Essay, Research Paper
My Personal Search for a Meaningful Existence
I am the representative embodiment of my nihilistic culture. I am
narcissistic, insatiable, petty, apathetic and I am above all an emotional
invalid. Yet, up until very recently, I was not consciously aware that I was
guilty of having any of these wholly pejorative attributes, because I had
unconsciously suppressed my inherent will to attain a meaningful existence, in
favor of the comfort and security that complacency and futility provide. There
exists in me a void, that is not uncommon to find in the members of my
Eurocentric society, which is derived from the conscious or unconscious
knowledge that our culture is entirely devoid of meaning. This is, more
specifically, the plight of my generation, which has been defined by its
disillusionment, apathy and inaction, rather than its accomplishments, beliefs
or ideologies. Escapism is the safety mechanism that enables our flight from
actuality, and subsequently our ability to exist, because we have been cursed
with a wealth of advantages and a lack of restrictions. For example: I am free
to choose my own religion, I am not stifled by or subjected to economic
disadvantage, I am not bound to subservience by an oppressive or tyrannical
government, I am blessed with a myriad of conveniences by my technologically
advanced society, and I come from a nurturing and supportive family, so who the
hell am I to complain about my circumstances. The only explanation I can give,
in retort to my profession that I have been cursed by my inherent advantages,
is: since my life is completely devoid of any profound suffering, it is
subsequently lacking any meaningful happiness, because man only experiences
these feelings in terms of their relative relationship to one another. Thus, I
vainly invent my own wholly unfounded reasons to bemoan my existence, in the
same way that a hypochondriac invents his psychosomatic illnesses, because the
longer we feign to have a justifiable cue for suffering, the more that that
suffering actualizes itself. The primary source of my anxieties is derived from
the inherent knowledge that I am condemned to be free, in a society of
relatively few restrictions, which subsequently requires me to be the master of
my own destiny. Thus, I am not only culpable for determining my own fate, but I
am also wholly responsible for finding a meaningful purpose in my existence,
which instills me with an intense feeling of trepidation, because I’m not sure
I’m ready to shoulder such a profound responsibility. I live in a nihilistic
society, that is founded on man’s narcissistic will to pleasure and power, that
is run by the ?all-powerful? green, and that is defined by its laziness and lack
of tradition. Thus, it seems almost futile to search for a meaningful existence
in our Western culture, because it is this very society that has taught me my
convoluted and misplaced system of priorities and beliefs, but man can find a
meaning for living regardless of his predicament. Therefore, in this paper, I
will attempt to redefine what I believe is the essence and meaning of my human
existence, by combining the meditations of a variety of different philosophic
thinkers with the conclusions I have attained through the contemplation of my
own personal experiences.
Nihilism is the characteristic value-disease of our times. The word
comes from the Latin root for nothing, and it describes the belief that human
values have no evacatory or meaningful power. Although there have been
transient episodes of nihilism throughout our species’ cultural history, the
label is usually applied to the crisis of valuation that now infects our Western
culture. Friederich Nietzsche, the famous German ?existentialist? philosopher,
predicted that the traditional European system of beliefs, which are primarily
derived from the teachings of Christianity and Greek Philosophy, would be
questioned, and subsequently abandoned during the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries. He believed that with the widespread proliferation of education
people would start exercising their free-will, and temporarily abandon the ?herd
mentality? that has historically caused the masses to ?blindly? accept the
ideology of others. Nietzsche prophetically predicted that with this newly
acquired freedom of thought, and the subsequent ?death? of traditional European
values, people would frantically search for, and embrace, new, false sources of
meaning. He included as examples: the forthcoming of cataclysmic wars, the
proliferation of materialistic greed, and the pursuit of ever more powerful
forms of intoxication, all of these theories coming to their fruition during
this century. The traditional European values that have defined our culture for
centuries are certainly not yet extinct, but their prevalence and influence has
been severely curtailed, subsequently creating a state of confusion that has
given way to one of the most tumultuous eras in history. This century has seen
the rise to power of maniacal demagogues, like Hitler and Stalin, the
devastation of two World Wars, the political influence of imperialistic
corporations, and the creation of a widespread drug culture. We have not yet
awakened to the necessary evolution that is required to cure our diseased system
of values, because we refuse to see fault in them out of cowardice. Thus,
Nietzsche concludes that mankind, through its inherent fear of leading a
meaningful existence, has become so far removed from God that we have, in fact,
killed him.
As Nietzsche predicted, we live in a convoluted world of misplaced
priorities, where the will to a meaningful existence has been all but replaced
by man’s constant flight from actuality, which is derived from an inherent
inclination to intellectual laziness. If a person becomes consciously aware of
the perversity of our Western culture, they will undoubtedly become severely
depressed and disillusioned, but this realization can be ?cured? in any number
of ways. A person can completely lose themselves in their occupation and daily
activities, subsequently becoming a ?machine,? believing their worth is measured
solely by their level of production. A person can adopt an opinion as an
absolute doctrine, such as racism, giving them a convenient ?scapegoat? for
their shortcomings, and absolving them of all feelings of responsibility and
culpability for their actions. A person can compensate for their lack of a
meaningful existence by attaining wealth, power, and prestige, vainly mistaking
these impostors, consciously or unconsciously, as modes of attaining happiness.
A person can lose themselves in the delusory would of ?Dionysian? pleasures,
such as: drugs, alcohol or sexual conquest, existing only to enjoy the transient
and fleeting flight from reality that is derived from orgasmic euphoria.
Finally, a person can join a collective organization or cause, in order to
escape from the responsibilities that exercising their free-will and expressing
their individuality entails, in favor of subjecting themselves and succumbing to
the beliefs of others. In the preceding examples there is a unifying theme of
escapism, which comes from man’s innate fear of taking control of his own
destiny, because he does not want to be responsible for his own misfortunes.
The journey to a meaningful existence is a frightening undertaking, because it
requires an arduous and diligent pursuit of one’s goals, regardless of the
suffering and pain attaining it entails. It means making your own decisions,
with the hope that the results will prove to be advantageous, and accepting them
even if they end up proving otherwise, because man can often derive more
profound meaning from his suffering than he can from his success. That is why
Nietzsche says: ?That which does not kill me, will only make me stronger.?
The man in Dostoyevsky’s essay, ?Notes From Underground,? professes to
having invented a meaningless existence for himself so that at very least he
could live in some way. In my opinion this is not a testament to nihilism, as
it explicitly appears to be, but rather the reflections of a man who has become
conscious of the lack of meaning in his own existence. It is a celebration of
human individualism, which this ?acutely? conscious man regards as both the
absurdity of existence, and the essence and meaning of being human. Thus, he
considers his consciousness to by a blessing as well as a curse, because if he
were completely unaware of his seemingly absurd situation, he would be able to
act instinctually and unconsciously without being inhibited by his ability to
reason. The narrator argues that independence of choice is dependent upon not
only the ability to act in accordance with what a person believes to be
beneficial and good, but also the ability to act in a way that will inflict
suffering and pain. The propensity of man to act in direct conflict with what
he consciously believes to be beneficial, is a concept Edgar Allen Poe called ?
man’s inherent perversity,? which is the theme of many of his most famous works,
not the least of which is ?The Imp of the Perverse.? The man from ?Underground?
explains this enigmatic phenomenon by saying that the conscious man delights in
suffering because it is the source of his consciousness, because without it
there would be nothing left to contemplate. Similarly, he professes that man
ironically seems to enjoy entropy and disorder, because the reason for his
existence is based on his trying to attain meaning, but never actually achieving
it. That is, because once a person realizes all of their goals, and is
enlightened to the meaning of his life, there will no longer be any reason for
him to live. Therefore, man thrives on the process of attaining meaning, even
though he doesn’t want to actually attain it, which is a fundamentally absurd
theoretical concept, but nonetheless, is the most integral component of our
existence. The man in ?Notes From Underground? simultaneously alerts us to the
inherent absurdity of our nature, while celebrating our ability to freely chose
our own destiny, because he is conscious of man’s plight of constantly
struggling to attain an unattainable goal.
Albert Camus’ essay ?The Myth of Sisyphus,? is an allegory about the
absurdity of human nature, in which Sisyphus is the quintessential absurd hero.
This man, sentenced to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain and
then watching its descent, is damned by the Gods to the unspeakable task of
spending eternity exerting himself toward accomplishing nothing. But Sisyphus
is conscious of his plight, and he surmounts it by concentrating on his freedom,
his refusal to hope, his scorn of the Gods, and his passion for life. His
inherent knowledge that there’s no end to his suffering, is similar to the
plight of mankind, who is forced to live in a world with no absolute meaning.
Thus, the absurd person must demand to live solely with what is known and to
bring nothing that is not certain. In the case of humankind, this means that
all I know is that I exist, that the world exists, and that I am mortal. In ?
The Myth of Sisyphus,? Camus opposes himself to the rationalism of classical
philosophy, which seeks universal and enduring truths and a definite hierarchy
of values and truths. He believes that truth is only found by a subjective
intensity of passion, and our value is determined by our freedom and our revolt.
