The quest for God is, to a large extent, intertwined with the search for the meaning of life. The answer is unknown, but mankind has to make its choices nonetheless. The situation is quite similar to Nietzsche's 'even if God didn't exist, he would need to have been invented'. Thus, we have invented answers, lies though they may be. The journey of life is too onerous if you do not start with an assumption (and assumptions are all we can make), even if it is a belief in nihilism. The answer differs for the atheist and the believer, and even though there are further sub categories for each, it is a nice place to start.
For the believer, the purpose of life is defined by his religion. But contrary to what people proclaim, believers are few and far between. The believer, generally speaking, sacrifices this life for a better time beyond. Sacrifices have to be made, except in certain sects where the journey itself is the reward. In most cases, the Mullah and the priest live a life of celibacy to enjoy material comforts thereafter. That, in the world of accounting, is just deferred taxation. It does not explain the purpose of life anymore than an examination conducted by God to check if you can be promoted. The Buddhist belief that humans should strive to attain Nirvana strikes a chord though. That is an instance where the journey too is a glimpse of Nirvana. But I shall handle the religion part later.
For the atheist, life is driven by science. With no reincarnation or afterlife in the picture, there are only two possible purposes of life. One, where man attempts to maximise his happiness earned over a lifetime. Two, where the purpose of mankind, like any other species, is to propagate and sustain itself. The former worldview is that of hedonism, and that is what majority of the world is engaged in. For is that not the cornerstone of capitalism - the general upliftment of mankind if everybody starts thinking of what's best for him? The trick here is to choose between materialism, where the path is well defined but doomed; or spiritualism, where the track of the atheist intersects with that of the believer. In any case, the path of maximising happiness demands a separate study in itself, so we shall leave it at a few conclusions. One, that since happiness is to be maximised for the entire lifetime and not for a single moment, it throws up a lot of dilemmas over a lifetime. For instance, do I watch this film or study for a better future? Should I vent my anger to feel satisfied or control it to avoid prison? Two, the idea of what makes one happy changes dynamically, making it difficult to decide on a course of action. To give an example, a child might like to become a soldier because he likes to play with guns, but the joy is short lived even if he continues to pursue this path.
The idea where man solely exists to procreate and sustain mankind is interesting. Now that we are too many in number, reproduction has taken a backseat. What might be crucial though is to ensure that mankind survives for as long as possible. The pursuit of immortality is, therefore, not the goal of the individual, but of mankind. It is this thought that makes scientists scan for habitable planets, and taken to an extreme, manifests itself in the theory that we too, are aliens on this planet, transported long back from a dying star system.
So then, what is the purpose of life for the ideal man? Logically then, it is to consume minimum resources and to ensure that posterity has a better chance of survival. The flawed man, on the other hand, is one who despite the best genetic makeup, comes up with a destructive concept like the nuclear bomb, or the AK-47. It is not science that is to be feared though, but the conduit where it is channeled. Thus, where Oppenheimer takes a beating, Jonas Salk comes out with flying colours. Where do the spiritual and philosophical luminaries like Vivekananda, Spinoza or Descartes stand in this worldview? On a high pedestal, because, in the words of Neitzsche, they bridge the gap between man and superman. They hasten up the evolution of mankind, for the next leg has to come at the mental plane, not the physical one.
For the believer, the purpose of life is defined by his religion. But contrary to what people proclaim, believers are few and far between. The believer, generally speaking, sacrifices this life for a better time beyond. Sacrifices have to be made, except in certain sects where the journey itself is the reward. In most cases, the Mullah and the priest live a life of celibacy to enjoy material comforts thereafter. That, in the world of accounting, is just deferred taxation. It does not explain the purpose of life anymore than an examination conducted by God to check if you can be promoted. The Buddhist belief that humans should strive to attain Nirvana strikes a chord though. That is an instance where the journey too is a glimpse of Nirvana. But I shall handle the religion part later.
For the atheist, life is driven by science. With no reincarnation or afterlife in the picture, there are only two possible purposes of life. One, where man attempts to maximise his happiness earned over a lifetime. Two, where the purpose of mankind, like any other species, is to propagate and sustain itself. The former worldview is that of hedonism, and that is what majority of the world is engaged in. For is that not the cornerstone of capitalism - the general upliftment of mankind if everybody starts thinking of what's best for him? The trick here is to choose between materialism, where the path is well defined but doomed; or spiritualism, where the track of the atheist intersects with that of the believer. In any case, the path of maximising happiness demands a separate study in itself, so we shall leave it at a few conclusions. One, that since happiness is to be maximised for the entire lifetime and not for a single moment, it throws up a lot of dilemmas over a lifetime. For instance, do I watch this film or study for a better future? Should I vent my anger to feel satisfied or control it to avoid prison? Two, the idea of what makes one happy changes dynamically, making it difficult to decide on a course of action. To give an example, a child might like to become a soldier because he likes to play with guns, but the joy is short lived even if he continues to pursue this path.
The idea where man solely exists to procreate and sustain mankind is interesting. Now that we are too many in number, reproduction has taken a backseat. What might be crucial though is to ensure that mankind survives for as long as possible. The pursuit of immortality is, therefore, not the goal of the individual, but of mankind. It is this thought that makes scientists scan for habitable planets, and taken to an extreme, manifests itself in the theory that we too, are aliens on this planet, transported long back from a dying star system.
So then, what is the purpose of life for the ideal man? Logically then, it is to consume minimum resources and to ensure that posterity has a better chance of survival. The flawed man, on the other hand, is one who despite the best genetic makeup, comes up with a destructive concept like the nuclear bomb, or the AK-47. It is not science that is to be feared though, but the conduit where it is channeled. Thus, where Oppenheimer takes a beating, Jonas Salk comes out with flying colours. Where do the spiritual and philosophical luminaries like Vivekananda, Spinoza or Descartes stand in this worldview? On a high pedestal, because, in the words of Neitzsche, they bridge the gap between man and superman. They hasten up the evolution of mankind, for the next leg has to come at the mental plane, not the physical one.
No comments:
Post a Comment