From: "Mike"
Subject: a question
Look at it this way: if all you're living for is what is here and now, how can you ever be truly, deep down satisfied in the continual quest for more and more things, experiences, pleasures, etc., as they all vanish?
As existentialists argue, there is no such thing as a fully satisfied life. We are all searching, striving, learning, and developing. If I ever reached the stage where I had nothing left to learn, nothing left to do, nothing left to experience, nothing left to work towards... and then were expected to spend eternity in such a state... why would I want that? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
I think that boredom would settle in quite quickly and I would no longer have any interest in my continued existence. Why would I? What would there be for me to have interest in? Mike asks me what the point of living now is, but I could turn it around and ask what the point of living in that state would be. I certainly don't see one.
Meaning, I believe, is not some objective state that exists for us to discover but is, rather, a product of our values and priorities. Something has meaning to you because you value it. Something has meaning to me because I value it. Something can have meaning to you but not to me, and vice-versa.
I don't value a state existence where there is nothing to do, nothing to learn, nothing to experience. Perhaps Mike does. If so, that's fine - he would find meaning in spending eternity existing in such a fashion. Personally, I'd rather cease to exist. That doesn't mean that such a state of existence is "meaningless," it just means that it is "meaningless to Austin Cline."
I find meaning in learning new things, striving, experiencing, and even failing (because without the possibility of failure, there is no point in trying) because I value all of that. If Mike doesn't value it, then he won't find meaning in it. That doesn't mean that those things are "meaningless," it simply means that they are "meaningless to Mike."
Maybe you can enjoy things now exactly because they are temporal and fleeting. For myself, I could not find true enjoyment of things here alone, believing it was all there is, as the song goes.
And why can't Mike find enjoyment in things here in this life? He enjoys all sorts of things that are temporal and fleeting already. This very exchange is itself temporal and fleeting - so why did he bother with it? Why didn't he focus all of his energy and attention solely on those things which you consider eternal and transcendent?
None of these things transcend our lives. I don't get it.
Why does Mike need something that transcends his life in order to enjoy his life? That makes it sound as though he doesn't actually value his live for what it is and for what happens in it. That would be rather sad, I think. Even if I thought there was life after death, that "afterlife" would not provide meaning and purpose to my life now. I would not value my life based upon what happened later, but rather because of what it has to offer now.
If there is something later on, then perhaps it will be something I can find meaning and purpose in. If not, then at least I've lived this life and have found meaning and purpose in it.
Go back to read the First Part of this conversation.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment