Hmm, I don’t find your conclusion very satisfying Steven. There seem to be only two possible options for explaining the fact that we exist: either we have been deliberately brought into being by, let’s say, God, or, we have just unintentionally happened into existence.

If our existence is the result of some blind, unconscious, cosmic accident, then it follows that there is no particular way things are supposed to be – one state of affairs is just as “right” or “wrong” as another. Essentially those moral terms would have no ultimate meaning.

Of course, anyone can make up claims such as, murder is wrong or, whales are good, but that wouldn’t make those claims true in such a universe. Hitler would be just as good/bad as Mandela.

Logically, nihilism would be the correct understanding of things, but I think nihilism, fully grasped, would be much more devastating to the human psyche than you seem to suggest. A life where absolutely nothing matters and where there is no meaningful distinction between good and evil, would be enough to drive someone crazy. Perhaps that is what happened to Nietzsche.

You make reference to the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. That book certainly does not contain the full message of the Bible and I would suggest that you read the gospels to get a better picture.

Thank you Steven for this thoughtful article.

Yes, no-thing lasts forever, every-thing changes and every-thing will have an end, this is the very nature of the world of things.

But is the world of things the ultimate reality?

The concept of "thing" is an invention of the human mind, based on the empirical experience that reality can be broken up into fragments that can be related and compared with one another. Any of these fragments is temporary, possibly serving a purpose, then disappearing and merging back into the whole. This viewing is convenient, but is this the truth?

It is like the waves of the ocean: they seem to be separate, and it is practical to see them as such, but at the end of the day they all merge into one another, yet the ocean remains. Both waves and the ocean are and always been one and the same - WATER!

The world of things is a convenient illusion.
It constantly breaks down and will eventually disappear altogether, people and all beings included, but reality itself always stays and is not affected.

We can never observe movement without some stable/constant point of view.
We could never observe change (including birth, growth, decay and death) without an unchanging background.

Living in this practical but illusory world of things, some people did and some still do, erroneously think of God also as a thing, which prompted Nietzsche to declare, "God is dead", for had God been a thing, then indeed He would now be dead.

Nietzsche was correct in a way, but only that which never changes and never dies is worthy of the name 'God'.

Dear JP,

«There seem to be only two possible options for explaining the fact that we exist: either we have been deliberately brought into being by, let’s say, God, or, we have just unintentionally happened into existence.»

Consider the third option, which is the view of the Upanishads: we have always been, we are beginningless!

«If our existence is the result of some blind, unconscious, cosmic accident, then it follows that there is no particular way things are supposed to be – one state of affairs is just as “right” or “wrong” as another. Essentially those moral terms would have no ultimate meaning.»

In essence yes, no-thing has a meaning.
In essence also, if we dig deep all the way, we do not even exist.
Reality is well beyond words and minds, hence beyond any meaning.
Yet so long as we relate to each other in a relative manner as thing-to-thing within this relative world of things, morality does matter.

«You make reference to the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible. That book certainly does not contain the full message of the Bible»

The Bible is a collection of books by different authors. Some, like Ecclesiastes, are real spiritual gems, yet others, sorry to say, are just national/political rubbish.
Having mentioned the gospels, yes, they may have a message, yet the Bible as a whole does not.

.

Dear Emeritus Professor,

.

You ask :

« Does anything we do matter? Why bother striving when the universe seems indifferent and "the paths of glory lead but to the grave." »
.

We human beings are a part of nature, like the birds and the bees and the coconut trees, the mountains, the rivers, lakes, seas, oceans, the sun, the moon, the stars, the planets, and everything else in the universe.

We are all made of the same stuff. All life forms : animals (including us humans), plants, and microbes — share many of the same genes. And if, as it seems likely, life emerged from inanimate matter, the animate and inanimate must also have something in common.

So, allow me to pose the question more broadly, more inclusively : « Does anything nature does matter ? ».

In other words, is anything nature does important, significant, or of any consequence ?

Of course it is – all of that !

Nature has produced us and developed us as conscient beings endowed with the faculty of free will.

What we do with nature's gifts is up to us.

We can strive to do something worthwhile that we consider “matters” – irrespective of the judgment of “the universe” – and whatever the consequences.

Or we can just take it easy and watch the world go by.

.

The meaning of life is to have and to hold. That state is Heaven. Accumulation.
The meaning of death is to have not and to lose: That state is hell. Diminishment.
(I fail to see any heterogeneity involved in life or death, as you do in your ocean Yuyutsu).

Some are happy living in Hell, take for example the residents of Gaza. Implacable reductionists.

On the other hand, and shining example of extremes, are Speculators; the implacable Donald Trump for example, now tweeking the world view to one of happiness through accumulation by speculation.

In words from Monty Pythons: Life’s a piece of #, just get on with it, and…
“always look on the bright side of life”.

http://youtu.be/X_-q9xeOgG4

Hello Yuyutsu- just briefly, once you make the assertion, “we do not even exist”, then I think you absolutely preclude the possibility of any further meaningful interaction.

It would be completely non-sensical for me, who allegedly does not exist, to try to engage with you, who allegedly does not exist either. If neither of us exist then . . . . . . . . . . !

Unless you are willing to retract that claim, which I expect non-existent you will (somehow!) choose not to do, then unfortunately there is nothing further worth saying to non-existent you.

Dear JP,

«once you make the assertion, “we do not even exist”, then I think you absolutely preclude the possibility of any further meaningful interaction.»

There is deep truth in what you say, a truth which does not even depend on what I assert or on what you think as a result.

Let alone a "meaningful" interaction - ANY interaction (meaningful or otherwise) is not possible unless there are two distinct interactors.

So are there really two of us?

For practical purposes we claim (or more accurately, pretend) that there are two of us.
That is not the absolute truth, far from it - in absolute terms that statement is false, but in relative terms I refer to the above claim as a transactional truth, because without it no transactions would be possible... and we do, so it seems, like to transact... even if it means that we need to introduce some ignorance for that purpose, to obscure the absolute truth that we are one.

Yes, in order to interact and engage, which is something we both seem to enjoy, we need to set the truth temporarily aside, we need to shut one eye so to speak, but let us not shut both eyes, let us not become so absorbed and lost in our conversation that we forget the truth so completely that we then later find it difficult to remember.

Sorry Yuyutsu – but I cannot see how that makes any sense. It seems to be just one contradiction piled upon another. You seem to be saying something but in the end, for me at least, it is all just a meaningless word salad.

Dear JP,

I think I understand why you see contradictions - we commonly think that the truth is only one, that if something is X then it is not Y.

But in reality there are several levels of truth.

In my first example, we call something a "wave", which is true on some level, it is not an utter lie, yet that truth is superficial and soon stops to be true as that wave breaks down and merges with the other waves of the ocean.

On the other hand, a deeper truth sees the same as "water", and water remains water for much longer than a wave remains a wave.

Even water does not remain water forever, so likewise one can refer to the same as "oxygen and hydrogen" - that is an even deeper truth and even more permanent.

And so on, one could call the same "a salad of protons, neutrons and electrons", or even "a salad of sub-atomic particles", or following Einstein's E=mc², one could go even deeper and call it "energy". The deeper we go, the more true our statement - but also the less practical it is, and less useful for verbal transactions.

The assertion that we are two separate existing entities, is a practical one and is true on some superficial level, yet if we are after deeper and lasting truth, then ultimately we are not two, we are not separate, we are one, only God is.

Nihilism cannot be contradicted on superficial terms, superficially it seems correct, but only until we dive deeper towards fundamental truth, only then it is exposed as false.