The Meaning of Existence



Firstly, I find it most important to emphasize the briefness of this paper. Many people spend their entire lives investigating this question, and to condense that quest into a sophomoric four-page narrative is practically an insult to the discussion of existence itself. In fact, on my own I have already probably written upwards of one hundred pages on the subject, and have literally gained no further understanding of the topic whatsoever. For this reason, I have no intention of fully answering this massive question; rather, I will attempt to begin to explore my own views and present an organized document of what I—at the current moment—believe to be the necessary questions to consider when approaching this matter, and to humbly explain my own thoughts on how a human can begin to interpret the meaning of existence.

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.” – William Blake

One cannot simply define the meaning of existence in one word. People often arrogantly assume that if they spend their lives studying and learning, then everything can be simplified and understood. However, what if there are things that are impossible to be simplified, or even comprehended? What if through all human languages we are completely unable to even articulate the meaning at all? For example, there is an emotion associated with the English word ‘attraction’. However, what if this word didn’t exist? The emotion would still be there, but it would take great effort to describe it. The same dilemma erupts out of attempting to define existence. Assuming that there is a definition, our vocabulary doesn’t have a word to relate with that definition.

A better way to formulate an understanding is by constructing a theory. Stephen Hawking explains this in A Brief History of Time: In order to talk about the nature of the universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations (Hawking 9).

I used to be a gung ho Atheist and feel that the notion of God was ridiculous; any sensible person could recognize the ridiculousness of assuming that an omnipotent entity had control over us all, right? To the conservative learner, the theory of evolution seems much more feasible than that of an omnipotent entity placing a man and a woman in a garden and expecting them to procreate. In fact, the idea of it to many atheists is farcical, but on what basis does anyone else know any better? What I have come to realize is that there is no reason why one should necessarily be more correct than the other. If one views both evolution and creationism as theories, they both satisfy Hawking’s requirements of “good theories”. Both provide a feasible explanation for why we are here—granted, with a few elements left unexplained—and they both make accurate predictions about the results of future observations. Perhaps this is why the most famous physicist of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, was outstandingly religious. Now I would consider myself to be agnostic—defined as a person who is unsure if god exists and furthermore is unsure if it can be determined.

My belief could be best summarized (although such an abridgement is hardly appropriate) as absurdist existentialism with streaks of nihilism. When most people consider existence, they view it only from the perspective of a sane human with the ability to conduct personal, rational thought. That is why it is important to consider what purpose is. What is the purpose of the paper that this is written on? As far as I know, it has no conscience or goals. However, for a moment I will only discuss the quintessential question of the purpose of rational life.

When I was a sophomore I was convinced that there was no purpose and that nothing mattered at all. This was inspired in part by Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk. “You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you are free to do anything,” says Tyler Durden, the protagonist of the book.

Now I believe that everything matters, just how it matters is not necessarily specified by some diving entity, whether it is God or just a basic worldly principle. It is up to individuals to define purpose for themselves. At the beginning of last year I believed that my worldly views where the correct way, but I now realize that anyone's could be the correct way. However, using that thought process, sophomore year I would have said that it doesn't matter what you eat or how you live your life, so long as you don't negatively affect others (which is just a fundamental value instilled in me since I was born). But now I would say that it does matter, but it is not my place to say whether that affect is right or wrong. There is purpose, but it is not defined, nor is there just one static definition of purpose. So everything matters. This is somewhat why I never regret anything. I feel that if something good happens as a result of something bad, then to regret the bad would in effect be regretting the good as well. When I explain this, people often say, “So you think everything happens for a reason?” Sometimes I find myself unsure of how to answer this. I don't think that one instance happens for the express intention of affecting another. To follow that thought system would imply that there was a set path to life. Rather, I feel that everything that happens affects, in some way or another, everything else that subsequently happens. An important difference between my own beliefs and those of existentialism is that do not believe that my thought system is the sole correct one. Even though it takes into account the fact that everyone has to define for themselves what meaning and purpose are, I still accept that I could be wrong and it is possible that there is a divine purpose that I am unaware of. For example, sophomore year I thought that school was totally worthless. But not only did I think it was totally worthless for myself; I thought it was totally worthless for everyone, and only fools thought otherwise. Now I realize that it might have been totally worthless to me, and that is ok, and it wasn't totally worthless to other people, and that is also ok.

