|
"Some concept of immortality becomes necessary for keeping life meaningful."
As a matter of interest, something I wrote recently perhaps relevant to your final sentence [conclusion?]:
"
The Bald Toga-Wielding Guru
Welcome to another edition of bald toga! Last issue we raised a great many questions, which we now move on to attempt to answer. This issue we’ll be looking at the question of what there is to live for if you’re an atheist or agnostic. We’ll also expand upon the ideas raised in our discussion of optimum population size and composition last issue, through a look into the Transhumanist school of philosophy.
There is an observable preoccupation throughout society with finding oneself meaningful as an individual. In the short term people seek confirmation of their importance as individuals through acceptance and recognition by others, and by having a sense of purpose. In the long term this anxiety takes on a reflective quality, concerning not just the immediate situation one finds oneself in, but the entire course of one’s life. An inability to find meaning in one’s life can lead to depression, hopelessness and apathy.
Frequently inspired by a mid-life crisis or the over-active, over-sensitive mind of the young, the question “what is my reason for living?” inevitably arises. As religion provides suitable answer to this question, we shall look at the more interesting atheist/agnostic take. Atheists believe that there is no god, while agnostics acknowledge the possibility that there may or may not be a god but are unable to place a belief in either stance. So without the ‘absolute’ direction and justifications of meaning provided by a belief in a God, where does that leave the atheist or agnostic?
Meaning to the atheist or agnostic is relative in nature. From this standpoint, it makes little sense to attempt to break apart the tools we use to break things apart with, so questions of meaning must necessarily be focused on individuals or individual societies, and not the very fabric with which existence is woven. There are several responses available to the atheist or agnostic to the question of life motivation.
A valid alternative to creationism for atheists or agnostics is found in the theory of evolution. One might argue that this theory suggests that our evolutionary history would ‘pre-program’ us with a need to feel meaningful as this serves an adaptive purpose. Under this conjecture the problem of meaning would be reduced to the same superficial level as the problem of feeling hungry or lonely: you satiate it through the short term methods of finding purpose in fulfilling basic wants and setting and achieving personal goals, and then move on to enjoying the awareness, individuality of thought and tangibility of experience that chance has afforded us.
A second response to the question of life motivation comes with the humble acceptance of our limitations in knowledge and understanding. It would be arrogant to suppose that we had determined the be-all-and-end-all of existence. Life-long learning and the active pursuit of knowledge pertaining to the purpose of one’s life can, paradoxically, make a reasonable purpose for one’s life and provide a good source of motivation.
Perhaps the most compelling raison d'être available to the atheist or agnostic comes from actively choosing to value life. By making ‘the experience of life’ valuable and worthwhile, working towards the betterment of future generations and their experience of life becomes a rewarding purpose. The selflessness and transcendence of bodily desires involved in the above rationale are an admirable consequence of the higher-level thinking which has been afforded humanity.
As a final solution to the atheist’s or agnostic’s problem of life meaningfulness, one can recognise that our language – and even our very thoughts – are imperfect and often lead us astray. If an inability to find meaning or value in one’s life results in negative sentiment or outcomes, a reduction in the level of reflective thought and a renewed focus on the external environment can reinspire a childlike wonder and appreciation of the world.
At the end of the first issue of bald toga I posed the following questions: if you could choose the sex of your child, the build of your body, or even the form you inhabit, would you? There is a relatively new branch of philosophy that suggests the answer should be yes.
Transhumanism has descended from secular humanist philosophy, but extends to advocating non-natural means of improving human nature through the direct application of medicine and technology to overcome some of our basic biological limitations. These limitations include the inevitability of ageing, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology and suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth. Existing or anticipated methods of realising this goal include genetic engineering, molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
Philosophical thought on matters such as these raises some interesting ethical questions. For example, if advanced artificial intelligence surpassed us in all aspects, including sentience, feeling and creativity, would we make way for it or would we aggressively defend our personal right to existence in our current form? And if we had the opportunity to evolve ourselves into something beyond what we currently are, to the point where the ‘us’ of today were as extinct as the Neanderthals or the cave men of the past are to us, should we have any qualms over that?
Similar normative questions as those developed in our discussion of optimum population size and composition again come into play. And even if we are able to judge one state of existence as being better than another, for example, the having of more intelligence as being better than having less, to what degree is our pursuit of perfection to be balanced against the reduction in risk associated with diversity? Should we voluntarily accept a degree of imperfection, inequality or suffering as the price paid to ensure we don’t lose all the eggs in the basket if anything goes wrong?
While these questions are certainly worthy of continued thought, I would like to leave you for now with the following: we are all changing constantly, life is transient. In a sense we die every day, as we metamorphose into someone or something new.
"
Copyright© 2003 Principia Cybernetica -
Referencing this page
|
|
|
