The Fate of the Universe and the Meaning of Life

I came across a website www.askphilospher.com and I was wondering if anyone asked a question about Albert Camus and the Absurd and I found an interesting question and three answers. The question was "If every life results in death, then what is the meaning of life?" There were three replies, which were:
"Peter Lipton on November 23, 2005
The meaning of life comes from what you do in your life: your activities and achievements. These are real even though you die, and would be no more real if you lived forever (though admittedly you would have time for a lot more of them).
Alexander George on November 23, 2005
If your life now has no meaning, no value or point to it, then having a lot more of such a life isn't going to improve the situation. A whole lot of nothing doesn't amount to much.
Peter S. Fosl on December 30, 2005
This is a compelling question. I remember encountering it in a powerful way reading Albert Camus's essay, "Absurd Reasoning." Recently, a student of mine broached it during a discussion we were having about the condition the universe seems to be heading towards. It seems, I'm told, that everything in the universe will ultimately degenerate into a vast, endless, more-or-less uniform, horribly cold and dark field of low-level radiation. Some call this condition, the final destination of the universe, "entropic hell."

In light of this apparent fact, the relevant question concerning the meaning of life is this: since everything we accomplish will ultimately be destroyed and degenerate into "entropic hell," what meaning can anything have?

I think there's something misleading about his question, however, something that lurks in a hidden assumption that the question makes. The question and its force rely largely on the assumption that life has meaning only if it lasts forever. In my view, this is a dubious assumption, and indeed one that plagues a good deal of our culture's thinking about value.

Far from being a necessary condition for meaning, I think that immortality and endless existence would actually undermine the meaning of life.

Consider the issue this way: would life be as meaningful or even meaningful at all if it weren't finite? That is, if we lived forever would much or anything matter to us? Perhaps the avoidance of physical pain would still matter, but simply not being in pain seems to be a relatively meaningless affair. Don't many of our projects have meaning for us just because we know that one day we and they will come to an end?

The very fragility of things gives us reason to care what happens to them, to defend them and us against harm or diminishment. When you can just start over or always have a substitute, things don't really matter. Because, however, things are finite and we know we're going to die our actions count. We'd better get things right because we're not going to get another shot.

Consider an imaginary world I call "Plentos." In Plentos people live forever, or at least as long as they wish. There are no shortages of any kind in Plentos. Every kind of food is available in limitless supply. Land of every description is available to all. No one wants for speedy, effective medical care. Everyone is omniscient.

In Plentos, life could not be meaningful."

To piggyback on the Peter Fosl's reply I thought about another analogy as well, if life was like a book, as a book have a beginning, for it to be meaningful it must have an ending. However, if a book never ended; how could one get a meaning out of a never ending story? As Dr. Fosl brings out the finite reality of something gives it its meaning. This is why Nietzsche brings out the problem of "other worldliness" of religion especially Christianity and Islam, it devalues this life by creating the idea of an afterlife. As a result, if you are certain of an afterlife would you really value your health, loved-ones, time, the environment, blow-up yourself on a bus or in a market full of people, fly airplanes into building, etc? I think so because you're certain that you'll get a second chance or a continuance of some type of existence. However, would you do this if you knew this is the one and only life you'll ever live? Think about it...

