No one should be able to honestly say they know the exact meaning of life. Whether their theories are complicated or easy enough for a elementary school student to follow, theories remain just that, theories. Defined by the Merriam Webster as a belief, policy or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action, no one can argue that their theory is fact, just that their theory is better than others'.
What can one do if they're plopped down in front of a computer to pick apart the theories of highly respected psychologists about the meaning of life? In oral conversation this wouldn't be an issue. A person could just smile and nod, regardless of how wrong or right they thought those theories were. Or they could voice differing opinions while talking quietly so as to avoid notice. But in writing opinions out, an individual's thoughts have no choice but to shine through. After watching "Examined Life", based on what several noted psychologists believe are the theories and ethics that make up life's purposes, I tried to nail down my own, somewhat under-developed, purposes and meanings that humans attach to life. I took the musings of more than seven thinkers (several of which flew waaay above my head) and sifted through to find what information matched up with or expanded on the thoughts I already had about "the meaning of life".
I can't quite change my opinions on life's purpose and meanings based on one movie, but I can use these psychologists' musings to question or strengthen my ideas. In short, I believe that there is no one purpose or meaning to life. Every person can decide whether they want their own life to have a purpose, and what that specific purpose should be. Generally the meanings they associate with the actions and events that happen in their life will be shaped around said purpose. Purposes can differ from nothing at all to religion, and as long as a person truly believes in those ideas, their life can absolutely be shaped and created through those beliefs. Feel free to challenge me or tell me I'm wrong. Say that there is only one purpose to life or meanings for a person's actions. You can even tell me there is no purpose to life at all, and we all lead lives of chance and accident. You'd be right, but based on what I believe, your statement may only apply to your specific life. I'm all for the idea of indefinite purposes that give people's lives the meanings that they crave.
The major theme I want to examine from the "Examined Life" was the idea of whether ethics or morals can give people or be a purpose of life. Philosopher Avital Ronell took the approach that while our meanings are in constant negotiation throughout life, a person cannot claim that being an ethical or "good" person is a purpose of life. In fact, she went as far as to claim that the only people who are truly good/ethical are the ones who make ethical choices but don't believe life has ANY purpose or meaning, because they are the only ones who are acting ethically without any expected personal gain. Her ideas challenged my belief that you can act ethically even if you're doing so because you believe you are supposed to do the "right" thing based on secular or religious life views. If someone gives money to the poor and also believes that doing so furthers their own purpose to life of being good and going to heaven, how is their action itself any less ethical than someone who gives the same amount of money even though they have no ulterior motive. More self-serving, perhaps. But not less ethical.
Peter Singer used applied ethics to challenge morals, but said that ethics can be unrelated to anyone's meaning of life. His philosophy was you don't need a God to tell you what to do, but your life can't be totally subjective, you have to take others into account. He used a great story in explaining what he thinks people should ethically spend their money on. He said anyone wearing an expensive pair of shoes, say Manolo Blahniks, that saw a child drowning would wade into the water without question to save the child, even if those shoes would be rendered unwearable. He argued that the money spent on those shoes should be given to help unknown others in the first place, since the shoe buyer wouldn't mind giving their shoes up for a person struggling right in front of them. I completely agree with Singer's thought, but doubt it will ever take root in our materialistic society where people work hard to give themselves the best, and commonly assume others can take care of themselves, only reaching out when the needy are right in front of their face. His idea was expanded by another philosopher who said we're now responsible when we're face-to-face with others, but in our new virtual world we need to create a global citizenship that makes us responsible for others we've never even met.
To me, the most insightful philosopher in "Examined Lives" was Cornell West, who explained everyone is "finite" and have desires in the face of death. He said we all have to sustain our path to death, but that pleasure has its truth. His ideas were as vague as mine! I took his musings and applied them to my own view, agreeing we could all find different ways to sustain our path to death, and those methods would quickly become our life purposes that shape the meanings we give everything. As far as pleasure, he blew the idea of ethics shaping everything out of the water. Maybe we all do pursue pleasure, and but that shouldn't make us less ethical, just give our lives more meaning than going through the motions of life while not reaping personal benefits. Giving life the purpose of pleasure doesn't mean other, more "ethical" purposes can't be pursued simultaneously.
The ideas expressed in "Examined Life", while not confirming or dis confirming my personal beliefs, did confirm the idea that there is more to life than being born, doing actions in-between, and dying. That alone has to give us hope that there is some point to life, no matter what that purpose or meaning may mean to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment