Leo Tolstoy, in ‘My confession’ describes how he turned to science in vain for a possible answer to ‘ what is the meaning of my life? On learning what science tells us ‘you are what you call your life’, a temporal accidental combination of particles which change so producing you in which you call your life. The congeries will last some time, than come to an end, so being the end of your life and questions; strictly following principles. To this, Tolstoy defined no answer to the meaning of life. To him the fact that it is a particle of the infinite not only gives no meaning, but also even destroys every possible meaning. From this he saw life as a meaningless evil-that was incontestable. That we continue to live our lives never doubting the ‘reasonableness’ of our lives shows that we are merle conditioned by nature to pursue various ends regardless of the problem about reasonableness. With this he concluded faith as not only an agreement of what man was told, via God, but defined faith as the ‘Knowledge of the meaning of human life’, Faith being the power of life, without it one cannot live. (2).(ibid. C1)
The doctrine of Christianity dictates that God created the world and made it good. However, we are told that we all possess human sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, this in itself condemns all of us to a deserving destruction. Jesus Christ served as a prophet, priest, and king to call the elect into ‘eternal life with God’. So, we are told we must devote our lives to serve him, and those believers after death will be resurrected in perfection with God for eternity. So then in the eyes of religion the material world in which we live as Gods servants is only a mere drama test, where mortal beings are morally tested. They can lose or gain their spiritual being by the way they live their lives, to which they would be entered in heaven or hell. God therefore becomes a moral judge of our actions in life, and death becomes the essential test (judgement day). Hence death becomes a necessary and intergratial to the whole meaning of life producing spiritual immortality, for religion an endless life is a ‘meaningless’ life (1) (Encarta Encyclopaedia).
Kurt Bair, in his offering of ‘The purpose of man exsistance’, is very critical of the religious doctrine (2)(Ibid.). While acknowledging Tolstoy’s point of the confrontation between religion and science, his viewpoint was very different. He concluded that in as far as it makes sense to speak of a meaning of the purpose of life, it is ‘Christianity rather than modern science that robs man of purpose’. He argues that Christianity does not answer the problem, but only gives us a ‘sense’ of a ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ to our lives, which becomes enhanced by the scientific theory of mans existence. For Bair, a person should make the most of their lives (carpe dien-live for today). For him the moral standards and traditions conformed by religious beliefs does not portray the real reason of morality. Morality should not be structured on a punishment-reward basis. To be moral according to Bair is to refrain from doing to others, what if followed reason, they would not do to themselves, and to do for others, if they followed reason, they would want to have done. Being moral does not make ones life worthwhile, it helps others to make theirs so.
Modern post religion philosophers explained meaning in terms of individual experience and judgement, this was known as existentialism. There were many philosophers during the 19th and 20th century that wrote using this theory to explain the meaning of life. However there is evidence of essentialist views in some writings of earlier philosophers. Satre-‘Being and Nothingness’, describes us as ‘individuals and should recognise our own freedom, unaided by society, traditional morality, or belief in God, (3)(Ibid.). Blaise Pascal rejected the theory of ‘rationalism’ offered by Rene Descartes, asserting, in his ‘pensees’ (1670), that a systematic philosophy that presumes to explain God and humanity is a form of pride. Like later excentialists writers, he saw human life in terms of paradoxes: the human self, which combines mind and body, is itself a paradox and contradiction (4)(Ibid.). Kierkegaard, rejected the systematic absolute ‘idealism’ offered by G.W.F. Hegal who claimed to have worked out a total and rational understanding of humanity and history. Kierkegaard stressed the absurdity of life and that a ‘leap of faith’ into the Christian faith although full of risks, would be the only commitment he believed could save the individual from despair (5)(Ibid.).
Like Pascal and Kierkegaard, Heidegger rejected the possibility of understanding the world from the standpoint of a detached, rational spectator, as did Edmund Husseri, the founder of phenomenology. Heidegger’s ‘fundamental ontology’ attempts to uncover the basic. Structures of human existence-such as concern and mood-in virtue of which knowledge and understanding are possible. He argues that a persons usual understanding is dictated by the anonymous ‘public’ or ‘them’, and that the individual authenticity- the prospect that is experienced in the state of angst or anxiety- requires distancing oneself from ‘them’ and ‘resolutely’ forging ones own ‘projects’ and view of things. This sense of potential individuality is reinforced by the sober recognition of morality, since a persons own death, and the way he or she faces up to it, is something that is uniquely his or her own, (1)(Microsoft Encarta)
Due to the vastness of the theories on this subject, the question of ‘what is the meaning of life’ still seems to remain unanswered. Perhaps there are two main interpretations of this question, he that asks about the meaning of life questions first the value of life, is life worth living? Secondly, he questions the aim of life? A common question is whether life is worth living? Again the questioner could be preparing to draw a practical conclusion from a negative answer, or he could ask in the meaning of cheering himself up. The Stotic’s maintained that to console people over the eventuality of death is unnecessary: on the contrary, they must be persuaded that life is worth living (2)(Coming Back-C2)
Since modernity, death has now become a taboo. The threat or death of a loved one is often a main incentive for reflections on the meaning of life. People fear death as a possibility and the death of those close to him as an actuality. The question of is life worth living? Could not only be asked via death, but also when it seems as if one is the victim of undeserved physical and moral suffering, Rudolf Wohlgennant, also concerned with the question about meaning asks ‘has the question of the meaning of life any meaning? (3)(Hanfling-C2). To him a person who describes himself as meaningful would do so because his life is successful and contented. For Wohlgennant life would be meaningful for a religious believer as they define meaning to be in the keeping of God
To conclude on a question such as ‘is a life that could be lived forever more meaningful than one that would end?; is a difficult. With so many theories offered any given answer could be argued against. In the eyes of Christianity, an endless life is a meaningless one, we are here to serve God, that is our purpose. However, for a non religious person that would not answer the question for them. For the existentialists theory, the term itself suggests one major theme: the stress on concrete individual existence and, consequently, on subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice. Even if you lived your life believing in one of these theories, you could still question what’s it all for? For T. Nagal (4)(Ibid.).C6), our lives are absurd; ‘The absurdity of our lives- arises by the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, our open to doubt’’; For him the ‘collision is within our selves’’(5)(Ibid-C6); ‘Our absurdity warrants neither that much distress nor that much defiance’’. It could be
said that a meaningful life is a subjective question to each individual, depending on how their life is lived. Which ever way you look at it, because to me there is no defiant answer, a life that could be lived forever carries a further question, ‘Would a life that could be lived forever eventually become boring?
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Oswald Hanfling- LIFE AND MEANING.-Pub-Blackwell 1996.
Adam Schaff- A PHILOSOPHY OF MAN.-Pub- Kossuth Printing House 1963.
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada- COMING BACK.-Pub Bhaktivedanta Book Trust 1982.
Olaf Stapledon- PHILOSOPHY AND LIVING.-Pub-Pelican Books 1939.
Microsoft Encarta 99 Encyclopaedia.- Existentialism- Microsoft 1993-1998.
