Introduction
This essay is about me. Everything is based on my beliefs and how I interpret certain experiences. Throughout this essay, I want to synthesize my interpretations from my experiences and answer the question: “How do different aspects of my knowledge shape my understanding of the meaning of life?”
To do this, I want to put each piece of knowledge on a spectrum between the universe being absurd, or the universe having meaning. In my experience, there are no better books to reference this with than The Stranger, by Albert Camus, and The Alchemist, by Paulo Coelho.
The Stranger
For nothing, I want to base my views off The Stranger.
The Stranger stars Meursault, a completely apathetic narrator. I want to focus on the ending scene, because this is where the philosophy of the book truly comes to life. In this scene, Meursault is sitting with the Chaplain. Although the Chaplain is rambling on about religion, Meursault still keeps his original viewpoint. He rejects the idea of higher meaning and continues to assert his viewpoint, living for the physical experience. He even humorously adds that he won’t call the Chaplain father because he’s not his real father. But the Chaplain keeps talking, and Meursault suddenly snaps. He starts a rant about how to live life and why the Chaplain is wrong. In this rant, Meursault essentially states that everyone is “privileged” with life. Therefore, if you spend your life so you can live better in another life, you are essentially wasting the life you have now. To live life for some higher meaning is to not live at all. Instead of appreciating this absurd life, you become consumed by this search. Therefore, Meursault states that searching for meaning in life is pointless, because there is nothing to find.
The Alchemist
While The Stranger focuses on fulfillment by living, The Alchemist believes fulfillment is achieved by achieving a “personal legend”, their destiny. The Alchemist details Santiago’s journey to fulfill his “personal legend”. The novel emphasizes the idea that the universe gave everyone a purpose and that discovering and pursuing this purpose leads to a meaningful life. One key aspect is that the universe will actively help an individual to achieve this “personal legend”, far from what The Stranger preaches. In addition, instead of living for physical pleasure, Santiago lives to achieve a higher purpose. For example, when Santiago arrives at the oasis, he falls in love with Fatima. However, staying in the oasis with Fatima would end Santiago’s pursuit, so Santiago leaves the oasis to continue his journey. In short, The Alchemist emphasizes chasing a purpose set by the universe. The Alchemist thinks towards the future.
The Video
In 7th grade, my friend sent me a YouTube video, TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time, from some channel called “melodysheep”. Five minutes into the video, the Earth gets destroyed. Then all the stars die out and the black holes swallow up all the remaining matter. It was at this point, the narrator said “life, as we know it, is only possible for one thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billion billion billion billionth, of a percent. (10^(-84)%).” The video went on and at the end, even the black holes disappeared. Then the universe became empty. And time became meaningless. As a measly 7th grader, this video haunted me. For the first time I was confronted with the question: ‘if everything eventually dies, is there really a point in anything?’ I thought and thought and I realized that there would be no difference dying now and dying 100 years from now. I also had the belief that life sucked. I had experienced stress for the first time and I didn’t like it. I wondered when there would be a day without worries. High school? College? Adult life? Retiree? Never. So I believed life just sucked. I had a pessimistic point of view as a 7th grader, but now I’ve matured. Now, I strongly disagree with this belief. Pessimism is just a way to complain about life, and it offers no actual solution to the suffering life provides. In the article, The Philosophy of Pessimism, Mitchell (1886) states,
[Pessimism] declares that all action is suffering, that effort is a pain, and that work is a curse. It knows nothing apparently of the pure joy resulting from the possession of an energy that first conquers itself, and then conquers life in the face of difficulties and obstacles (p. 191)
I want to think about this viewpoint from another perspective, one that will provide a solution to suffering. From this video, I’m told that the universe is absurd because the universe will eventually become nothing. Therefore, my life is pointless and I should be able to enjoy life. No one can tell me how to live, because it doesn’t matter in the end.
Biology
I love science. It’s something I want to major in. Therefore, I must have a belief that aligns with a scientific point of view. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins states that our genes are “survival machines” and prioritize their replication and survival above all else (Dawkins, 1976). In other words, we’re only alive to survive and make offspring. On the surface, this might mean that life’s only meaning is to replicate, but I want to think of it differently. Since our genes say we must survive and keep our genes alive, I must make my life create value to society to not only keep my genes alive, but to keep the overall human gene survive. When I create value to society, I am improving the human condition, and when I improve the human condition, I increase the likelihood that the human gene survives. And this belief isn’t derived from nothing. Dawkins also states that even though genes are selfish, they still act altruistically towards organisms with similar genes to help promote the survival of shared genes (Dawkins, 1976). The biological foundation aligns with this perspective. The intrinsic drive to make society better is deeply rooted in our evolutionary makeup. From my scientific knowledge, I have the belief that my life must create a positive impact for society.
