The meaning of life - from world intellectual traditions

[Cypress]

We start with the “Bhagavad-Gita”, a classic of Hindu thought - it is actually an episode from the great Indian epic “Mahabharata”. The hero in the Gita, Arjuna, finds himself on the eve of a battle in which he must lead his army against one led by many of his near relatives. The text counsels a life of action pursued with a certain kind of impersonal detachment in the context of a devotional attitude that allows one to understand one’s role in the universe.

Turning to ancient Greece, Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” - Aristotle’s answer to our question contrasts dramatically with that offered by the Gita, locating happiness in the cultivation of a set of mundane virtues, such as courage, honesty, generosity, temperance, and the like, in the context of friendship and civic life. Aristotle develops a subtle moral psychology that paints an unusually detailed picture of the many dimensions of a meaningful life when understood from the human, as opposed to the cosmic, perspective.

A third approach is represented by the austere vision presented in the “book of Job” in the Hebrew Bible - Here, the puzzle regarding whether life can have any meaning is posed in the context of the possibility of divine indifference and a fundamentally cruel universe.

We then turn to the work of Lucretius and Marcus Aurelius, two influential Roman thinkers, both of whom meditate extensively on the problem with which we started: How can anything as fleeting and small as a human life mean anything in the grand scheme of things? Each focuses his meditation on the consequent significance of death and impermanence, making direct contact with each of the three traditions with which we began.

The fourth ancient approach we consider emerges from classical China - We begin with an exploration of “The Analects”, in which Confucius (Kongfuzi) develops an account of human perfection in terms of careful social cultivation in the context of social relations. We will see this view challenged by Daoism, grounded in the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, in which meaning is to be found by harmonizing one’s life with the fundamental structure of the universe. This requires not action or cultivation, as is suggested by the Confucian or Aristotelian approaches, but rather, a studied inaction and spontaneity.

The final ancient approach is that of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the account of moral development and the goal of human life articulated by the 9th-century Indian philosopher Santideva.

Our attention now shifts to modernity; John Stewart Mill’s “On Liberty”. - We’ll explore the view that the meaningful life is that lived autonomously, with active engagement in the public sphere, involving the free exercise of one’s rights to thought and to speech, unfettered by religion or law.

Poignant critiques of this individualist, libertarian vision of modernity is offered by Lev Tolstoy and Nietzsche. Tolstoy argues that modernity eviscerates life of spiritual values and interpersonal relations. Nietzsche, in “Twilight of the Idols”, argues that the central underpinnings of modernity are simply erroneous and defends a radically different view of the meaning of life.

We then turn to the Lakota philosopher Lame Deer, who sees human life as gaining its meaning from a complex relation to the natural world in the context of which it is lived.

We finish with the perspective of the 14th Dalai Lama, who integrates the views of Santideva with those of European modernity, defending an account of the meaningful life in the modern world that takes seriously such modern values as human rights, liberty, and a secular order but demanding the cultivation of compassion.





Source credit: Dr. Jay L. Garfield, Professor of Philosophy, Smith College

[Cypress]

David Hume’s Skepticism and the Place of God

Hume is saying, God may not be accessible to reason, but the fact that he’s not accessible to reason need not matter to us. We can choose to have a theological life and a relationship to religion if we want. We can choose not to if we want, but we don’t need to provide arguments or reasons in order to make our religious lives make sense.

David Hume was one of the thinkers who was most instrumental in reviving classical skepticism. Like the classical skeptics, he used reason to attack the pretensions of reason, to show that reason itself is self-undermining. Hume also introduced the idea of naturalism to philosophy, arguing that if we want to know what human life is about, we need to subject ourselves to the methods of science. Hume further recognized that we are not entirely rational beings; just as important as our reason are our emotions and our imagination.

Hume argued that many of our most important beliefs, such as beliefs in the external world or the regularity of nature, aren’t rational but instinctual and emotional. In other words, our instincts and our passions lead us to beliefs and practices that are reasonable. It is, thus, part of our nature to trust our senses and to trust reason. Theism may not be susceptible to proof either, but it doesn’t follow that theism is unreasonable; it might not even demand proof. If that’s the case, then faith should be relegated to the realm of the private sphere, while we leave what is rationally judicable in the public sphere.

source credit: Jay L. Garfield, Professor of Philosophy, Smith College

[Arks&sparka]

I thought it was 42

[Cypress]

I thought it was 42

As the super computer Deep Thought stated, that answer is meaningless to us because we never really understood what the question was.

[Cypress]

Classical Liberalism
John Stuart Mill maintains the view that the meaningful life is that lived autonomously, with active engagement in the public sphere, involving the free exercise of one’s rights to thought and to speech, unfettered by religion or law. What we see in Mill is the final flowering of individualism. In Mill’s contemporary expression, our lives are meaningful only when we are self-expressive, free individuals, and they are meaningful for precisely that reason, not because of our social context.

Post-Modernism
Friedrich Nietzsche attacks this classical liberal and modernist approach. He rejects the idea that human history is progressive. It questions whether liberal democracy is self-evidently good and whether reason and science are truly foundational. And it criticizes the idea that religion or spirituality is a legitimate option even in private. Nietzsche challenges us, instead, to create meaning in our own lives and to find significance in the world we actually inhabit. Our lives should arise from a self-creative act, a conscious decision about where we want to be and the enactment of that decision. If we are to live our lives as works of art, then we must safeguard our own creativity.

