongst Hardy's notes after his passing. It was said to be his favorite, and it's rather simple -

A teacher stands at the head of the classroom and draws on the blackboard. He turns to the class and points to the drawing and says "Suppose x is the number of sheep contained in the sheep pen."

As he says this, little Johnny raises his hands. "Teacher, teacher," Johnny cries.

"Yes, Johnny?" the teacher asks.

"Suppose x isn't the number of sheep in the pen."

Wittgenstein, we are told, thought this to be one of the most profound jokes he had ever been told. Most days, I'd say that I agree.

Suppose it isn't, though...

I dunno. If maths are merely a construct (and this is actually still very hotly debated, I'm told that their are a disproportionate number of Platonists on Maths faculties) , does that eliminate their usefulness? Does it detract from the beauty of the edifice that we've created? After all, we are assured that God hath created the integers, the rest being the work of man.

I'd assume that you're already familiar with Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology. I might suggest it, if not. It's definitely written for a lay audience, but beautiful nonetheless. DFW's book on Cantor has some beautiful riffs (and one the funniest segments on hyper-ratiocination that I've ever read, though DFW may be one of the funniest examples of hyper-ratiocination that I've ever read.)

I'm not sure that I have any grand answers or absolute truths. I'm not sure that there necessarily are any (if there are no absolute truths, does his count as an absolute truth?)

But I'm definitely interested in asking many of the same questions myself.

If I might offer a small piece that has always comforted me (not philosophy related all that much), I would suggest James Baldwin's "Sonny's Blues". It can be found in You've Got to Read This. The writer that introduces the piece in the anthology says that it saved his life. I can believe that. It's that kind of story. You can also find it here.

Good luck to you. And I'll definitely be interested in seeing how the discussion develops.

Bede Rundle thinks that there being nothing is inconceivable and so impossible. His little book Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing is awfully expensive for its size and probably esoteric enough that the local public library won't have it. But if the notion seems compelling enough to you, you might want to look for it.

The existentialists in similar crises pursued their passions, with Kierkegaard famously making a leap of faith. Within the exercise of what you are passionate about you can come to disregard the lack of implicit meaning to life and make your own.

Existentialism can kill however. The stoics believed in gods over whom people have no effect. I don't believe that the gods are necessary to a stoic way of life. Congruent with much of ancient philosophy, in stoicism virtue was the way out of despair, and one was properly dismissive of what was not truly important, which was, perhaps disappointingly, practically everything but virtue. Richard Sorabji has generalized stoicism into a way of life for all of us if you choose to read him that way.

Meanwhile regarding your difficulty with the obviousness of 1=1: There is in logic a matter of identity so that A is identically equal to A; many of us find that obvious, but if you don't, stop here. I personally consider all numbers 1 to be fungible; if you don't, stop here. If they are fungible it seems to me that 1 is identically equal to 1 by the law of identity. But I, for one, am cool with skepticism about it.

Robert

I'm not a mathematician, though I have come across A Mathematician's Apology. What made math special was that I thought it was the means to the truth. I'd always appreciated it for its beauty, as I would a painting or a novel, but now that's all it is to me now, a pretty gimmick, instead of the harbor of reason. It's as though humans sought an anchor after they killed God (to borrow Nietzsche's phrase), so they turned to their pet project.

Language is the biggest hindrance to me now; things only seem to exist so far as we have named them. A rose is only a rose in so far as we call it a rose, not because of any greater truth. If that's right, there's no such thing as good or bad; then what's life and death?

The paradox that "the only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths" is itself an absolute truth and therefore cannot be an absolute truth has bothered me for the past few days, actually.

Thank you both for the suggestions. I'll look into them (though Rundle's may be difficult to come by).

> 1

There is no meaning to life. Biologically we strive to pass our genes onto the next generation (or more probably our genes strive to get us to pass themselves onto the next generation).

We can of course create a meaning for us. That might be helping people who are sick or by reading great literature, building a family and protecting them until they can protect themselves.

I'm willing to believe reproduction is one of the few purposes of existence, though why would something have come into existence for the sole purpose of continuing existence if its ultimate fate is death? It makes sense with animals that seem to live in only the present, but why us when we know our fate? We know our kids will be born to die, so why inflict that cruelty? There has to be purpose to life or else we would have died off, right?

If we lean towards a strong gene theory; that is that the genes survive and are passed from body to body, then the actual death of the vehicles is by and large irrelevant once they have passed the genes on.