This belief is, in a sense, similar to The Alchemist. Santiago has this inherent spiritual drive to fulfill his personal legend, similar to our own drive of survival and gene propagation.
God
Throughout this essay, I’ve based all my beliefs on knowledge and concrete facts, but I feel like God is a topic that needs its own special discussion. It’s impossible to know whether a higher being is real or not. For that reason I believe it is ok to talk about God abstractly, instead of with definite ideas.
I believe in a god. Doesn’t matter which one. I can’t fully accept that life or the universe just exists. There had to be some higher being that started everything. I know that the Greeks believed in Gods because they couldn’t explain natural phenomena. Obviously now, most of the phenomena that mystified the Greeks can be explained by an 8th grader today. The same could be said here. I believe in a god because we can’t definitively say we know how this universe came to be. But even then, I feel like an exception has to be made. This is bigger than lightning or the tides. Maybe in 1000 years people will know how the universe started, but for now, I feel like believing in a higher being is appropriate, especially with an issue of this scale.
I believe God created our world. If God was the one who created our world, he is also the one who created the genes that give me my “purpose”. Therefore, he is the one who instilled a purpose within me. However, even though he created this purpose, I don’t believe he meant to create meaning in life. I believe we must interpret the world on our own through free will. In The Alchemist, the phrase “Maktub” is used. This phrase means, “it is written”. This could imply that the universe has already set our future, but I interpret it as something else. In the novel, Santiago sees a vision of the Oasis being invaded. However, he is able to prevent this attack from happening. Therefore, although the future may be “written”, we are still given free will to alter it. Likewise, we are all given free will to choose our future and live life as we choose. Again, in The Alchemist, the crystal merchant decides to live his life based on what he believes is right, even if the universe compels him to follow his personal legend.
Synthesis
Even though these beliefs may seem like complete opposites, I still believe they can coexist. For a long time people believed that science and religion could not coexist, but today, the Pope accepts evolution. Two ideas that may seem inconceivable together can still synthesize. For example, Camus doesn’t like religion because he believes that religion solves absurdity. However, there are still similarities between these two beliefs. In the article, The Christian as Camus’s Absurd Man, (Loose 1962) argues that both acknowledge the suffering of the human condition. He also argues that both worldviews embrace the unknowns of life without using concrete answers (Loose 1962). Even if these two concepts seem completely separate there are still similarities. Therefore, I believe that beliefs derived from both texts can become one coherent belief.
I believe the universe will become nothing, and I want to appreciate life like Meursault, because this might be the only life I’m given. Nevertheless, how I appreciate life might contradict with the original absurdist belief. I want to appreciate my life by finding a purpose set by God and by pursuing what I believe to be my “personal legend”, helping society.
It may seem like everything is one big paradox. Since the universe is absurd, I can live life how I want. But at the same time, I want to make the universe less absurd since I choose to live with god. But as I’ve explained, God doesn’t provide meaning to me. He provides free will to explore my beliefs. Therefore, living with God doesn’t make the universe any less absurd. My personal drive becomes my appreciation of life. Additionally, it’s not a universal meaning, because I derive it from myself. As I said in the beginning, this essay is about myself. In essence, I’ve found my “personal legend” and I want to continue pursuing it. But the basis for pursuing this is from an absurdist point of view, I can live life like this because it is my own.
Conclusion
By accepting both the universe’s meaninglessness and the guidance I derive from God, I am able to synthesize my conflicting beliefs into a personal philosophy that embraces both the absurd and the divine. Rather than fighting against each other, these two philosophies intertwine. By embracing both, I create a philosophy that reflects the complexity of life.
References
Camus, A. (1989). The stranger (M. Ward, Trans.).Vintage International.
Coelho, P. (2015). The alchemist. HarperOne.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (30th ed.). Oxford UP.
Furbank, P. N. (2008). Altruism, selfishness, and genes. The Threepenny Review, (114), 6-9.
Loose, J. (1962). The christian as camus's absurd man. The Journal of Religion, 42(3), 203-214.
MelodySheep. (2019, March 20). TIMELAPSE OF THE future: A journey to the end of time (4K) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
Mitchell, E. M. (1886). THE PHILOSOPHY of PESSIMISM. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 20(2), 187-194.
Comments
Post a Comment