ANNOTATION:
As it relates to the most influential arguments to date.

“The Meaning of Life”					



 
Ecclesiastes
The seemingly cynical view of life that is presented in this book –one that is paramount to Judeo-Christian theology-- addresses the painful issue of discontentedness that is fixed to human existence on this earth.  The author, traditionally believed to be the wisest and wealthiest man of all time, King Solomon, boldly declares the strivings of man to be ultimately vain.  He says that nothing achieved by man for this life will bring him happiness.  And I think that the manner by which he presents his grim understanding to be quite convincing.
	It is my view that in order to judge the ultimate value of any thing, the final good of that thing must be evaluated in terms of its resulting impact on the environment that it was intended to affect, whether it be the world, humanity or self.  Solomon, in his inspired wisdom, does this masterfully by measuring the ultimate affect of the sum of all mans’ laboring in all areas of life within the universe.  Solomon unabashedly declares that the inability for man to significantly alter the undeniably repetitive cycles of life on this earth gives him no right to claim a sense of fulfillment in the name of achieving progress.  And this I find to be indubitable, for, save the distraction of technological advancements, man, throughout the course of his existence has been powerless to alter the cyclical nature of this creation and powerless to alter his own destiny of death.  
	I firmly believe that we live in a day and age where right thought has been foolishly discarded in the name of tolerance.  People, especially amongst my generation, have been so duped by special interest agendas that they no longer stop to logically examine the things of life, and thus, have mistaken the search for temporary personal pleasures as purpose.  I agree with Tolstoy who states in A Confession: “The fact that some of these people declare the dullness of their thoughts and imaginations to be a philosophy, which they call Positive, does not remove them, in my opinion, from the ranks of those who, to avoid seeing the question [the purpose of life], lick the honey.”  Whether it be loose sexual living, drunken fraternity parties, rebellious body piercing (which is quite conformist in my opinion), obsessive study habits to graduate Cum Lauder, or any variation/combination there of, many people fool themselves by ignoring real contentment and living solely for self wants.  And prior to becoming a Christian three years ago, I used to ascribe to the same “one for all” mentality.  My philosophy was that purpose was found in pleasure and self gain, and unless there was someone out there who had himself achieved every possible want without accomplishing satisfaction, I was going to defend my capriciousness, enter Solomon.   
	My fascination with the Bible was first sparked by the profound, yet simple wisdom of the book of Proverbs.  Later, learning that much of Proverbs was accredited to King Solomon, I was lead to the book of Ecclesiastes, which poetically depicts the disparity of a man (Solomon) who had already achieved absolute power, wealth, wisdom, popularity, prestige and lustful pleasure, yet remained discontent.  I think Tolstoy, again, aptly describes the type of dilemma Solomon must have experienced after his search for purpose outside of God: “My question - that which at the age of fifty brought me to the verge of suicide - was the simplest of questions, lying in the soul of every man from the foolish child to the wisest elder: it was a question without an answer to which one cannot live, as I had found by experience. It was: "What will come of what I am doing today or shall do tomorrow? What will come of my whole life?... Why should I live, why wish for anything, or do anything?... Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?"”  The Truth that both Solomon and Tolstoy came to understand identifies all to be vanity outside of obedience to God.  To “Fear God and keep His commandments, this is the whole duty of man.”  And consistent with the rest of the teachings of the Christian Bible, the goal of man, the summum bonum, is God Himself, who can not be purely communed with until Heaven, thus, man during his earthly existence, unable to break from the cycles of this material universe, can only find contentment in obedience to His will.  This alone can be seen as progress, this alone gives purpose to man’s life.
Death: Solomon, in his worldly wisdom, recognizes death as one of the many undeniable occurrences within the cycles of life on earth: “A time to be born, and a time to die.”  In his Godly wisdom, however, he recognizes the preordained value of death in that it has its “purpose under heaven.”  It also represents the point at which “God will bring every work [of man] into judgment.”  The path of aging toward eventual death is God’s visual aid to man to keep His commandments, for there will be an inevitable reckoning.