I largely believe this theory. I also have five kids who I love and cherish and know they will die, but never forget that you can enjoy life too to a certain extent. Remember our primary source of life, our Sun, will run out of fuel too. The fate of the earth is determined.

My life is clear. I exist. I have reproduced. I will try and protect my kin until they can protect themselves. I will nurture them and attempt to guide them how to replicate what I have done but simultaneously encourage them to have as minor impact on the earth's resources as possible.

Supernaturalism for me is a theory for those who cannot except the certainty of death and non-existence.

If this is true, those of us who either cannot reproduce or express no desire have no purpose beyond consuming resources; would it not be better if we made way for those who wish to preserve their genes to have access to those resources, if reproduction is the purpose to life?

If the whole purpose of the universe beginning was to end, why begin at all? Why create energy just to destroy it?

The assumption that energy was created, calls on a creator.
It is much more plausible (for me) to hypothesise that energy is infinite.
The question therefore Why create energy just to destroy it? is redundant if you see where I stand.

Perhaps a painful, and possibly hopeless, quest for the meaning of life is a result of two much free time? Maybe getting into situations that demands spontaneous reactions is the smart exit from such melancholic thoughts?

Read somewhere in one of Mircea Eliade’s books about a South American tribe that had been searching for Paradise here on Earth. Sometime in the 1950’s they gave it up. Some would say they finally wised up.

But just to suggest a book, how about one containing the Heraclitus fragments? Nobody is in even half agreement about what Heraclitus meant to say, but nearly all who have studied the fragments considers them terribly important. So there must be some deep truths about life there for everyone?

Phocion - wow, dude, you seem primed to jump off the deep end into either religious faith or extremist nihilism or something similarly silly. Consider the possibility that your major malfunction is merely that you take the illusion of your separate and distinct personal self rather seriously as an absolute reality.

Maybe you would feel better about it all if you let it all go and took the monkey off your back yourself. IOW, the answer is not out there, it is in your own brain - you just need to locate it.

If you WANT to feel depressed about how insignificant you really are, then I recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Or if you want to look on the bright side of life, I recommend you read a couple of hundred books on pantheism, non-Dualism, Advaita Vedantism, and similar eastern thought. See my library.

#14

A bit harsh, no?

Consider the possibility that your major malfunction is merely that you take the illusion

Consider the possibility that seeking truth and meaning is not a "major malfunction"...

#15

It's called tough love. You might need a dose yourself.

#16

Nailing one foot to the floor and walking around the same circle seeking a door out of the building is a malfunction. To have a hope to find the door one needs to lose the nail.

This is all metaphor. So, need I translate it for you?

It's called tough love. You might need a dose yourself.


Oddly enough, I find absolutely nothing compassionate about your response whatsoever. The response is rather arrogant, derisive and condescending. Someone seeks help, you offer this in its stead.

Mercy's a business, brother. I wish it for you.

#18

You are greatest online psychiatrist - ever. In your own mind.

Your check for services rendered is in the mail - NOT.

You are greatest online psychiatrist - ever. In your own mind.

I don't claim to offer psychiatric help. That seems to be pretty much purely your purview.

I will, however, offer a sympathetic ear.

> 20

Maybe I was wrong about you. You seem like a sensitive guy.

But just for the record I am not gay.

Have a nice day.

Maybe I was wrong about you. You seem like a sensitive guy.

Yep. Just the other night I was watching Steel Magnolias and sobbed like a three year old that just lost his blanky.

But just for the record I am not gay.

I offer my congratulations, I guess. (Really, I'm not sure why this needed to be brought up or how it plays into the discussion. Nor am I sure what the proper response to the statement would be. So I'll merely congratulate you.)

While we're "sharing", I'll state for the record that I'm not gay, either. I just needed the money.

Have a nice day.

That I will, sir.

#1

Phocion,

Thanks for starting this discussion and getting us all thinking!!

Since you've listed Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus could I recommend a couple of other existential thinkers/writers to look at.

I'd recommend Martin Buber's work "I and Thou" as a work that gives considerable insight into the nature of humanity and our relationship to each other and the universe.

I'd also recommend Dostoyevsky's book "The Possessed" or as it's sometimes called "Demons". This book highlights the pernicousness that our ideologies and various "ism's" create.

Oh...another good one is Solzhenitsyn's "Cancer Ward"

Thanks again!!

I found Peter Kreeft a fundamentally sound lecturer on the meaning of it all. Modern Scholar records some of his stuff. His Ethics; A History of Moral Thought. He argues both sides for you.