Black Socrates

King Tut Unwrapped and need for Critical Thinking

Last week I watched the Discovery Channel King Tut Unwrapped. In the documentary, allegedly the truth about King Tut is finally revealed; however, I think it open up more questions than it answered. One important question is what is King Tut's Y-DNA and mt-DNA Haplogroups? First I think it is important to discuss what's a haplogroup, and why do geneticists concentrate on the Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial in their search for markers? For that matter, what's a marker? "Each of us carries DNA that is a combination of genes passed from both our mother and father, giving us traits that range from eye color and height to athleticism and disease susceptibility. One exception is the Y-chromosome, which is passed directly from father to son, unchanged, from generation to generation. Unchanged, that is unless a mutation-a random, naturally occurring, usually harmless change-occurs. The mutation, known as a marker, acts as a beacon; it can be mapped through generations because it will be passed down from the man in whom it occurred to his sons, their sons, and every male in his family for thousands of years. In some instances there may be more than one mutational event that defines a particular branch on the tree. What this means is that any of these markers can be used to determine your particular haplogroup, since every individual who has one of these markers also has the others. When geneticists identify such a marker, they try to figure out when it first occurred, and in which geographic region of the world. Each marker is essentially the beginning of a new lineage on the family tree of the human race. Tracking the lineages provides a picture of how small tribes of modern humans in Africa tens of thousands of years ago diversified and spread to populate the world.
A haplogroup is defined by a series of markers that are shared by other men who carry the same random mutations. The markers trace the path our ancestors took as they moved in and out of Africa. It's difficult to know how many men worldwide belong to any particular haplogroup, or even how many haplogroups there are, because scientists simply don't know.
Likewise for Mitochondrial DNA, the string of 569 letters is your mitochondrial sequence, with the letters A, C, T, and G representing the four nucleotides-the chemical building blocks of life-that make up your DNA. Here's how it works. Like I describe for the Y-DNA every once in a while a mutation-a random, natural (and usually harmless) change-occurs in the sequence of our mitochondrial DNA. Think of it as a spelling mistake: one of the "letters" in your sequence may change from a C to a T, or from an A to a G.
After one of these mutations occurs in a particular woman, she then passes it on to her daughters, and her daughters' daughters, and so on. (Mothers also pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their sons, but the sons in turn do not pass it on.)
Geneticists use these markers from people all over the world to construct one giant mitochondrial family tree. As I can imagine, the tree is very complex, but scientists can now determine both the age and geographic spread of each branch to reconstruct the prehistoric movements of our ancestors. By looking at the mutations that we carry, geneticist can trace our lineage, ancestor by ancestor, to reveal the path they traveled as they moved out of Africa." (1)
As a result, I did a search on Google "King Tut's DNA results". I found the actual results were published in the JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) that Dr. Hawass used in the Discovery Channel's documentary and King Tut's Haplogroups information is absent, perhaps because there weren't enough data to conclude this information. However, I did another Google search "King Tut's DNA results haplogroup". I found the absent of haplogroup in the published report did not stop people from trying to speculate. Consequently, we now have an unproven speculation circulating on the World Wide Web that King Tut's haplogroup is R1b. I found the source of this speculation to be someone on RootsWeb (link: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1266472989) who claimed by looking at the screen shots of the video, they were able to decipher the Y-STR markers and therefore determine King Tut's Y-DNA Haplogroup. I watched the same video and no marker numbers are evident. From this now there is a great debate that King Tut and his ancestors where R1b on Rootweb and other places on the internet (some which have become racially tinged). Nowhere was the Y-STR markers published except for 2 Y-STR here's a link to the Article: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/638?home. The end result from this discussion someone published the so-called y-STR markers on Family Tree DNA's y-search.org under the ID ER7RQ. I think this should be a lesson in critical thinking; if you do not have enough data don't make it up. This led to another question; what was the motivation of the person who allegedly was able to determine King Tut's haplogroup? Quoting directly from the person who started this fiasco: "Additionally, if you look at the CODIS markers for Tutankhamen which they provide in the published study and run them in OmniPop, it indicates similarity with Europeans." In other words, did he want to know if King Tut was European? Why should King Tut's ethnicity matter? What I find fascinating is the science, that we can abstract DNA from a 3,000 year old mummy and verify his genealogy! Think about it....

Source:
Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html

Thinking about the absurd and Myth

As I have previously posted, "The Absurd" is when we rational humans try to find meaning in what appears to be an irrational or at least indifferent world. In the past there have been two traditional philosophical responses to this human condition, hope in something or someone that transcends the absurd or suicide which means you agree with the universe as being absurd but not worth living in, I think both are escapes from the absurd. Albert Camus offers a third approach of agreeing that the absurd exist and is true but instead of running away from it to face it by your revolt, your freedom, and your passion. In other words, as I have felt for long time life is its own point and you cannot improve or transcend it you can only add to what you have or to what it is. The way I like to say it "it is what it is". In other words, in spite of the world's indifference we should live our lives anyway and live it well. Another aspect of what Albert Camus calls Absurd Reasoning and what it amounts to is his argument against Rationalism. Rationalism as he presents it; is thinking that our human reason can make sense or give an explanation of this universe, this too he feel is absurd. Upon reflecting on this I learn something new, which is good, I learn that I am guilty of trying to think I can understand or use reason or rationalism to understand something that is indifferent or doesn't care to answer what my reason or rational mind begs an answer to. This is the absurd it is the confrontation or my desire for unity, clarity, for meaning, for a reason in a cold silent universe and my illusion that the universe will relent and answer. From this, I agree I should not take life too seriously because until proven otherwise, life is impermanent or temporal, and is the only one I know of, and I should live with what I know this life is, instead of what I don’t know, an unknowable afterlife. I think Joseph Campbell alluded on these themes in his writings that life is about the experience of being alive and myths are a way of describing or helping us get that experience of being alive and so the myth of Sisyphus informs me.