Pre-Modern Spiritualism
Leo Tolstoy believed that secularization and the mass society that results from secularization, coupled with capitalism, lead to a meaningless life. He argues that modernity eviscerates life of spiritual values and interpersonal relations. In “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, Tolstoy takes as his theme the importance of pre-modern spiritual values, including an awareness of death, the need to develop deep human relationships, and a connection to nature as opposed to an artificial society. He argues implicitly that a life led in a secular world is completely hopeless and, at death, leaves us feeling as though that life has been wasted.




source credit: Jay L. Garfield, Professor of Philosophy, Smith College

[Cypress]

The meaningful life: these are the recurrent themes found within Hinduism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christianity, Classical liberal thought, Existentialism, Aristotle, Daoism, Confucianism, Native American animism:


Importance of a connection between our own lives and some larger context (universal, divine, or social).

Impermanence.

Some ideal of human perfection.

Spontaneity; aka effortless melding of values and actions.

Freedom.

Facing up to reality.

Living an authentic life.

[Guno צְבִי]

In Judaism God is all, nothing exist outside of God, the so called good and not so good

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


in addition the soul is everlasting, when we pass from the earth we return to the spiritual realm, no other place since God is all , it is a continuation of the soul (nefesh) נֶפֶשׁ

In Judaism people are inherently good , original sin is christian concept not found anywhere in Judaism

Judaism is not duality

Satan in Judaism is not a physical being ruling the underworld, rather, in the Torah, the word Satan indicates “accuser,” “hinderer” or “tempter.” Satan is therefore more an illusory obstacle in one’s way - such as temptation and evil doings - keeping one from completing the responsibilities of tikkun olam (fixing the world). Satan is the evil inclination to veer off the path of righteousness and faithfulness in God.

In Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as “opponent” or “adversary,” and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will. He is also sometimes regarded as a heavenly prosecutor or accuser, a view given expression in the Book of Job, where Satan encourages God to test his servant.

[Cypress]

In Judaism God is all, nothing exist outside of God, the so called good and not so good

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


in addition the soul is everlasting, when we pass from the earth we return to the spiritual realm, no other place since God is all , it is a continuation of the soul (nefesh) נֶפֶשׁ

In Judaism people are inherently good , original sin is christian concept not found anywhere in Judaism

Judaism is not duality

Satan in Judaism is not a physical being ruling the underworld, rather, in the Torah, the word Satan indicates “accuser,” “hinderer” or “tempter.” Satan is therefore more an illusory obstacle in one’s way - such as temptation and evil doings - keeping one from completing the responsibilities of tikkun olam (fixing the world). Satan is the evil inclination to veer off the path of righteousness and faithfulness in God.

In Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as “opponent” or “adversary,” and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will. He is also sometimes regarded as a heavenly prosecutor or accuser, a view given expression in the Book of Job, where Satan encourages God to test his servant.

Thanks. I need to up my game in learning about Rabbinic Judaism.

"In Judaism God is all, nothing exist outside of God, the so called good and not so good"

In principle and at a first pass, I see a parallel with the Hindu concept of Brahma, a pervasive, all-encompassing transcendent reality in which everyone and everything participates.

"In Judaism people are inherently good , original sin is christian concept not found anywhere in Judaism"

That is a very optimistic view of humanity. To me, the holocaust, the gulag, the killing fields, Rawanda, et al. demonstrate to me that there is an unbridled violence and darkness in humanity which is in no way comparable to anything in the animal world.

I feel like all religions and philosophical traditions are, to some extent, dedicated to constraining human behavior to mitigate suffering, evil, immorality.

[Jack]

"What is the goal of life? To Epicurus the goal of living was to find happiness through friendship, living humbly and avoiding pain and anxiety. He believed very strongly that by living peacefully and avoiding fear and pain, we could live fully. To Epicurus, living a virtuous life and a peaceful life were one in the same. This is seen when he states…

“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely, honorably, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, honorably and justly without living pleasantly.”

[Cypress]

"What is the goal of life? To Epicurus the goal of living was to find happiness through friendship, living humbly and avoiding pain and anxiety. He believed very strongly that by living peacefully and avoiding fear and pain, we could live fully. To Epicurus, living a virtuous life and a peaceful life were one in the same. This is seen when he states…

“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely, honorably, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, honorably and justly without living pleasantly.”

Epicurus is a good one.
On balance, the Stoics seemingly had more influence in the western tradition.

[BidenPresident]

"What is the goal of life? To Epicurus the goal of living was to find happiness through friendship, living humbly and avoiding pain and anxiety. He believed very strongly that by living peacefully and avoiding fear and pain, we could live fully. To Epicurus, living a virtuous life and a peaceful life were one in the same. This is seen when he states…

“It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely, honorably, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, honorably and justly without living pleasantly.”

Not bad advice. I don't agree that we must be humble to be happy.

[Jack]

Epicurus is a good one.
On balance, the Stoics seemingly had more influence in the western tradition.

Each one of us can adopt what we think is a correct philosophy. My choice is the 'Peaceful and Pleasant life' as the guiding principle.

[Jack]

Not bad advice. I don't agree that we must be humble to be happy.

I think 'humble' meant 'simple'. Living simple, without extravagance.
(Maybe it comes from my Quaker ancestors?)

[BidenPresident]

Epicurus is a good one.
On balance, the Stoics seemingly had more influence in the western tradition.

How did the Stoics influence the western tradition?

[BidenPresident]

I think 'humble' meant 'simple'. Living simple, without extravagance.
(Maybe it comes from my Quaker ancestors?)

What is wrong with extravagance?