What is the purpose of my life?
A good place to start with these questions would be to ask what is meant by purpose, and furthermore to clarify what the frame of reference is of the life. I find the question to be slightly strange when applied to a living organism. If we take the same question and apply it to a tree, a few possible answers can arise. Firstly, from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of the tree is to reproduce its genetic material. If the tree was planted by a person, we could perhaps say that the purpose of the tree is to grow and provide shelter or shade. This brings us to another relevant question, can purpose be derived independent of minds?
Do reproducing biological entities have a purpose imbued on them by simply being? Or are they deterministically following the laws of nature? I tend to find explanations of the latter kind more convincing. If purpose is defined as the 'reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists' then I cannot see how it can be applied to life or the universe as I currently understand it. If each part of the components of the definition is broken apart this becomes apparent.
What is the reason for which a tree reproduces (reproduction being the only ultimately relevant action of an organism)? A tree reproduces because its genetic material is expressed phenotypically in such a way that the tree reproduces. This then becomes circular, and it can be extrapolated backwards all the way to the origin of life. The other two components of the definition do not seem to apply, as no purpose is imbued on a given tree from its parent (the only applicable instance of 'creation' in the life cycle of a tree), which is only mindlessly following its biologically determined 'imperative' to reproduce. The final component of the definition can perhaps be applied in the instance mentioned earlier, if it was planted by a mind for a desired purpose. However this purpose is also spurious in my mind, as it could only accurately applied to the reason why the tree is in that location, or pruned in such a way, and not applied to the life of the tree itself. Even if the tree is only being kept alive by conscious effort from a mind, I do not see how purpose can be assigned to anything other than the reason for the tree's continued existence as a living organism, still not to its life as a whole.
Most of this can be applied to any other living thing on this planet, including us. Is the purpose of a human whatever its parent(s) decide for it? I doubt I would find many people to agree with that. Is it the purpose of humanity to simply reproduce, as an evolutionary imperative, like every other species out there? Again, I doubt many would agree with that. What then gives us purpose? To me, the answer is clear, nothing. Outside of our own desires there is nothing to really build a strong case for some kind of objective purpose to anything, not that a subjective preference-driven purpose is solid, far from it, but it seems to be all we really have.
Showing posts with label Self-determination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-determination. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Monday, October 7, 2013
Nihilism and Socialism
Continuing from the last post, I do not think it is possible to have anything that could be described as meaningful self determination without a political/economic system like socialism, and that in a fully capitalist system it is impossible.
What does it mean to be able to determine one's own course in life? I would imagine that under any definition, the ability to decide what to do with your life would be fundamental; to be able to choose your own educational path, and to choose a career path. However I would argue it can not involve anything akin to laissez-faire capitalist (or anarcho-capitalist) notions of liberty, which I shall call economic nihilism (more on this in a later post). This is because in order to be able to choose educational and career paths you first have to have options available to you. Under a system of economic nihilism however, having options available to you is not universal, or inherent in the system, in fact such a system rejects from the outset any patterned distribution.
Even the most one-eyed capitalist enthusiast will likely acknowledge that under such a system, the distribution of liberties and freedoms mirrors the distribution of wealth. Those with the greatest amount of wealth would have almost unhindered levels of self-determination while those, who by no fault of their own are born into poverty on the other hand have nothing of the sort. Wealth and income inequality as you are probably aware are at a staggering level which compounds this objection to the system; this means that there are very few people with a lot of freedom and a large capacity for self-determination and a lot of people with very little of either. However, even in a mixed economy, with lower entry levels into education through subsidies, government funding for arts, and a strong safety net for unemployment even those from the lower ends of the socio-economic distribution hypothetically have a chance to 'make it'.
This concept of 'making it' from conditions of relative poverty I find problematic too. This is because the concept itself is rooted in competition. It is all about rising to the upper echelons of the socio-economic distribution and the increase in quality of life and self-determination that goes with it. What would a system look like that is built around the ideal of maximising self-determination across the board? I envisage a society where all are provided for and losing your job doesn't mean destitution. Every individual would have equal access to a quality education throughout their lives, meaning that education is free. If it is a wage-based economy, the minimum wage would be tied to a maximum wage, to ensure that whatever path one takes in life they and their potential children will not be disadvantaged. The point of this is that such a system would at the very least resemble something that would be described by most as socialism.
What does it mean to be able to determine one's own course in life? I would imagine that under any definition, the ability to decide what to do with your life would be fundamental; to be able to choose your own educational path, and to choose a career path. However I would argue it can not involve anything akin to laissez-faire capitalist (or anarcho-capitalist) notions of liberty, which I shall call economic nihilism (more on this in a later post). This is because in order to be able to choose educational and career paths you first have to have options available to you. Under a system of economic nihilism however, having options available to you is not universal, or inherent in the system, in fact such a system rejects from the outset any patterned distribution.
