What is the meaning of life? On one hand I feel this is a meaningless question; when we ask to define the meaning of something, we are asking how that thing can be explained in terms of things that are not that thing. Life is everything we experience and know, and therefore cannot be defined or explained, because we dont know what we dont know, and if we were to know it, it would be part of life. But on the other hand I think the implicit subtext of the question of meaning is this: What heuristic or logical system should I use to make decisions, if any? Looking at the question I shall then divide up and categorize responses to the question, and ultimately provide an answer after reacting to each category: There are some who dont have any sort of system of values to govern their decision making, for instance, animals. I am not interested in being an animal (okay sometimes I might want to be an animal). Then there are those whose arent quite certain what they sort of values system to use and might pick between several depending on their mood. This is the category I would say I have belonged to most consistently, and that most people belong to. Then there are those who believe strongly in a values system and apply it inconsistently but perhaps wholeheartedly. This was a category I wanted for a long time to join. Those who, in a Kantian fashion would seek that single and perfect logical description of morality; who would always be able to choose the right thing. An example group I can think of off the top of my head would be the more serious and educated religious fundamentalists. Now of course I think that there is no perfect logical description of right and wrong and if someone were to try to describe one they would almost certainly run into problems of self reference at the very least. In my opinion/experience those who do try to do so end up having warped senses of morality in certain areas. So we have three degrees of buy in for any values system, but looking back at the question, theres a dichotomy I created and then ignored: what about heuristics? People who live by heuristics, if they are common in real life, are not very vocal about it. By contrast, multiple fictional characters (usually of a superhero persuasion) immediately spring to mind: Spider man: with great power comes great responsibility Batman: Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me. From the manga/anime Rurouni Kenshin: Saito (and more generally the historical shinsengumi): aku soku zan, slay evil immediately So perhaps, bushido or chivalric codes, which dont claim logical consistency or perfection, are good examples. Additionally, thinking more deeply on the subject we might claim the eastern Confucian tradition, or the western Stoic tradition as somewhat of a collection of heuristics. But, this is not really what Im looking for, I want something simple, almost comic book like, introducing more than one rule creates space for conflict between heuristics and allows for a degree of rigidity to seep into life: since there are multiple heuristics there is less interpretive room between them. Indeed Bushido and Chivalry when grafted onto group social dynamics were probably just as tolerant of individual deviation in interpretation as any religion. Here is the new philosophy: What is good? If you can imagine a better world, it is good to work towards it. The immediate criticism that springs to mind: What is a better world? (the obvious reply) A better world is one with more good in it. My reply: If thats your definition of a better world, youre not imagining hard enough. The whole point of the heuristic is that you apply it to any individual situation, ask the question if it would be a better world if that was the case, and if that is the case, then that is what good is. There is no overarching logical definition of good, or evil. I think this is a good (one that will lead to a better world) philosophy because it does not conflict with our everyday experience (thus creating mental dissonance/stress/guilt) yet still pushes us to do good things... er imagine a better world, and work towards it. Perhaps its best to illustrate: The situation: You have studied very hard for some upcoming exams. You are tired and ask yourself: should I watch youtube videos right now? Apply the heuristic: If the youtube video was funny, and you laughed, it would be a better world. Perhaps you would even show it it your friends and they would get to laugh too, much better! It would also be a better world if you studied for your test, and then became a better doctor as a result. Now, you could try and weigh the opportunity cost of either action here: BUT THE HEURISTIC DOES NOT ASK YOU TO DO THAT. Once again the heuristic is pragmatically aligned with human psychology: thinking about opportunity costs typically results in analysis paralysis. But you could in some situations...if you thought it would be a better world. Okay you say, well now everyone who follows this heuristic is just going to watch youtube videos all day. Uhm. No they wont. That certainly isnt a better world in my book, and I doubt it is in anyone elses. If you eat ice cream it tastes good at first, but if you keep eating it you will get sick. You will eventually get tired of the hedonic treadmill. It will stop being a better world and you will have to imagine something else in order to apply the heuristic and live a good life. And that, is my new philosophy. Or maybe its old. Feel free to direct me to any philosophers this post might remind you of. Afterthoughts: Originally the heuristic was If you can imagine a better world, you should work towards it. but that feels like a heavy burden to bear; should implies an obligation, and overall it feels like you need to be performing opportunity cost analysis in order to fulfill your duty. In relation to evil I feel like this philosophy also does a good job. It doesnt make all the classic evil mistakes (namely of trying to define the undefinable); it doesnt try to create illusory enemies or set up a scapegoat for our troubles, but it still leaves room to fight evil, if it arises. But I suppose thats just like, my opinion, man.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 04:21:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015