Thus, the only joy we have is in knowing that our fate belongs to us and in our
defiance and struggle to overcome death.
Camus, Dostoyevsky an
little what reason we continue to struggle so long as we testify to man’s
allegiance to man and not to abstractions and ?absolutes,? which completely
negates the possibility of faith and religion. I wholly agree that there is no
one unifying meaning to man’s existence which transcends all things, but in my
opinion this does not mean that I should automatically believe that all abstract
things are false. I think that having faith is an integral component of leading
a meaningful existence, particularly considering the only things that I know
with absolute certainty are, I exist, the world exists and I am mortal. There
is certainly room for religious faith in our existence, provided that we do not
completely indoctrinate ourselves to believe that the scripture and values of
that faith are entirely true. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism not only
deny a man’s freedom and individuality, but also make him potentially dangerous
to others, because he starts believing that anyone that does not share his
system of beliefs is his enemy. Therefore, I believe, in order for a religious
faith to be ?healthy,? a person needs to practice their religion without
inhibiting their individuality, and furthermore, by entertaining the possibility
that their faith might potentially prove to be in vain. These same principles
hold true for secular forms of faith, such as the belief in a particular
political ideology or social cause, because like a faith in religion, they are
beneficial as long as they are not taken to an extreme. I share this belief
with William James and Viktor Frankl, who agree with many of the fundamental
ideas of existentialism, but also stress the importance of faith in leading a
meaningful existence.
William James’ essay, ?The Will to Believe,? uses the traditionally
scientific method of empirical study to describe philosophic ideas that have
generally been discussed in terms of their certitude and objective evidence.
Empiricism is a regard to matters of fact as hypotheses liable to modification
in the course of future investigation, and he uses it as a method of finding
meaning in human existence. James ardently resists using an absolutist approach
to studying philosophy because he believes that, although it is possible to
attain truth, we can’t infallibly know when we have with any certainty. The
empiricist, like the existentialist, believes that it is impossible to know
something for certain, but instead of giving up hope, he continues to quest for
the truth, because he still has faith in its existence. James believes that the
only way that man can come closer to understanding the meaning of his existence
is by collecting a wealth of experiences, and then pensively reflecting upon
them. He believes that, in life, the quest for the truth is paramount, and the
avoidance of error is secondary, in making decisions and performing actions.
Therefore, James is critical of skeptics who suspend their judgment about a
hypothesis simply because they want to avoid being wrong at all costs. It is no
profound revelation that a person who has confidence and faith that they are
going to succeed are much more likely to achieve their goals than a person
filled with trepidation and self-doubt, but the most important thing is for that
person to accept failure graciously. James sums up this belief when he says, ?
Act for the best and hope for the best and take what comes.? We must have faith
in our convictions, because insight of logic is not the only thing that
influences our creeds, there is also the emotional component. Pascal call this
the ?heart,? a force that is wholly independent of reason, when he says: ?The
heart has its reasons that reason knows not of.? The inherent influence of
emotion on a person’s decision making process can provide the cue to accept
something solely on faith, because passion and love are often the source of
irrational behavior, and that is not necessarily a pejorative thing. For
instance, if I am madly in love with a woman, there is no possible way for me to
ever know for certain whether or not she feels the same way about me. Thus, I
am forced to either accept that she will reciprocate my love on faith, and risk
the frightening possibility that she won’t, or live my life as a cynical and
melancholy bachelor, constantly pondering about what could have been. Despite
the overly-simplistic nature of my example, which bears a striking resemblance
to ?Pascal’s wager,? there is little doubt that it is beneficial to accept
things on faith, regardless of the potentially pejorative consequences, because
a person who relies solely on their rationality is damned to become an emotional
invalid.
Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning, is composed of two
distinctly different parts: the first section is an autobiographical account of
his traumatic experiences in the Nazi death camps, and the second part is a
description of his personal theory of psychoanalysis, which is called
logotherapy. For the purpose of this paper I am going to concentrate solely on
the second section of this book, because I only have time enough to briefly
summarize some of its major ideas. Frankl’s theory of logotherapy, in its
simplest form, is the psychoanalytical process that assists a patient in
discovering the meaning in his or her life. It evolved out of his ability to
derive meaning in his own existence, while he was being subjected to the brutal,
naturalistic, and dehumanizing suffering of the Nazi concentration camps.
Frankl, during his captivity, was robbed of his family, his pride, his
possessions, and his health, but he was miraculously able to survive because he
was wholly committed to the furthering of his work and the love of his wife.
