Moliere once said, “We only die once…and for so long!”[1] of all the subjects that have remained unclear and marred by uncertainty is the subject of life and death. Very many people have tried to understand what life is and the purpose of our existence on earth. However, there has never been summative explanation generally accepted by all.
The only thing that remains generally and undoubtedly acceptable is that there is inevitable death and that it is appropriate to prepare for it. This paper tries to explain the meaning, structure and purpose of life. It draws from different writings and personal philosophy and revelation.
The question of the meaning of life can be discussed from various perspectives (Christiansen, Baum & Bass-Haugen, 2005). Down history lane, the question has been a topic of argument from philosophers, in religious cycles, in science and even personal motivations. In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato argued that life is nothing but the pursuit of the apex of knowledge. From this knowledge, the definition of good can be established.
It is from this definition that one derives value of goodness and justness. He argued that it is the moral responsibility of man to pursue good. However, it is not possible to attain the apex of this knowledge without applying philosophical reasoning. To Plato, this is the meaning of life. He believes that man came into existence in order to promote good through philosophical reasoning that would later lead to knowledge. Looking into this argument, it is clear that virtuous living forms the foundation of Plato’s argument.
It is true that man has a moral obligation of striving towards good. This could be the explanation of what happens when one veers of this moral avenue. Due to the defiance of the original expectations and purpose of life, life becomes difficult and unbearable. This argument can be developed further based on philosophers of the Hellenistic period (Seaman, 2005).
On their part, Hellenistic philosophers argued that life was nothing but a pursuit of virtues that are compatible with nature. They further argued that it is the sole responsibility of a person to be self sufficient and to hold the reigns of his mental attitude. They argued that happiness would only be achieved if individuals learnt to understand nature and what it expected of them.
They would only attain happiness if they were taught on how to control their mental attitudes. They argued against the pursuit of happiness through wealth, fame and power. It is clear that both Plato and the Hellenistic philosophers agree to one point which is the desire for good.
They both believe that the moral obligation of man is to ensure that they strived to achieve goodness. However, their arguments on how this good is acquired are where the difference comes. While Plato believes that good can be attained only through knowledge which is only attained from philosophical reasoning, Hellenistic philosophers argue that good entailed acting upon factors that help the individual to stay in compatibility with nature (Marcellino, 1996).
My conception of meaning and purpose of life can be derived from both arguments. I believe that life is founded on the fulcrum of virtue. Virtue, which, according to Hellenistic philosophers is acting in the natural human ways, is the same as good which according to Plato leads to knowledge that would lead an individual into attaining relevant skills for existence on this earth. In the contemporary picture, one can realize that it is natural that an individual learns how to cope in the world.
It is necessary that one learns what is necessary in this short life. For instance, one should have the ability to identify the role of simple things in the general pursuit of happiness. Simple actions like helping an old man cross a road, contributing to charity, volunteering to work in orphanages, sending Christmas gifts to the poor, et cetera are actions that bring great satisfaction and sense of happiness within an individual. I therefore tend to believe that man was originally created to be just and virtuous.
This argument position is consistent with both the Hellenistic philosophers and Plato. I argue that happiness is derived from doing small things as mentioned earlier. It is therefore not about how much wealth one has but about how much heart one has. This is what the Hellenistic philosophers argue. Of how much benefit will it be to own the whole world when deep inside of you the feeling of guilt and social irresponsibility haunts you?
How would one feel if he had everything he needed, a lot of money, luxury cars, real estates et cetera but if he knows that the money was gotten from oppression and theft that subjected some people to sorrow? Without doubt, the person will feel the guilt. He will feel the pain deep inside. A small voice will keep screaming to him whenever he sees the agony of the people he oppressed before landing the wealth.
This has meaning. It is a clear indication that life is originally virtuous. Virtue is not meant to be for life but life is virtue itself. Deviation from virtue is as good as deviation from life. One cannot be able to live comfortably if he does not conform to virtue. Trying to live outside of virtue is like trying to live without life. Impossible! Life is virtue.
There is a design to life. There is some formula that must be adhered to for any chances of happiness and deep satisfaction. A design or model offers guidelines upon which something can be defined (Hua, 2003; Baggini, 2004). As Hellenistic philosophers argue, happiness can be achieved if human beings try to live natural to human beings (Walker, 2000). This statement carries a lot of weight in my conception of the design of life. The originator of life gave a definite design to this phenomenon.
There is an aspect of naturalness that must be adhered to. This naturalness is maybe what we are calling virtue. But there is a design which, to me, is incompatible with every artificial thing. It has been argued in almost every quarter of the society that money is the root cause of every problems of man. On its part, industrialization has led to development of certain diseases directly or indirectly.