Apology of Socrates
I find reading through the logical arguments used by Socrates to combat his accusers much like watching an Olympic wrestling champion handle an overconfident opponent.  The champion wrestler, with his superior understanding of balance and rhythm, is able to redirect the efforts of the less stable aggressor to his advantage.  Similarly, Socrates, with his unparalleled understanding of natural order and the inescapable implications that it has on the human condition, is able to dismantle the arguments of his accusers with seemingly simple logic. 
 In his interrogation of so-called wise men – an act that originated in seeking to disprove the Delphic Oracle’s pronunciation that he, Socrates, was the wisest of all men—Socrates demonstrates the revealing power of the fundamental question “why.”  I believe it is this simple question honestly applied to all things that leads people to the undeniable cause and effect nature of this material existence, and the potential to know thyself and avoid living a purely reactionary existence.   Without asking “why” about a thing, individuals –perhaps inadvertently—claim that they are either wise in that thing or they do not care to be knowledgeable about it, while those who admit ignorance achieve what Socrates demonstrates to be progress towards true wisdom, for who even begins to search for a thing if he has convinced himself he already possesses it. 
What is amazing is the way in which Socrates uses “why” to chip away that which is not Truth, in order to get closer to It.  However, Socrates humbly rejects the notion that he himself has full knowledge of anything: “[The hostility directed at Socrates] is due to the fact that whenever I [Socrates] succeed in disproving another person’s claim to wisdom in a given subject, the bystanders assume that I know everything about that subject myself… but the truth of the matter… is that real wisdom is the property of God.”  Rather than claiming to be wise because of his knowledge of things, he demonstrates his superior understanding of reality by logically negating the weak explanation others give in defense of their own beliefs.  I believe this to be invaluable, for I can think of nothing more debilitating and dangerous to the condition of a man or humanity than a dialectically void acceptance of purpose.
The one particular element of the human condition that I would love to question Socrates on is his understanding of the body’s purpose.  In his quest to know thyself and his claim that the self is soul–hence his bodily death will not harm him— I find it surprisingly presumptuous of him to ignore the possible implications that life in the body might have on man’s ultimate purpose.  If in fact the perfection of one’s soul is of supreme importance, I would think that discarding restraints of such a goal to be beneficial an ideally done as soon as humanly possible.  Such action would make sense if "We approach truth only inasmuch as we depart from life.”  But, if such were the case, it could be argued that suicide and infanticide represent virtuous acts.  That is unless human bodies are the divinely appointed tools through which soul perfection is achieved.  In that case, life in the body would be the/a means to summum bonum, and therefore a good thing itself.   
Death: For Socrates, death is an escape from the confinements of material existence to the more pure state of being as soul.  Death is a welcomed event for him, and he apparently demonstrated this view through his own.



Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle’s examination of the human condition and subsequent conclusion of the summum bonum being the “activity of the soul according to virtue in a complete life,” is probably the most thorough exegesis of happiness out of the twelve philosophies read in this course.  Using what I believe to be a method very similar to Socrates, Aristotle presents and dissects every significant aspect of man’s life as it pertains to his purpose within society.  And while I find it to be more honest than Socrates’ in terms of its recognition of bodily existence, I find his conclusion to be inexplicit.  
	Aristotle, in my opinion, pays too much attention to the requirements necessary for achieving the ideal, eudaimonia, and fails to acknowledge the bent toward evil –for lack of a better word—that man seems to innately posses.  In Socrates’ words I would ask, “Who is the expert in perfecting the human and social qualities” that might instruct another in the art of achieving this summum bonum?  By looking at the state of man, even in today’s “advanced” societies, it would appear that, contrary to the virtue Aristotle proposes,  mans naturally acquired potentiality is evil.  If it were not so, there would be more who selflessly exercised justice, temperance bravery and the like than do not.  
	Death: For Aristotle, it appears that death ends man’s ability to be happy, because happiness is an activity, and never does he refer to the activity—although of a soul—to exist outside of ones earthly body.  I would assume Aristotle did not believe in an after existence in the sense that Christians do. 