Since numbers caught you off balance, I recommend Zero; The Biography of a Dangerous Idea. It's a very well written history of mankind backing away from nil.

13: Distraction is a fantastic method that I've tried employing. I watch television, read books, listen to music, type on the computer; but because those are involving my senses, something will inevitably revert my mind back to this. The only real distraction I've found is sleeping, but that is giving me headaches and aphthous ulcers.

14: Unless I snap, I do not believe I'm in danger of religious extremism, as I mentioned in the first thread to withhold any overt theist and atheist texts. It's nihilism I am trying to avoid; if there is no purpose to life, we would be dead; because we are not dead, there must be a purpose to life beyond waiting/detaining death.

I cannot take the monkey off my back, because I cannot "unthink" what I've thought, short of brain injury (even then it's probably in there somewhere, even if I am unconscious of it).

23 and 24: Thank you both for the suggestions. I've noted them down.

" if there is no purpose to life, we would be dead; because we are not dead, there must be a purpose to life beyond waiting/detaining death.
"

That's a logic error.

If A then B does not imply that at B then A

Besides the basic premise is wrong. Life need not have a purpose.

You may feel better if it does, but that is not an essential need.

#12 "The assumption that energy was created, calls on a creator.
It is much more plausible (for me) to hypothesise that energy is infinite"
there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe. It's a very large finite number, but it is constrained. Otherwise spot on.

Why must I work within logic?

Everything must have a purpose or else it would not exist. Language came about because we as a species decided that we needed to communicate other ideas beyond "Can I eat it?" and "Can I mate with it?" God and Math both have the purpose of trying to explain the world around us, but may be just as fulfilling a tool as using my fingers to count to ten or count my knuckles to remember the days of the months.

Created was an incorrect term for what I meant. Let's assume infinity exists beyond numbers; our universe is part of a bigger universe is part of a bigger universe is part of a bigger universe, etc. This would mean life never started and therefore cannot end. Death would be no more real than zero, which itself was created by humans; what if death was our way of observing, no more right than assuming that zero exists?

"Everything must have a purpose or else it would not exist"

WHY?
Does the sun? does some comit orbiting a star we can't see have to have a purpose? Some things just are. Life is one of those things.

Does something exists independent of our naming it? That we call a rose exists beyond our calling it a rose, though we only acknowledge its existence when we call it a rose. Does the idea that we have not named the purpose of the existence of the sun mean it has no purpose of existence?

I recommend you read Shakespear. A rose by any other name does in fact smell as sweet.

Things do have an independant existance. They don't necessarily have a purpose. Purpose is independant of naming. They may or may not coincide.

How do we know they do not have a purpose; our deduction that they do not seems to exist solely because we have not named it.

(And I've read most of Shakespeare's plays.)

Phocion #25

Maybe there is meaning in life, but it has to be found elsewhere than in the “archaeology of knowledge.”

You mention watching television, reading books and typing as distraction – but are those activities really distracting? Are they not really re-tracking old tracks? Spencer once asked: Does the emotions of the dog lie in its tail? And the answer is of course that, yes, they do in the theatre. As in the theatre the emotions lies in the spectator’s evocation of the emotional circumstances of her knowledge’s acquirement. Let the television spectator, or book reader recognise her position in her periphery and this regurgitating of consumed life will cease. And if nothing in that periphery is recognised as related to ones past – I suppose the pointlessness of producing remembrances will dissolve?

You will not find fire by searching in the ash. Try walking in a forest, run if necessary, outside the paths, and down steep hills, so that you have to place your steps with forgetfulness of all knowledge. Row in a keel-less pram (with no directional stability), so that you have to find in your hands the pressure you will have to find there. Or try boardsailing to discover that in spite of the historian’s myths the waves do not run in waves. That’s existentialism for you!

Or take some comfort in knowing that you are not alone: my problem is apathy, and I know how to bring it on. If I sit down in a chair and ask myself what I want to do, I find I want nothing at all – and that depresses me no end (not the least the ignoble luxury of it).

Phocion,

Now I'm curious to see your extended reading list beyond the profile page. So sad that your shelves are closed.

Have you read Kurt Vonnegut? He takes absurdism and celebrates it.

Everything must have a purpose or else it would not exist

I first thought this is a silly statement. and on one level, it really is, why would having a purpose be a requisite to exist? the flip side is everything could have a purpose and is part of some larger plan, then someone/s or something/s are playing cosmic chess.

Either way, if a rock doesn't have a purpose or just one we will never know or understand, what's the difference? and does it really matter?