The same industrialization has led to destroyed ozone layer leading to global warming that has led to diseases, hunger, flooding, et cetera. Human philosophy and cultural beliefs that do not have their roots in the original designers’ expectations have led to problems within human circles. For instance, the definition of success has led capitalism and individualism, which are not within the original design.
Deviation from the design would automatically lead to strife. This brings up the question of alienation. Charlton (2002) argues that human beings feel alienated from the world.
They tend to find themselves as strangers in a world that is also strange to them. They feel like they don’t belong in this world. It is like they were dropped here by some one who later left them without telling them where they are or what they are supposed to do. It is evident that this feeling has assumed an upward trend in the contemporary times (Kubler-Ross, 1969).
Why is it that more people than ever are continuously getting to see life as a meaningless venture that is incomprehensible and a riddle that cannot be solved. What was it in the older days that people lived satisfactorily without much ado? Borrowing from Charlton’s argument, the feeling of alienation is an, “accidental and harmful side effect of useful mental abilities”[2]. These mental abilities are a result of man’s adaptation to survival.
Charlton clearly points out that the sense of alienation and meaninglessness of life can be traced down to man’s deviation from hunting and gathering way of life. There is a lesson here. A great proof that life has a design which was originally imparted upon man can be identified from this argument.
Initially, the creator of man designed a particular design for life upon which adherence could guarantee satisfaction and happiness. Again, this leads to Hellenistic philosopher’s approach to life. There is a natural way that man was expected to live. This is the design. This natural way is what Hellenistic philosophers identify as the natural human nature that leads to happiness (Jewell, 2003).
Having understood the design of life, what then, is the purpose of life? Iris (2002) gives a beautiful picture that can be used by an individual to define the purpose of life. Unlike most people perceive it; the word purpose is not what you do but what you are. In her words, it is not the doing-ness but the being-ness. Finding the purpose of life through doing-ness can lead to alienation and further confusion.
After excelling in career, in sports, in wealth creation et cetera, one might not find solace. They eventually prove meaningless (Byock, 1998). Therefore, purpose of life is not what one eventually does. It is the being-ness. It is taking purpose as a vessel (expensive and prestigious) which holds inside of it life itself. Therefore purpose, which is the vessel, determines the value of the content, which is life in this context.
Therefore, purpose of life is the being-ness. She further points out the components of the being-ness. The three components are who you believe and know you are deep down inside of you, your values and vision of the world and what you believe is possible for the world. The purpose of life is therefore, being the true you, having a vision that is defined by the true you and believing that the world can be good for every individual.
In conclusion, looking around all the arguments above, one thing stands out, the questions of what life is, what the purpose of life is and what is the design of life tend to drive towards a single explanation.
That life was creatively designed and was given a purpose and a design upon which deviation can lead to sorrow. From Plato to Hellenistic philosophy up to the contemporary arguments, there is a need for promotion of virtue naturally. There is need for identifying the natural part of human-ness which Iris refers to as the purpose and vessel of life.
Any deviation from the original purpose leads to suffering and sorrow and that is what is visible nowadays. Many unnatural philosophies and physical activities like desire for wealth have led to the deviation from the natural design. Happiness will only be achieved in the world if people understand the relationship between life, purpose and design. By understanding this, they will be able to live within the design of life and thus live happily.
Reference List
Baggini, J. (2004). What’s It All About? Philosophy and the Meaning of Life. New York: Granta Books.
Byock, I. (1998). Dying Well: Peace and Possibility. New York: Riverhead Books.
Charlton, B. (2002). What is the meaning of life? Animism, generalized anthropomorphism and social intelligence. University of New Castle. Web.
Christiansen, C., Baum, M. & Bass-Haugen, J. (2005). Occupational Therapy: Performance, Participation, and Well-Being. SLACK Incorporated.
Curtiss, F. (2003). Why Are We Here. CA: Kessinger Publishing.
Hua, H. (2003). Words of Wisdom: Beginning Buddhism. New York: Dharma Realm Buddhist Association.
Iris, H. (2002). What is my purpose? Business Know-How. Web.
Jewell, A. (2003). Ageing, Spirituality and Well-Being. Boston: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
Marcellino, D. (1996). Why Are We Here?: The Scientific Answer to this Age-old Question (that you don’t need to be a scientist to understand). Lighthouse Pub.
Seaman, D. (2005). The Real Meaning of Life. New York: New World Library.
Walker, V.H. (2000). The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life. Perseus Books.
Footnotes
- Curtiss, F. (2003). Why Are We Here. CA: Kessinger Publishing.
- Charlton, B. (2002). What is the meaning of life? Animism, generalized anthropomorphism and social intelligence. University of New Castle. p. 1.