"There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation" - Donald A. Crosby
"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself" - Jean Paul Sartre
Finally I am back after a long time. But still unable to think I decided to write some excerpts from my diary, on which I have been scribbling for the past four years.
I've been considering and rewriting this particular post for a few months now. My problem is the approach. Given that I've had such difficulty I'll try to be straight forward and see how everything turns out. Simply put, my query is that if we were in fact made then what is to be gained from the existence of humanity? Not in the form of a metaphorical or existential quandary rather a very literal what is the end goal purpose of the human race. Assuming we were designed I would imagine it was with a purpose even if that purpose was to satisfy some curiosity. I can not conceive a scenario in which any sort of omnipotent or omniscient deity would be responsible in particular considering any flaw in a creation reflects a flaw in the creator therefore if it was a deity they could not be considered either. Even if the flaws were intentional to some unknown purpose.
I see the potential for where we could have been created and yet I see no evidence of that being the case or to be more precise being that if that is the case then there was no follow through once the experiment started. In opposition, I see the potential for how we were born of chaos which I see plenty of support for and yet that too is incomplete. One particular point of interest is that if we were of chaos and therefore have no implicit purpose, how then among the chaos have we established dominance and mastery essentially removing ourselves from the chaos while remaining within it?
For those of you that would dare to bring religion directly into this discussion let me just shut you down right now. If we were created as glorious representatives of some all powerful being and that's all, then that all powerful should be damn ashamed of itself. Not only is that level of egotistical vanity so far off the charts but they clearly failed or if they succeeded then we need only look at the failure itself that is humanity as a representative of how horrific such a being is. Humanity is clearly not something worthy of praise and if there is such a vain being then it too is unworthy of praise.
Jean Paul Sartre, in his book "Being and Nothingness", gave a very nihilistic view of life that it has no inherent purpose. It is up to you to make your own purpose in this life and your pursuit of your own purpose is what will define you. This is a question of what the human race as a whole is meant for if it was created on purpose by something capable of such creation rather than by chance.
If we were created the only conceivable ends to our purpose, is our end itself to which I find ample evidence to, suggest that if we were created it was to study the nature of death itself. Not only are we to study it but also to provide example for others to study, others being not only ourselves but our creators if that is the case. In this potential scenario of intelligent design I understand how every facet of our existence is created to perpetuate an experiment revealing the details of life and death on a scientific level so they might be understood by others.
The question then if that should be the case is what would happen to humanity when the experiment ends? What if it has already ended? If death is now understood completely and entirely by the creator/s then what are the results and how should the experiment end?
Approaching the concept of humanity as if I were using it as an experiment using deductive reasoning I can only conclude that death is the most likely purpose of the experiment and on that note I have yet to discover a proper dissolution of the experiment given that I am not as objective to the concept as I should be. I can only imagine that our end would come suddenly if at all perhaps the experiment was designed so that we will destroy ourselves as a final test or proof of theories or that we will be allowed to continue without interference to establish secondary attributes of death such as addiction or contagiousness either of death directly or power over death. Though it may be far beyond that and it may also be simply that the experiment is nowhere near completed yet which only leads me to question what the next round of tests will be like...
"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself" - Jean Paul Sartre
Finally I am back after a long time. But still unable to think I decided to write some excerpts from my diary, on which I have been scribbling for the past four years.
I've been considering and rewriting this particular post for a few months now. My problem is the approach. Given that I've had such difficulty I'll try to be straight forward and see how everything turns out. Simply put, my query is that if we were in fact made then what is to be gained from the existence of humanity? Not in the form of a metaphorical or existential quandary rather a very literal what is the end goal purpose of the human race. Assuming we were designed I would imagine it was with a purpose even if that purpose was to satisfy some curiosity. I can not conceive a scenario in which any sort of omnipotent or omniscient deity would be responsible in particular considering any flaw in a creation reflects a flaw in the creator therefore if it was a deity they could not be considered either. Even if the flaws were intentional to some unknown purpose.
I see the potential for where we could have been created and yet I see no evidence of that being the case or to be more precise being that if that is the case then there was no follow through once the experiment started. In opposition, I see the potential for how we were born of chaos which I see plenty of support for and yet that too is incomplete. One particular point of interest is that if we were of chaos and therefore have no implicit purpose, how then among the chaos have we established dominance and mastery essentially removing ourselves from the chaos while remaining within it?
For those of you that would dare to bring religion directly into this discussion let me just shut you down right now. If we were created as glorious representatives of some all powerful being and that's all, then that all powerful should be damn ashamed of itself. Not only is that level of egotistical vanity so far off the charts but they clearly failed or if they succeeded then we need only look at the failure itself that is humanity as a representative of how horrific such a being is. Humanity is clearly not something worthy of praise and if there is such a vain being then it too is unworthy of praise.
Jean Paul Sartre, in his book "Being and Nothingness", gave a very nihilistic view of life that it has no inherent purpose. It is up to you to make your own purpose in this life and your pursuit of your own purpose is what will define you. This is a question of what the human race as a whole is meant for if it was created on purpose by something capable of such creation rather than by chance.
If we were created the only conceivable ends to our purpose, is our end itself to which I find ample evidence to, suggest that if we were created it was to study the nature of death itself. Not only are we to study it but also to provide example for others to study, others being not only ourselves but our creators if that is the case. In this potential scenario of intelligent design I understand how every facet of our existence is created to perpetuate an experiment revealing the details of life and death on a scientific level so they might be understood by others.
The question then if that should be the case is what would happen to humanity when the experiment ends? What if it has already ended? If death is now understood completely and entirely by the creator/s then what are the results and how should the experiment end?
Approaching the concept of humanity as if I were using it as an experiment using deductive reasoning I can only conclude that death is the most likely purpose of the experiment and on that note I have yet to discover a proper dissolution of the experiment given that I am not as objective to the concept as I should be. I can only imagine that our end would come suddenly if at all perhaps the experiment was designed so that we will destroy ourselves as a final test or proof of theories or that we will be allowed to continue without interference to establish secondary attributes of death such as addiction or contagiousness either of death directly or power over death. Though it may be far beyond that and it may also be simply that the experiment is nowhere near completed yet which only leads me to question what the next round of tests will be like...
0 comments:
Post a Comment