Ultimately, it comes down to living your life how you choose barring an consequences to your actions. The one thing you have in life is the choices you make including how you react to any given situation.

32: My biggest problem is I do not know when I'm searching the ashes or when I'm watching the person striking the flints.

I do, at times, wish I could "revert to nature," back to the times of our ancestors. Like the animals surrounding us, they did not appear to question anything and played their purpose (whatever it is) out without knowing it or caring. Perhaps we still do, without realizing, but the difference is that we demand to know what it is; God wills it is no longer an acceptable answer.

In a way, it is comforting (for sake of a better word) to know others have this problem, though at the same time not; I don't wish apathy or crisis on anyone. I envy the person who can go through his or her life and never question once the greater purpose of it all.

33: My library is nothing special, I promise you. I don't typically read modern literature, so I only know Kurt Vonnegut through Slaughterhouse Five, which I have studied but not read all the way through.

34: I tried thinking through the idea that life is what I make it, but that does not hold in my mind. I'm not allowed to live life because we have decided that free wills (and by extension consequences) exist; I am not allowed to lie, steal, cheat, or murder without my life either being imprisoned or executed. My choices are dependent on my circumstances. And if good and bad do not exist independent of our thought (do they?), then why is my life determined by morality?

does good or bad exist? I believe so, but is it necessary to know this in living ones life? We all have choices to make everyday and yes they are dependent on our individual circumstances, so what? I can lie, steal, murder if I want, how ever there will (most likely) be consequences to those actions. Not because of good or evil but because other people are making choices based on their circumstances as well. Society is held together by rules we implicitly agree to by participating in it.

Maybe reading on group or swarm behavior might give you some new insight into the world, such as ant or bee colonies, or even mob behavior. Very interesting dynamics. Maybe start with army ants, each type of ant has a different task and in large groups patterns become apparent, even though individual actions can seem bizarre or pointless each has a purpose.

Other animals appear to function perfectly well without morality; nature seems to be amoral more than anything else; when a colony of wasps destroys a colony of bees, we know not to judge them because they're animals and "don't know better." I'm still at a loss to understand why humans had to be special.

The "so what" is where my problem is coming from. I could take the leap of faith and believe 1 = 1, but there's no more greater truth in that than saying there is a god. Logically, I know I must act according to morality to function among other humans who have accepted morality (unless I decide my life doesn't matter), but that does not offer any great comfort or knowledge.

how did you decide humans are 'special'?

Also I think you misunderstood the point of the colony investigation. I was pointing out that while an individuals actions may seem strange or counterproductive in a larger context it can make a lot of sense, one just needs the right perspective.

#1

You must find a purpose for your own life. It isn't sitting ready-made in books--although almost any book might help.

But if you do find that book, the one that gives a clear and definitive explanation for the mysteries of existence, don't forget to let us know.

And then burn it.

Phocion, I think you're ready for a leap into nihilistic hedonism looking over your shoulder to see whether you need to dodge the authorities gaining on you and maybe, but only maybe, keeping an eye on the bank account to assure that you can keep on a tear. You might want to drop in on The Chapel of the Abyss for more discussion on these matters.

When you wear out you will either be happy or in despair and turn to new satisfactions.

Robert

Here's a question for you, Phocion...

What is authority?

I want to say, that which has power over you. The parents have the first authority, because you are dependent on them for food and shelter. The People have power over me because they define what is and is not acceptable, and have consequences that can be carried out when you disobey. My body has authority over me, because without food and proper care it will die.

That sounds like something my father would have said.

I suppose I have the ultimate authority in my life, as I hold the power to end it; but even that is still based in power.

If my father had authority, what use was power?

There is a hierarchy of authority? You have more power over yourself ultimately than your parents have over you, but most people on the lower steps of the hierarchy are banking on the idea that you won't commit suicide?

Big fish eat the little ones, big fish eat the little ones.

Not my problem, give me some.

I'll have to sleep on that one. If you hear nothing from me, you can probably guess what happened.

Clowns ate you? Or would that be a clown-fish?

Jesse Wiedinmyer asking what authority is, is perhaps, when read by me without consideration of everything above, a sidetrack – and I’ve just been admonished elsewhere here for following sidetracks, for stealing the thread so to say. But the thread’s initiator seems to have accepted this seemingly new theme, and so I risk mixing in nearly wholly on my own behalf. I take a strong interest in the definition of authority.

