The Quest for Truth and the Meaning of Life

All too frequently, the quest for reality which admittedly could only yield a qualified success in the very best case scenario is tainted by laxity and fancifulness, and hence is doomed to some pitiable outcome, to not state failure.

Oddly enough, Blaise Pascal, a famous mathematician and philosopher, is also the eccentric author of a wager based on the belief in God (or more exactly in paradise as a divine reward for virtue) is siphoned into the extent it is desirable, even though it can’t be shown. In fact, it is supposedly defensible since not only can’t it be shown, in addition, it cannot be disproven. So desirableness is regarded as a legitimate foundation for belief, absent provableness and disprovableness! The door is open to every crazy fancy, as long as you lack the empirical means of discrediting it.

Who have you invited to dinner, dear?
Some fabulous folks, my own love.
Great! And who exactly are these folks?
I dont know, but theyre fantastic.
Hum! How can you say theyre fantastic in case you dont know them?
Our neighbor throughout the street said so.
Forgive me for asking, dear, however, isn’t that neighbor somewhat loopy? The narrative about angels watching over us sounds like wishful thinking to me personally.
This loopy neighbor, so as you state, is much more fun to hear than your professor buddies, with all due respect.
But don’t you believe
Forget about believing ;’m in the mood for a dinner with a few fantastic folks.

(If you feel that is a little bit of sexist humor, notice I have made no reference of genders. The prejudices that offend us are occasionally very much our own. Recall also that Blaise Pascal was a man.)

Personally, I am not keen to forget about thinking. However attractive a promise may be, this attractiveness must be accompanied by credibleness which is a function of provableness and trustworthiness until I allow it shape my view and regulate my life. When credibleness is wanting, I reserve judgment until further notice and accept reality because it appears to be, judging from truth and strong arguments, even if this appearance isn’t consistent with a so-called perfect world. Telephone me austere (not ready to indulge in the luxury of extravagant beliefs), a person of reason who partners his intellectual austerity with intellectual integrity.

Having said that, the reverse attitude is most common, particularly in things which are beyond the world of experience and therefore can neither be proven nor disproven. By way of example, as regards their potential here below or in the hereafter many don’t book judgment or keep their heads open to many possibilities, which range from disastrous to glorious. Instead they believe a heavenly tale because they fancy thinking it and frequently also because a charismatic fortuneteller or spiritual leader, supposedly endowed with supernatural abilities, is that the originator of the tale.

In its wildest and blindest form, optimism combined with religion is illustrative of the attitude. Is it fanciful and nave, or even absurd? I am tempted to say yes, and I shall resist this temptation. There is not any denying the inveterate optimists-believers derive considerable enjoyment from seeing their potential through rose-colored spectacles. In light of this fun, a improved much better such as Blaise Pascal will assert these spectacles are well worth wearing, in the risk of laboring under a delusion. I myself lack the elegance or the guile of innocent or deploying spirits to whose ignorance is bliss.

I am all the stauncher as a dedicated realist since life in itself with no fables and even despite the adversities which are a part and parcel of it has significance to my thoughts. Additionally, I contend that religion (as a provider of a questionable but purposeful myth which creates a merry afterlife the objective of life) is frequently a poor substitute for wisdom. It’s intended to cancel the sense of dissatisfaction that shadows the absurd if frequently profound idea of existential absurdity. The more conducive to wisdom, the more enthusiastic for religion (as described above) you can is.

Now, what’s the content of the wisdom, or what’s the significance of life inside the constraints of life? I’ve answered this issue to the best of my skill in my book A REASON FOR LIVING; and my answer like any answer to this question is sure to be equally at odds and in keeping with yours. But then, the antithesis of arguments and statements can usefully excite the intellect to resolve the oppositions and achieve a new and exceptional synthesis.

Be as it may, this antithesis betrays the imperfection of human wisdoms. At best, they’re accurate up to some point, and we all can persistently overpass this point while the comprehensive truth forever recedes like the horizon because we progress toward it. You can find as many wisdoms because there are individuals; yet their subjectiveness admits of much intersubjectiveness or profound intellectual kinship.

Let’s explore lots of cardinal details and plausible assumptions based on facts.

1) The visible universe is the obvious manifestation of a trend toward order. Ordered beings and things (that show their attraction for a specific inert or living state), arranged behaviors and ideas (that aim in specific achievements and emotions in preference to others), all this testifies to the trend in question, that is known as the principle of universal sequence. The oneness of the principle isn’t only minimal. It’s basic, as demonstrated by the unitary if complicated human nature, which comprises every physical and nonphysical component of the observable universe.

2) The monitoring of the universe relates to observers: individuals, in the present instance. It’s limited to the observable manifestations of the universe, or supplies a basis for knowledge exclusively within the constraints of these manifestations. Everything beyond these constraints that will be, everything which isn’t observably manifest exceeds our ability to know it. Nevertheless, as Kant pointed out, our inability to know it does not suppress our curiosity. Whereas some accept the limits of comprehension, most dont. Their attempt to permeate the transcendental mystery ought to yield nothing but elaborate.

3) There are, however, various levels of elaborate. At one extreme, elaborate is unfounded or rests to the highly suspicious promises of inspired visionaries about the beyond. In the other extreme, elaborate is very much tempered with reason. It’s reminiscent of poetry, which assimilates certain things to kindred items through metaphors and similes.

Take for example the forecasts of learned and intuitive futurists concerning the remote future of humanity. They obviously overstep the limits of comprehension, and they are believable to the degree they are possible, given the way this knowledge represents humans and the world they occupy. Take also for example the conjectures of heard and intuitive philosophers concerning the intimate nature of nonhuman beings or items beyond their visible characteristics. Such as the predictions that are aforementioned , they obviously overstep the limits of comprehension, and they are believable to the extent they are possible, given the way this knowledge represents people and nonhuman beings or things.

4) Depending on our individual nature, observations include introspections and show both spiritual and material facets of this sort. Since we quantify the worth of life concerning pleasure (sensual, intellectual, or moral), it is safe to state that the spiritual aspect is preeminent.

From underscoring the fun principle in ethical matters, I suggest that the most edifying proof of nobility contains a component of self-interest. Indeed, nobility is the perfect in the pursuit of which the royal spirit takes delight not the minimal type of joy that one derives from these activities as feasting to a palatable dish or with intercourse with a hot lover, but the elevated sort. Consequently, self-interest and nobility aren’t mutually exclusive. When they come together, the prior is exalted by the latter.

5) As we fathom our individual nature, we finally acknowledge the principle of universal sequence as the basis of our being, that can normally acquire habits of thought or behaviour which are conducive to well-being. And so gratitude adds to the acknowledgment, though misery may reverse this attitude once it plagues us despite ourselves.

Why such misery? There’s absolutely not any answer to this issue. We can ascertain the possibility of misery; we cannot clarify it. Saying the principle of universal arrangement would be such as to allow the incidence of misery is similar to stating that misery is since it could be, that is no explanation. In short, misery is a puzzle; along with the very best we can do is struggle and defeat it, or resign ourselves to it when it is insuperable.

In fact, we can do better. We can respect misery as a precious chance for merit and courage, whereas a totally blissful and effortless life would demand no guts and hence afford no honor.

However, what about extreme instances where we are truly helpless and unhappy? We can take comfort from the knowledge that the principle of universal order is the essence of our being. Each of us is a single individual incarnation of this rule one of countless other such as incarnations, which provide the prospect of a meritorious happiness through considerable effort.