Written by Geoffrey Chia
Philosophical Musings #5
This is not the Monty Python movie – it is something completely different…
Philosopher, please ponder this:
Please share this article – Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.
A philosopher could go mad trying to make sense of the above, until they accept that such an attempt is futile. The axolotl looks nothing like the ocelot 1, which was a word merely chosen to suffix the letter “l” in order to rhyme with axolotl. And everything goes downhill from there. But this is a nonsense poem.
Trying to answer certain pseudoquestions can be equally futile because they are in fact nonquestions or nonsense questions or unfounded presumptions masquerading as questions.
Once upon a time, a lawyer type person I had just met at a social function (a wannabe politician with a law degree who had never actually practised law) was attempting to engage in profound conversation and opened the gambit with “so tell me, what is the meaning of life?“
I suspect that is the commonest question philosophers are confronted with at social functions, even as they are attempting to scope out the best canapes. (“The MoL is to scope out the best canapes” is as good an answer as any, which will give you an excuse to immediately make a beeline for the nearest serving tray).
My response to his question was, “what is your meaning of the word meaning?” This seemed to get his hackles up. He thought I was being facetious and was mocking him (I was not, at least not initially) by responding to his question with a question. He then treated me like an evasive hostile witness in a courtroom and applied dogged interrogation to forcibly pry out a clear cut, black and white answer from me. And everything went downhill from there. But his was a nonsense question.
It was necessary that his terms of reference be properly defined. If his meaning of “meaning” was intent or purpose or goal, then he was implying in his question that “life” had some underlying intent or purpose or goal. Furthermore intent or purpose or goal cannot exist unless some deterministic agency is behind it, another implication of his question. His question was a teleological presumption.
This brings to mind the weasely lawyer type question, “Are you still beating your wife? Answer yes or no only!“. The proper response to such a presumptuous accusation masquerading as a question is: “I reject the premise of your question“.
If Mr Wannabe Politician (WP) had indeed agreed that his meaning of “meaning” was the intent, purpose or goal of life (which he did not, he merely waffled), my next question would have been: “what makes you think that life has any meaning?” which would probably have discombobulated him further.
The Abrahamic religions preach that life was created by an all powerful patriarchal God to fulfil His own mysterious purposes which would require and involve the following: fawning praise to be showered upon Him by the faithful who will eventually reside with Him in heaven forever, while disbelievers (yours truly) will burn in hell for all eternity. So the meaning of life for the pious was slavish devotion to religious doctrine to fulfil the will of God. Indeed, the meaning of the word Islam is “submission to the will of God”. Meaning indeed!
Science is quite successful at answering questions such as how, when, where and what. The question “why?” however implies there is some motive underlying a situation which further implies that some sentient being has intentionally crafted that situation for reasons best known to themselves.
It is now time to misquote Yoda, who sorta said, “there is no try…. do!“, words which I now mangle and misquote further for my own purpose, “there is no why…. duh!“
More specifically, there is no why with regard to the universe and existence at large. How the universe came to be is something we can trace back to perhaps the first billionth of a second after the Big Bang. Why the universe came to be is a meaningless teleologically presumptive nonquestion. The universe simply is. I have previously debunked the idea of “intelligent design” in another essay 2 and will not rehash the arguments of infinite regress etc ad nauseum. All evidence shows that the universe is utterly indifferent to our pathetic human lives and deaths, which do not amount to a hill of beans. “Why” is a question that is only relevant to organisms with desires, motives, goals and agency. And “why” do organisms have desires, motives and goals? Or, to put it better, what is the mechanism behind the existence of desires, motives and goals in organisms?
It is this: without desires, motives and goals (to eat, drink, reproduce, escape from predators etc), those organisms would die out. Desires, motives and goals are evolutionary necessities, the sine qua non without which organisms would not exist. 3 Needs must.
One reasonable answer to “what is the meaning of life?” is this: “I reject the premise of your question. Life has no objective meaning“. Such a reply may grossly offend many people including Mr WP. But that was my honest answer. Therein lies my problem. I tend to respond to questions with blunt honesty. Other more socially adept operators may provide untruthful answers they think the questioner would prefer to hear, which would help smooth conversations along more easily. But that is not my way. Part of my Asperger’s-type disposition, I guess.
By now, Mr WP must have pegged me as an atheistic nihilist or nihilistic atheist or some such reprehensible creature.
Frustrated beyond measure, Mr WP attempted to steer me in the direction that he wanted the conversation to go by mustering all his lawyerly skills. It went something like this:
WP: You say life has no objective meaning, but what about the subjective meaning of life to people? Don’t you think people want meaning in their lives?
Me: It is up to people to create their own meaning in their own lives. But such “meaning” will be different to different people, it is an individual thing. Your question “what is the meaning of life” has no meaning, but asking “what is the meaning of your life” or “what is your meaning of life 4” is something completely different.
WP: OK then, what is your meaning of life?
Me: It is not something I think about.
WP: (more frustrated than ever) But what about happiness? Doesn’t the pursuit of happiness give your life meaning? (it became clear to me now that from the very beginning he had expected me to answer his original question with: the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness, the preconceived stock pedestrian answer that he had preserved and embalmed within his own mind)
Me: I would like to quote someone, I think it was one of the Monty Python comedians, here. During an interview he was asked about the pursuit of happiness and his answer was this: to me, happiness is next to contentment and contentment is next to complacency and complacency is next to disaster. I share that view. So no, the meaning of my life is not the pursuit of happiness.
Mr WP was more flummoxed than ever and changed the subject, taking off on another tangent….
Ultimately, what kind of conversation was Mr WP fishing for? Perhaps this different scenario, to cater to his preconceived fossilised ideas, would have gone more smoothly:
WP: what is the meaning of life?
Me: the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness
WP: and how are you pursuing happiness?
Me: (various suitably tailored answers are possible here, depending on what one perceives WP’s value system to be): happiness is:
a) scoping out the best canapes or
b) sex, drugs and rock n’ roll or
c) family values and weekends at the beach or
d) submission to the will of God or
e) to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters. (Genghis Khan’s definition)
I am not sure how to conclude this piece so I am just going to stop writing here and engage in more wanton plundering and marauding and maybe burn Kiev to the ground…
Footnotes
1. How do you titillate an ocelot? You oscillate its titalot.
2. https://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/confrontingthewizardsofID.pdf
3. By definition, an eternal almighty God has no need to eat, drink, reproduce, escape from predators etc. Therefore, logic dictates that an eternal almighty God will have no need for (and hence not possess) any desires, motives or goals. Certainly an eternal almighty God will not have any insecure psychological need to extort sycophantic praise (under threat of never ending torture) from insignificant human beans. An eternal almighty God would be above the petty need to create insignificant human beans for the express purpose of stroking his own ego. I mean, how pathetic can you get?
4. Or to put it another way, “what drives your dorsl?”
.
include(“/home/aleta/public_html/files/ad_openx.htm”); ?>