The Absurd

I have been studying existentialism, and I feel that what it means to me is that it is up to the individual to define the meaning of their own life via choice and take responsibility for those choices. In my research of existentialism, the author Albert Camus is often mention, as a result, I read The Stranger or the Outsider and The Plague. To get a better philosophical perspective of his thinking, I read the myth of Sisyphus over the Winter Solstice break and it is about the absurd (from reading his perspective he was critical of existentialism so I don't know why he's consider an existentialist). The Absurd is humanity's attempt to find meaning or to make sense of an indifferent universe. Albert Camus starts the book off with discussion on Absurdity and Suicide. Suicide is when the person agrees with the Absurd, that is, existence is truly meaningless and thus not worth living. Camus analyzes the absurd and the normal responses which he concludes is a leap of faith and suicide, for the leap of faith which he concludes Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Husserl, and even Kafka all took the leap because they still tried to find meaning in an indifferent universe. Yet Camus offers a third option of living with or facing the absurd through revolt (i.e. we should not accept any so-called answer or solution in our struggle), freedom (i.e. as Sartre stated we a force to be free), and passion or diversity (i.e. we should pursue a life of abundant and various experiences). He demonstrates absurd living using four examples Don Juanism or the Seducer, the Actor, the Conqueror, and the Artist. Camus shows how the Greek myth of Sisyphus is the absurd hero who was condemned by the gods to push the rock to the top of the hill just to see it role back down to role it up again. I think this means the innate drive of life is twofold that is, everything revolves around survival and passing on your genes to keep the game going. In other words, life keeps on evolving, the universe keeps on expanding because it does not have a meaning or a point it is trying to get to, the universe and the life within it is its own point! I know some feel that in order for life not to be absurd there must be a purpose beyond life itself, yet if you ask what is the point or purpose of whatever is beyond life itself that is heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc, would it really be a point or a purpose? Why this life; if the point is a life somewhere else? I think living this life to get somewhere else is really Absurd. Think about it....

Existentialism Part 3

Jean-Paul Sartre the French Philosopher who was the primary proponent of existentialism, coined the phrase we are condemned to be free, by which he means you are forced one way or another to make a choice. Freedom is defined as not under the control of another; at liberty or autonomous. However, with this freedom comes responsibility, which means liable to be called to account (to a person (including me) or for a thing. I am afraid of being responsible, because all of my life I have believed that there was an invisible force responsible or who at least would come to rescue me. Carry all your cares to Jesus he will bare them for you, therefore you don’t need to bare responsibility for who you are, we are told to deny who we are and identify with Jesus. Apostle Paul said everyday I decrease that he (that is Jesus) might increase. I am afraid but I am condemned to be free. I must choose and therefore take ownership of my existence. I am responsible for my health, happiness, and for what I become or will be. As far as I am concern unless proven otherwise god is indeed dead.

Existentialism Part 2

I decided to research more the philosophy of Existentialism. I downloaded a book entitled : Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction by Thomas Flynn. According to the description of the book: "One of the leading philosophical movements of the 20th century, existentialism has had more impact on literature and the arts than any other school of thought. Focusing on the leading figures of existentialism, including Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Camus, Thomas Flynn offers a concise account of existentialism, explaining the key themes of individuality, free will, and personal responsibility, which marked the movement as a way of life, not just a way of thinking. Flynn sets the philosophy of existentialism in context, from the early phenomenologists, to its rise in the 40s and 50s, and the connections with National Socialism, Communism, and Feminism. He identifies the original definition of "existentialism", which tends to be obscured by misappropriation, and highlights how the philosophy is still relevant in our world today." After I listen to the audiobook in regard to free-will, individuality, and personal responsibility, I asked myself: how does determinism, which is the philosophy that everything or events has prior causes, throw a wrench in the theory of existentialism? I found an answer on ask philosophers.com. The answer was even if determinism was true, existentialism would not be affected because existentialism is about the choices you make in life, whether the events were determined or random, you still have a choice to make, and even if you refuse to make a choice then a choice is still made and if you will accept the responsibility for that choice. I have a choice whether it’s determined or not, and I am responsible for my choices and this is what Jean-Paul Sartre meant when he said we are force to be free. Think about it...

Existentialism

I have been researching a philosophical idea called existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophical theory emphasizing the existence of the individual as a free and self-determining agent. (The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus) I like some features of existentialism but it is counter-intuitive to the theory of human evolution. Most evolutionist agree that we evolved in gregarious social groups in which if we did not cooperate we could have become extinct because we were not always top dog on this planet. Primates live in communities and it took cooperation and co-dependence for us to survive. Also I have been told that no man is an island we depend on others one way or another. The existentialism I agree with is I am responsible for my on life, my own happiness, and I cannot expect someone else or something else (I.e. a god(ess) to be responsible for me. Yet I live with other people and if I did my own thing; couldn't my action directly or indirectly effect others? However before I throw the baby out with the bath, I want to research this philosophical movement more. Think about it.

Black Socrates