I suppose every philosophy redefines a few words away from that of other philosophies, so that words are not stuck forever in one particular use, but rather in some degree carries a different meaning to us all. Some agreement must exist for us to communicate at all though. Regarding authority we all (I think) consider Hitler an authoritarian figure, and perhaps a few of us has heard the idea ascribed to many Germans under his rule: “The man is mad, but he is our leader.” I, at least has seen this idea presented in several different forms; most often perhaps in the form of attributing a high sense of “duty” to the German people in the thirties. “Duty may of course be defined this and that way too, but the point here is willingness to be blindly led, no? Now whether this power to compel subjugation, above that of what demonstrated competence can obtain, should be considered where authority takes over from power, depends, I think, on what ideas the word is meant to serve.

Personally I find it a bit silly when Theodore Dalrymple according to himself has blown fundamentalist anti authoritarianism apart by suggesting to an anti authoritarian passenger on a plane that he should take over for the pilot in In Praise of Prejudice. The power or the competence to control, or to deny control can be observed as existent, or with some reason be presumed so, and also result in a willing handover of responsibility for a particular process, but still be clearly different from marching behind Hitler because he is the boss.

The following of Hitler for fear of the consequences if you did not (I read somewhere that some Roman said that his soldiers should never have to fear the enemy as much as their own officers), is of course another matter – I am suggesting a mental subjugation describing acceptance of authority that is not necessarily existent with those only obedient out of fear, and observant of this. And I think Jesse’s father can be said to have lacked authority within this definition, as long as Jesse denied his violence any legitimacy.

In my suggested definition of authority then, this is not something anyone authoritarian leader actually possesses, but something created with his authority’s acceptance by the acceptant, and remaining with him.

What is legitimacy?

Must be defined by its use? But to me, as used above, something given legitimacy is something supposed to have relevance acceptable as worthy the expense?

To the claim: “this is for your own good,” one can answer that “I won’t believe that,” and give what’s supposed to do one good no legitimacy. I don’t have any patent on such a definition of the word; I just think it such fits in with the rest of my argumentation here. Obviously most would bring jurisprudence into its definition.

Give “legitimacy” to a claim of authority; see ones subjugation to the will of the one making that claim as a rational act on own, or some or all of mankind's behalf.
(I note my "Roget's" has "authority" as first synonym to "legitimacy.")

(I note my "Roget's" has "authority" as first synonym to "legitimacy.")

That's actually rather interesting (and something that's new to me.)

I'll reiterate that I don't necessarily have answers to the questions. Mainly I just have the questions.

I was combing through my favorite novel today and found it:

And suddenly a long-forgotten, meek old teacher, who had taught him geography in Switzerland, emerged in Pierre's mind as if alive. "Wait!" said the old man. And he showed Pierre a globe. This globe was a living, wavering ball of no dimensions. The entire surface of the ball consisted of drops tightly packed together. And these drops all moved and shifted, and now merged from several into one, now divided from one into many. Each drop strove to spread and take p the most space, but the others, striving to do the same, pressed it, sometimes destroying, sometimes merging with it.

"This is life," said the old teacher.

Can it be so simple? Has it been my reason that has over-complicated everything?

check my blog, I m always asking the question, y r we here? please if u like it follow me on my blog.
http://aymanelhakim.blogspot.com/

I don't think so.

>1 Phocion:

Please read my earlier posts on this thread (all 3 - arrogant materialistic ones). Yes, I have moved on and grown up. The meaning of life is to imitate Christ as much as possible in our daily life.

> 60

Well, e.g., do you plan on taking the law into your own hands and whipping any thieves out of any temples? Do you plan on performing any supernatural miracles, like changing water into wine or feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish? Are you planning on having a zero net cash worth sometimes soon and owning only the robe on your back and the sandals on your feet, not having any income and depending on others for your food and shelter? Will you be having debates with Satan on any mountain tops? Are you planning on living only to about age 33 or so? And never getting married or having children?

How about dying eventually as a scapegoat for all the sins of the human race? - Probably not this last one for sure, right, since it has already been done?

lol.

Aim high even if you wind up low, LM. If you can't achieve righteousness then at least you can be self-righteous. It seems.

> 61

Good goal. I.e., since there is only one recorded incidence of Jesus losing his temper - the whipping the thieves out of the temple brouhaha - which is a pretty good record for 33 years of life.

(Of course, we have no record of Jesus's activities between the ages of 13 and 29. For all we know he may have punched a waiter once because there was hair in his food or kicked one of this brothers for snoring, etc.)