Even the most one-eyed capitalist enthusiast will likely acknowledge that under such a system, the distribution of liberties and freedoms mirrors the distribution of wealth. Those with the greatest amount of wealth would have almost unhindered levels of self-determination while those, who by no fault of their own are born into poverty on the other hand have nothing of the sort. Wealth and income inequality as you are probably aware are at a staggering level which compounds this objection to the system; this means that there are very few people with a lot of freedom and a large capacity for self-determination and a lot of people with very little of either. However, even in a mixed economy, with lower entry levels into education through subsidies, government funding for arts, and a strong safety net for unemployment even those from the lower ends of the socio-economic distribution hypothetically have a chance to 'make it'.
This concept of 'making it' from conditions of relative poverty I find problematic too. This is because the concept itself is rooted in competition. It is all about rising to the upper echelons of the socio-economic distribution and the increase in quality of life and self-determination that goes with it. What would a system look like that is built around the ideal of maximising self-determination across the board? I envisage a society where all are provided for and losing your job doesn't mean destitution. Every individual would have equal access to a quality education throughout their lives, meaning that education is free. If it is a wage-based economy, the minimum wage would be tied to a maximum wage, to ensure that whatever path one takes in life they and their potential children will not be disadvantaged. The point of this is that such a system would at the very least resemble something that would be described by most as socialism.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Self-Determination and Privilege
I wanted to write a post elucidating my thoughts on the interaction between Nihilism and Socialism, but I think I need to write about the concept of self-determination as I see it first.
To me, self-determination means having the ability to shape your course in life. I have this in excess, and am extremely privileged to have it (if it can be described as an it?). As a teenager I was encouraged by my family to explore my passions and interests, so I did. I got really into music, played in several bands, and eventually decided to go and study Jazz at university. I later decided that being a professional Jazz musician was not for me, so switched degrees and started studying biology and statistics instead, and was supported through this transition. On top of this, I live in a country where, assuming you have sufficient support (government assistance really isn't enough) you can do this. I'll get more to this point in the next post I have planned about Nihilism and Socialism.
A while back a friend asked me what the relationship was between atheism and privilege, and I had to think about it for a while. The capacity to form independent opinions on metaphysical issues at odds with your instilled cultural values seems to me to be largely contingent on education and socio-economic privilege. So it could be said that Atheism in the modern western sense, particularly the odious brand of it dubbed 'New Atheism' is a first world phenomenon. Most people struggling to get by in third-world countries don't have the luxury to set time aside to study philosophy and contemplate the existence or non-existence of gods and their place in the universe. So while I don't think there is any 'privilege' associated with atheism itself, there does seem to be a correlation between socio-economic privilege and 'New Atheism' at the very least.
Following from this, self-determination in your direction in life is also contingent on privilege. People in poverty typically have greatly diminished options in life, often being forced out of economic desperation to go straight into work if they can find it straight after high school or even drop out early to support their family. This happens in so-called first-world countries. So it follows from this that the distribution of privilege in the capacity that it allows an individual to meaningfully determine their own course in life is not equal. In a capitalist system, those with more wealth are accorded more freedom to do whatever they want in life, to the point where in some capitalist societies *cough* America *cough* they apparently have the freedom to buy politicians, and rig the political system in their favour.
To be continued soon, hopefully.
To me, self-determination means having the ability to shape your course in life. I have this in excess, and am extremely privileged to have it (if it can be described as an it?). As a teenager I was encouraged by my family to explore my passions and interests, so I did. I got really into music, played in several bands, and eventually decided to go and study Jazz at university. I later decided that being a professional Jazz musician was not for me, so switched degrees and started studying biology and statistics instead, and was supported through this transition. On top of this, I live in a country where, assuming you have sufficient support (government assistance really isn't enough) you can do this. I'll get more to this point in the next post I have planned about Nihilism and Socialism.
A while back a friend asked me what the relationship was between atheism and privilege, and I had to think about it for a while. The capacity to form independent opinions on metaphysical issues at odds with your instilled cultural values seems to me to be largely contingent on education and socio-economic privilege. So it could be said that Atheism in the modern western sense, particularly the odious brand of it dubbed 'New Atheism' is a first world phenomenon. Most people struggling to get by in third-world countries don't have the luxury to set time aside to study philosophy and contemplate the existence or non-existence of gods and their place in the universe. So while I don't think there is any 'privilege' associated with atheism itself, there does seem to be a correlation between socio-economic privilege and 'New Atheism' at the very least.
Following from this, self-determination in your direction in life is also contingent on privilege. People in poverty typically have greatly diminished options in life, often being forced out of economic desperation to go straight into work if they can find it straight after high school or even drop out early to support their family. This happens in so-called first-world countries. So it follows from this that the distribution of privilege in the capacity that it allows an individual to meaningfully determine their own course in life is not equal. In a capitalist system, those with more wealth are accorded more freedom to do whatever they want in life, to the point where in some capitalist societies *cough* America *cough* they apparently have the freedom to buy politicians, and rig the political system in their favour.
To be continued soon, hopefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)