Logotherapy was also created to provide its patients with a compassionate and
nurturing view of human existence, which is a component that is missing from
nearly all other approaches to psychotherapy. Since most people have enough to
live by, but essentially nothing to live for, the goal of logotherapy is to make
people feel responsible to life for something. Frankl is essentially an
empiricist in the tradition of James, because he believes that the meaning in a
person’s existence can be discovered in the experiences of his external
environment, rather than buried in his subconscious. Thus, when a person
forgets himself, by giving himself to a cause or to serve another, the more
human he becomes and the more he actualizes himself. This theory should not be
misconstrued to mean a person should abandon their free will, it simply means
that the best way for a person to learn about himself is through his
relationship to others. Frankl, like many other existentialist thinkers,
believes that the essence of life is suffering, and to survive is to find
meaning in that suffering. Thus, when a person chooses to be worthy of their
suffering they gain the capacity to surmount their outward fate, and
subsequently their inner-anxieties and neuroses. It is certainly no surprise
that chief among Frankl’s concerns is the rapid proliferation of nihilism in the
twentieth century, a phenomenon which he has named the ?existential vacuum.? It
is a neurosis that is often derived from boredom, which makes it seem like a
benign illness, but it is often responsible for creating the foundation, from
which, many other much more serious conditions arise. Depression, aggression,
addiction and even suicide have been directly linked to nihilism and the ?
existential vacuum?, therefore, it is not to be confused with simple laziness
and apathy, and it should not dismissed as a petty problem. Frankl, like James,
refutes the doctrine of monism, because he believes the meaning of life is a
wholly personal experience that is constantly changing. Thus, it is not man who
is asking the meaning of life, but rather, it is man who is questioned by life
to find meaning, and man’s response should be to become vigilant in his pursuits,
responsible for his actions and consciously contemplative of his situation.
I live in an culture that is obsessed with opulence and ostentation,
instant gratification and overnight success, and above all the escape from
actuality at any cost. It is a time when problems are solved by synthetic means
and meaningful spirituality has been all but replaced by self-help seminars and
twelve-step programs. The Western world has invented a ?cure? for almost
everything: if a person is feeling depressed they see their pharmacist, if they
have low self-esteem they see their plastic surgeon, if they feel unfulfilled
they learn how to get rich by buying and selling real-estate with ?no money
down,? if they have trouble expressing their emotions they join a support group
or buy the instructional ?books on tape,? and if they don’t have the money for
these things they can always charge it to their credit card and worry about it
later. The computer is slowly eliminating the existence of necessary human
interaction: it is replacing meaningful human knowledge with an overload of
primarily useless information, it is substituting ?virtual reality? for actual
experience, and it is helping to burgeon a generation of ?hackers? and video
game champions, rather than intellectuals and athletes. It isn’t hard to
imagine why our culture is now comprised primarily of narcissists and nihilists,
myself inclusive, because we have forgotten how to interact with each other, let
alone how to lead a meaningful existence. I was not conscious of the void in my
own existence until I read the literature required of this course, and now I am
trying to systematically redefine my misplaced values and beliefs by combining
the teachings and ideologies I have learned, with my own personal experiences.
As I mentioned before I have been fortunate enough to come from a fairly
affluent and nurturing family, but in my opinion, the lack of misfortune and
suffering in my experiences has caused me to live without questioning why,
because I have never had a profound enough reason to question the meaning in my
life. I believe that I am fortunate to have been enlightened to my nihilism,
because many people in my culture do not become aware of the lack of meaning in
their existence until much later in life, when it is affectionately called a ?
mid-life crisis.? I wholly agree with the existentialist belief that there is
no determinism, and that man is free to be the master of his own fate. I also
believe that man’s existence depends on suffering, because it not only can
provide a person with a profound source for meaning, but it is also provides the
necessary comparison by which success and happiness are measured. My beliefs,
like those of James and Frankl, divulge from the theories of existentialism at
this point, because I value faith to be an integral component of my existence.
I have a devout faith in the existence of God, an afterlife, love, and truth,
although I know that during my lifetime I will never know with any degree of
certainty whether any of these things exist. Now comes the hardest part, which
is finding out what the meaning of my existence is, and to be perfectly honest,
at this point, I have no idea what it is. Perhaps it is simply to discover my
calling in life while I am still young, after all I only became conscious of the
utter lack of meaning in my existence a short time ago. Nevertheless, I am
wholly confident that I will find something, by which, or for which to live in
the near future, because as Nietzsche brilliantly stated: ?He who has a why to
live, can bear almost any how.?