Jesus
In stark contrast to Aristotle’s belief that man’s natural potentiality will lead him to virtue and the ability to achieve happiness on earth, Jesus teaches that man must adhere to divine principles that primarily oppose the nature of his heart in order to understand happiness, the full manifestation of which will not take place until he dies. 
 The unparalleled profundity of this philosophy on the purpose of man’s life lies in the uncompromised declaration that man, in his natural condition, is fallen and unable to achieve goodness in and of himself.  In fact, the stated “Beatitudes” with which Jesus begins the immortal “Sermon on the Mount” clearly illustrate the uniqueness of this thinking in that those lives declared “Blessed” poses the characteristics most outside the Christian faith call cursed.  I am certain, however, that His point is not that suffering yields happiness, but that it yields brokenness which is necessary to achieve what Socrates thought to be the most important of all human accomplishments: knowing thyself.  It is this transformation to understanding one’s own helplessness and sinfulness --unique to Christianity-- that enables the heart to see man’s dependence upon God, for from God alone is provided the basic necessities of life like food and clothing as well as a clear understanding of the order of His Devine Creation and the purpose for which man was made.    
	In my biased opinion, Jesus’ version of man’s summum bonum is the most accurate and logically digestible of any philosophy.  Even with pride’s refusal to accept a destiny of servitude, I have never heard any argument refuting Biblical Christianity that could make me question Jesus’ description of the human condition.  By truly accepting Jesus as Savior, the universal quandaries surrounding the issues of evil, existence and eternity are solved, for He is “…The way the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father (the Summum Bonum) but by Me.”  Before my personal acceptance of Christ, the discontentedness that I saw in the lives of almost every person I knew, including my own, caused me to think that people’s attempt at happiness was actually taking them further from it.  It reminded me of a saying that salesmen use when business is slow: “Rather than continuing with the approach you’ve been using, do everything the exact opposite.”  Similarly, Jesus tells us that we are to die to the “old man” and the self-guided approach we have failed to achieve satisfaction with, and submit to the unusual and often uncomfortable commandments of God.  To change one’s life from bios (natural) to Zoë (supernatural).  Then, and only then can man “rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is [his] reward in heaven.”
	Death: The Bible teaches that death, although a part of the curse brought about by man’s sin, enters man into the most significant chapter of his existence.  It is at death that man’s true identity becomes evident to him as he enters into the presence of his Creator, that is unless, predestined for Hell, he chose to live a disobedient existence on earth and has been eternally damned to a place void of God’s presence.  For the saved, Death is ultimately a good thing, because of the eternal Glory that follows, it has lost its “sting.” 

The Consolation of Philosophy
In reading through the telling dialogue of the imprisoned Boethius and Lady Philosophy, I could not help notice the strong similarities between this portrayal of the human condition and that taught by Jesus.  It is clear that the unjustly accused Boethius, while awaiting his trial and certain execution, becomes overwhelmed by the disparity of his predicament and loses his sense of reality.  Having become entangled in self pity, Lady Philosophy appears to save Boethius from the deception of his emotions and restore to him the divinely enlightened perspective of Truth, which enables him to reconcile his current situation and sense of purpose.
	Much like Jesus (and Solomon for that matter) who tells believers to turn focus away from things of the world and on to that which pertains to eternal existence, Lady Philosophy works to “brush away from his [Boethius’] eyes the darkening cloud of thoughts of matters perishable.”  The loss of worldly freedom and ability to pursue natural human passions is what drives Boethius to discover a purpose outside of the tangible world, he realizes that much freedom –which his wealthy upbringing once afforded him—can fuel thought and action contrary to what is good.  Boethius determines to chase after spiritual goods rather than the earthly which, despite their deceptive attractiveness, can be taken from him.
In his cell he recognizes “How often, care, when fanned by earthly winds, grows to a larger and unmeasured bane.”  I find this poetically described tendency of man to be one of the predominant ills of our own society, for the great freedoms our nation’s international power and economic prosperity afford citizens is often what keeps them too distracted to notice the triviality of their concerns.  We have done what Boethius warns against and fallen victim to our ignorance of the duality of our nature, we have forgotten the one and embraced the other, and thus “rejoice to call things by false names which belong not to them.”  But for Boethius, and the wise alike, in recognition of those things, that “their names are refuted by the reality of their qualities,” freedom can be achieved and happiness with it.  I wonder what inspiring philosophies would surface if all men were at one point in there lives stripped of all worldly comforts.
Death: I would think that Boethius would welcome Death.  Recognizing that purpose must supercede circumstance, I think that he would perhaps not happily embrace his own death, but rationalize its ultimate good in its preordination by the Supreme Good.

Summa Theologiae
St. Thomas Aquinas presents what is unquestionably the most mathematical approach to analyzing the possible candidates for human happiness I have seen.  Although a little tedious to read, the systematic reasoning he uses provides for clear and yet profound deductions about the condition of man.
	What I found to be most enlightening about Aquinas’ argument for the summum bonum is presented within his examination of Whether Man’s Happiness Consists in Honors.  In it, he presents an essential principle that I have always identified with but have never been able to adequately portray: the inherent truth that sources for real happiness can not be contingent. 
In proving that honor is a condition dependant not on one’s own excellence, but ultimately on “him who honors,” it became clear to me that ultimate happiness must be fundamentally detached from every created thing.  If this were not so, then it could be argued that there are those who, because of their particular circumstances –whether it be poverty, disease, disastrous events, mental limitations, etc.—have no opportunity to achieve true happiness and therefore, no purpose to their existence.  Even if one were to argue that existence itself were purpose enough, I can not imagine such logic would provide much solace to that individual who, with no hope for future joy, exists in a continuous state of mental and/or physical anguish.  And if our existence was, in fact, all we had, I think many would find the peace of death a greater good than it.  No, for one to have hope it must be understood that neither purpose nor happiness can be possible outside of communion with an omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal God.
	Death: Aquinas thought of the summum bonum as the final end of all things, the eternal uncaused cause.  And believing in the God of Christianity, I would assume that he too would recognize death as the merciful curse that would bring him into the presence of God.  So death, as a necessary factor (save the occurance of Rapture) in achieving the ultimate Good, would itself be a good thing, at least for those destined for Heaven.