The problem that I see with my current philosophy is that it is very focused on individuals and doesn't take the fact that we all live on the same earth together into account. In order for us all to function well, we need to agree on a set universal rules and guidelines to follow. That is somewhat what I feel is wrong with the world right now. While America do it's own thing and China do there's, no one is working together! Enigmatically, however, I feel that it is this discrepancy in my philosophy that explains itself. Because if there isn’t a set right or wrong way for life, then what exactly is telling us that we need to function together? What is telling us that we need to be successful? Truthfully, I have no answer. I don't really think that there is one, at least, not one that I can comprehend. I’m not sure if I should be able to comprehend it.

Maybe that is why life itself is a mistake. Perhaps not a mistake, but maybe there just isn't anything all that profound to it at all. It just is. People live, people die. Maybe all that I find important—love, beauty, friendship, music—doesn’t really matter any more than I make it matter to myself. It’s comforting to think of universal standards or importance and meaning, but maybe there aren't any! And if all that matters is what I make matter, or what any other person makes matter, then…what is purpose?

If one were to break down life into the very basics of what we can define as fact and what we cannot, a fact is really only something that an individual can say, without any consideration of doubt, is an undisputable truth. This is more difficult than it seems. For instance, many people might say that it is an obvious fact that the cube root of 27 is 3. However, there is not just one answer to that question. Indeed, the corollary to the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra states that there must be three factors of the cube root of 27. After working it out, one learns that the other two solutions are 9 plus or minus i times the square root of 32, all divided by two. There are many aspects of algebra that, when examined, throw away many pre-believed “facts” and show just how complex numbers actually are. Something that at one point a person was so sure was true in an instant can be shown to be in fact false. I find this to be an interesting dilemma for many people, the cause for religious hostility, and the basis for my own views on solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true knowledge of anything else is impossible. I have already discussed my own thoughts on God, but its role in society is quite interesting. Many wars, altercations, and deaths are because of religion and peoples’ discrepancies in their definitions of God. This is because if there are two different religions, and two different beliefs in God, it proves that both of them cannot be correct. The existence of another religion invalidates the beliefs of the first one, and this scares people. Religions are enacted for one primary purpose: to dispose fears of death and most other worldly unknowns. Most religions explain why we are here, what happens when we die, and what to do so that we have a good afterlife. Fundamentally, religions dispose fear, and people put faith into their religion because it gives them a sense of security. If two religions have conflicting descriptions of life then people begin to consider a terrifying fact: one of the descriptions must be false. Because they have put so much faith into their own belief system, the only feasible conclusion is that the other religion is incorrect. Of course the frustrating reality is that no one can possibly know which religion is correct (if any are at all) until they die, and at that point there is no way for them to publicize their discovery. This leads me back to solipsism. The only thing a person can really, truly ‘know’ is that he or she exists. But if this is true, then must the rest of the world be viewed only as an illusion?

Solipsism scares me. While on one hand I think it is an ultimate display of humanity to be able to run off into the jungle naked and alone and survive, I find interaction with other people necessary to make me happy, and that involves trusting in them that they, too, exist.

Simplistically, I think that all this can be described by saying that the fundamental element of humanity is Love (1). All emotions are based on this one fundamental element. Even hatred is still a product of an absence of love. We all have to decide for ourselves what we care about and what meaning is, but that is all for the purpose of our own will to survive. Our will to survive is based on our love for ourselves. Our will to procreate is based, hopefully, on our love for other people. To say that Love is good would not be necessarily correct. Love just is. Perhaps the emotion “love” is good, but of course, it is not my place to say.

While it is possible to consider all of the iterations of human existence for thousands of pages, to attempt to do so would just be supercilious. There are all sorts of exclusive cases, such as insanity, that in and of themselves deserve close examination. Fur this reason, I am going to move on to concisely talk about non-rational existence. All of the following is, of course, not necessarily correct.

Time is a relative function. New theories suggest that the beginning of the universe was only a few split seconds. However, with no other time to compare those seconds to, it might as well have been a few million years. As the distance (measured by time) between the current moment and the moment that time began greatens, the distance between two points on that vector must become exponentially closer together as they approach the current moment, and farther apart as they approach the beginning of time. In effect, the older time is, the slower it goes.

This, however, does not explain why there is time. I am not religious, but I truthfully feel uncomfortable even attempting to answer that question. To me, the meaning of existence for all that is non-rational is completely undefined.

In any event, I am not going to end with a summation of everything I’ve said because that seems inappropriate in this paper. And while this last paragraph is already the most informal conclusion I have ever graced a paper with ever, my ultimate conclusion will be the tofu in the sandwich. The end.

David Lempert
9 February 2004



Footnotes

1. This is the best word that I could use to describe the feeling that I am explaining. For the purposes of this paper, Love is a fundamental feeling that all emotions, including love, are based on.