Why are We Here--any reason?

I thought that it might be a good idea to take some time to address some of the critiques of the Neo-Stoic ideal I discussed in my book, Meaning in a Hostile World.  The one I will address in this article says that my approach, like that of any naturalist philosophy, fails to account for our existence.

What do I mean?  In other words, it does not address the issue of why we are here—as distinct from how we got here—or even why the universe exists.  This is a natural criticism, one that should be expected, and one that we can blame, ironically, on one of the greatest philosophers of the western world—Aristotle.

How so?  He said that there were four categories of causes: the material cause, efficient cause, formal cause, and the ultimate or Final cause.  He concluded this from looking at common artifacts and realizing that each could be described in these categories.  Take a simple three legged stool: the material cause would be the wicker, the wood, and the nails or glue, the “stuff” it takes to make it.  The efficient cause would be the labor to cut and assemble the parts.  The formal cause would be the plant behind the stool, and the ultimate or Final Cause would be the reason for making it.  Did you make it to use yourself, or to sell to another?  Whatever the answer is, that would be the Final Cause in this case.

This works well, of course, with artifacts; they are made by people—and at least  chimps, I admit—for specific functions.  The problem is that this reasoning may not—and, of course, I think does not—apply to natural objects.  An igneous rock may have a material cause—the lava or magma from which it forms—and an efficient cause, the eruption and subsequent cooling, but does it have a formal cause and a final cause? Is it even an artifact at all, or is “artifact” a word that applies only to human made objects?  The burden of proof, of course, would be on those who insist that every object is, in fact, an artifact.

Because our own actions are usually purposeful, and that of animals is often, or at least seem to be, purposeful, primitive people often assumed that nature itself was purposeful.  Do the plants grow well because it rains, or does it rain SO THAT the plants will grow?  The latter was the assumption throughout much of human history.

Hence, we often attribute purposeful actions to nature, and can assume that everything has a cause in the sense of having a purpose.  But, there is no reason to make that assumption, is there?  We cannot explain why the universe is here, because the question is illegitimate.  Of course, there will always be people who ask the question, but children also ask “why” to everything, and insist that the question simply MUST have an answer.  Adults know better; some questions don’t have answers, at least easy ones, and we have to be willing to say so.

The Purpose of Philosophy

Over the centuries, the purpose of philosophy has changed, and I think the change has not been for the better.  The Hellenic and Roman cultures, philosophy was intended as a guide to life, to living a meaningful existence.  It was not, at least in intent, an academic exercise--although of course there were those frauds for whom the teaching of philosophy was just another way to make a living, as there will be in any age or culture.

In our world, philosophy is coming to mean analytic philosophy, but that is only a small part of its function.  Of course we have to analyze events, experiences and so forth, but we should do so with the intent of creating a meaningful whole, a coherent view of the world.  This does not mean that we should create fantasy worlds ala Plotinus or Porphyry, but it does mean that it should provide a reasonable guide to how to live.  It must address the significant events in peoples' lives, such as disappointment, the grief over the loss of a loved on, and so on.  If it does this it can attract the interest and devotion of the educated populace that wants a rational guide to life, and not surrender the field to superstition. 

Immortality as the Search for Meaning

Is the belief in, and the desire for, personal immortality ultimately the result of a desire for meaning in one's life?  I think so, and here are the reasons why I say that:

In the classical Hellenic and Roman cultures, the belief in some form of personal immortality, at least a meaningful one, was absent from the traditional culture.  In the Iliad, when Achilles sees the ghost of Paris, he says, Amazing, even after death something remains, but there is no heart of life in it.  Whatever immortality there was, to the Hellenes and Romans, a shadow existence not worthy of the the name.  Yet, by the end of the Roman Republic, the quest for some form of life after death was a central part of much religious practice.  What changed?

This is what I think changed everything: the death of the free city-state, and its replacement by the large bureaucratic empire.  Most Greek states had been swallowed up by the despotic Hellenistic kingdoms like that of the Ptolemies, the Seleucid Empire, Pontus, Pergamum, and so forth.  In the free city states, which were small, the individual counted; he could make his mark, he was known.  This was true in the Roman Republic as well.  Each citizen who owned property could state his views and vote for candidates for office and actually participate in the enactment of legislation.  He had some control, at least, over the laws that bound him and regulated his life.  (Contrary to popular belief, the Senate did not make laws.)  With the death of these free republics, meaningful citizen participation ended. The free citizen of a Republic had become the helpless subject of a despot.

It is about this time that we see the increase in the popularity of the mystery cults, in their focus on personal survival and meaning after death.  Is it surprising, when this life had reduced people to cogs in a bureaucratic machine?