Penses
Pascal, concentrating primarily on the intrinsic wretchedness of the human condition, powerfully argues the necessity for not only God’s existence to achieve happiness, but a Savior to enable fallen man to commune with such Holy perfection.  Whether it is Pascal’s utter genius or my scatter-brain’s preference for loosely compiled thought, I found these Penses thoroughly convincing of this Christian Reality.  
Pascal, like Boethius, addresses the undeniable duality within man.  He demands that man acknowledge the virtual tug-of-war that ensues on the heart as it tries to reconcile an insatiable desire for joy and the vileness found within itself.  For in so doing, man can begin to see clearly that “These extremes touch and join by going in opposite directions, and they meet in God and God alone.”  I find the argument used with his existentialistic logic unique in that he declares a necessity for hope because of the reality of despair, that the examples of wretchedness in man’s life proves the greatness he is destined for.  “So, while the present never satisfies us, experience deceives us, and leads us on from one misfortune to another until death comes as the ultimate and eternal climax… What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace… [and] this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object, in other words by God himself.” It is with this understanding that Pascal fluidly introduces the necessity for Jesus Christ, the Holy Mediator who offers the sole resolution: “uniting in himself the two natures, human and divine, save[s] men from the corruption of sin in order to reconcile them with God in his divine person.”  As I understand it, without Christ, man is faced with a purpose he can not achieve.  Because of the chasm that his wretchedness creates between him and God, no thing save the God-Man can possibly reunite the two “opposite extremes”.  Thank you Jesus!
Death: Pascal recognizes the inherent evil associated with death for he classifies it with the undesirable wretchedness that man finds instead of happiness.  However, as only the realization of one’s own wretchedness can guide him to Christ and true purpose on earth, only death can bring the everlasting joy of communion with God the Father. 

Gotama the Buddha and Hinduism
Both Buddhism and Hinduism, in my opinion, are examples of the dangers that can arise within the human understanding of purpose when the notion of objective reality is ignored.  Although I do not fully comprehend the implications of this concept, I have heard that the theoretical stability that is present in Western civilization and absent in Eastern is due to the difference in recognition of such things.  For example, where we in the West rationalize concepts in terms of “either/or,” Eastern theologians and philosophers often make determinations as “both/and.”  This style of reasoning is especially prevalent within Hindu cultures, and I think responsible for the much of the depravity that exists there.  
With so many optional paths along the mountain of life, it is no wonder that the notions of perversion and extortion are seldom recognized as evil, anything goes because we are all free to choose our path, and “different strokes for different folks.” At its roots, I see no difference between the fundamental principles of Hinduism and the radically liberal “Me-ology” that has been eroding our own nation’s moral foundation for the past several decades.  In order for something to be good, it must be universally good and applicable to all things all the time.  And obviously, because people’s individual experiences and reactions to a thing differ –for example, ones seemingly beneficial gain could result in another’s painful loss-- the good of that thing must ultimately abide beyond man himself, it would abide in an unchanging, objective reality.  With the explicit balance of this universes’ natural order, I struggle to see how anyone could accept the loose explanation of human purpose that Hinduism presents.
	Buddhism as well provides very little logical evidence in my opinion for the purpose of man’s life.  How is it that we all seem to be having the same apparent illusion?  I find it peculiar that Gotama’s initial response to the experience of pain was a desire to nullify it.  This is evident in that he (Buddha) declared Malunkyaputta’s mistake to consist in demanding answers to theoretical/philosophical questions before he would let Buddha cure him of the deadly wound which pained him.  I would like to know why one would chose to eradicate a thing before striving to understand its purpose.  Certainly, pain has its place in life.  Any medical professional will vouch for this fact, noting the deadly potential in taking too many pain killers to subdue the discomfort of serious physical injury.  And that is what I find to be the primary fault with Buddhism, it is nothing more than logical Novocain, numbing the pains of life that are designed to awaken man to his brokenness so he can get to the Physician. 
	Death: There is no Death! 

Civilization and its Discontents
On the very same day that I was planning to read through the assigned section on Sigmund Freud, I happened to catch a program on a local radio station whose host was interviewing a renowned Christian psychologist on the matter of atheism.  Unfortunately, the psychologists name has long been forgotten, but my memory of one particular statement he made greatly enlightened 

REPLY: That was beautiful