| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
The
Pulpit
The Existential Dilemma by Saad Anis From the viewpoint of classical materialism, existence is eventually futile. As per philosophy, the logical proofs offered for the existence of a Supreme Being in the form of God appear to fail in light of serious criticism. There are thus, no rational grounds for a belief in the conception of an afterlife. Life in this world, the materialists contend, is the sole reality. With this sceptical perception of a constricted existence, living becomes pointless by implication. If there is nothing beyond this realm to look forward to, our actions in this life, no matter how substantive in this world, hold no real meaning in the greater scheme of things. In the end, the materialist-fatalist would reason, all things will wither away without consequence. Needless to say, this notion of existence has alarming consequences, rendering the values of morality, etiquette and social norms redundant and calling into question the philosophical foundations of a societal structure as old as man himself. Quite simply, it leads to anarchy. With a lack of absolute proof regarding a Prime Mover culminating, at best, into uncertainty, purposelessness abounds. Ergo, the establishment of theistic models of existence, expounding belief in the unseen as the solution to the problem of an intangible god. The theistic model of existence has been overwhelmingly successful in history on account of the concept of an afterlife, which tackles the dual nature of the problem of existence in one brilliant intellectual sweep. With the establishment of the idea of a life after death, it provides hope to the poor and destitute of the earth, of a hereafter encapsulating the possibility of a better eternal subsistence. By virtue of the provision of this optimism, the theistic model functions to keep the proletariat more or less consigned to its status in the social structure, thus minimising the chances of cataclysmic revolts. At the same time, with the declaration of this world as a breeding ground of sorts for the afterlife, it prevents the affluent and authoritative in society from flagrant misuse of power by playing upon their fear of eternal torment. These two factors combine to ensure the peaceful dynamic of the theistic model. The groundbreaking advances of modern physics and the accompanying demolition of the idols of classicism have only served to solidify claims of the possibility of the existence of god. As the situation stands today, the presence of god can neither be proved nor disproved on scientific grounds. This status quo is likely to remain. That is not to imply that no secular or atheistic solutions have been presented to the problem of existence. In fact, several thinkers in history have addressed the issue of temporal life sans an otherworldly extension, underlining the import of existence even in the absence of a higher power or a life hereafter. Of these, two efforts in the twentieth century are of particular interest: Camus in his defiance of the absurd and exaltation of a joyous Sisyphus (1) in spite of the monotony of his eternal punishment; and Rand, positing her doctrine of Objectivism and declaring rational self-interest as the path to meaningful existence. Camus borrows from Greek Mythology, and uses Sisyphus as symbolic of mankind's dilemma. Sisyphus, founder and king of Ephyra, outwitted and trapped Thanatos (death) in a closet when the latter came to claim him. This, along with a number of other daring crimes against the gods, led to him being subjected to hard labour. He was condemned to roll a large boulder up a steep hill. However, as soon as Sisyphus reaches the summit, the boulder is rolled back down, and he has to start again. This is said to continue for all eternity. Camus strives to depict a world either entirely sans an overseer, or one indifferent to its fate having once woven the magic of creation. He expresses an initial despondence at human existence and regards the futility of life as the only consequential eventuality. The conscious man, once aware of the Sisyphean repetition of life, becomes an absurd paradox simply by virtue of his awareness. In his consciousness of his untenable position lies his exaltation and, at the same time, the commencement of his spiritual agony. There is perhaps no torture conceivably greater than the conscious man's pointless reality. However, Camus recovers from his despondency and discerns reason for hope. While living in this world, man is free in his judgement and actions. He chisels his own destiny from the bland monolith of life, and is dependent on no higher entity. His fate is his business alone, free of the suffocating province of god. Camus can, thus, not help but imagine Sisyphus happy, by sole virtue of his achievements in this world. Rand argues on different grounds. She sees man as an end in himself (2), fully capable of attaining happiness independent of social or divine aid. The path to fulfillment lies in a life of rational selfishness, the use of one's ability to create, not for the sake of an external entity such as society or god, but for the sheer satisfaction of the realisation of ability through the act of creating. To Rand, Man needs no higher purpose than himself to lead a joyous existence. Both these solutions are purposive in nature, and seek to attribute absolute significance to life, to the extent of the exaltation of temporal satisfaction as the only meaningful reality, and a dismissal of the need of the hereafter to justify life. As far as providing a solution to the existential problem is concerned, these solutions are flawed on two general counts. First, their unanimous conclusion regarding physical life as the only consequential reality begs the question of a deeper, perhaps spiritual meaning attributable to existence. Flat denial of the possibility of such an eventuality or – as Camus and Rand tackle it – outright rejection thereof on grounds of redundancy does not hold water. Second, these solutions are individualistic in their essence, demanding of man the rare traits of existential introspection and resilience. They view man as a heroic being, capable of overwhelming adversity through the sheer spirit of his intent. While this may hold in a few isolated instances, it is collectively inapplicable to humanity at large. Camus and Rand do not cater to the collectivist mindset, and their models do not apply to it as a consequence. Both overestimate the extent of the common man's ability and resilience in the face of a life with a predetermined end, spent in an indifferent universe. As a matter of fact, man's incommensurability with the burden of free volition has been highlighted time and again, especially by theist-existentialist writers. Dostoyevsky elegantly presents an identical lamentation of the human condition in "The Grand Inquisitor" (The Brothers Karamazov), one of the most moving passages in the history of literature. In Dostoyevsky's view, god made a cruel choice by allowing his own death – as per Catholic belief – on the cross. In doing so, he left man sans guidance, mourning a miracle promised by implication but never delivered, burdened with the responsibility of choosing between right and wrong. Man, according to him, is naïve; incapable of and unwilling to exercise the freedom of choice that god bestowed upon him as a blessing. Conscious decision requires strength of mind and character that a majority of humanity simply does not possess. By choosing to die on the crucifix and leaving man without direct patronage, god chose to invest man with the power to chalk his own destiny, despite being aware of his patent inadequacy to handle such a monumental responsibility. He delegated to man the encumbrance of being the master of his own fate, knowing all the while that all that mankind yearned for was an overseer who, with one hand, would provide it with the bread that it craved, and with the other, would make for it the decision that it feared making. A majority of men look to obey blindly and look upon free will as a curse, in Dostoyevsky's opinion. On one hand stands startling innovation since the beginning of time as irrefutable testament to the primacy of human intellect, while on the other breathes a universe of misery speaking volumes for the impotence of man to shoulder the weight of free will. On the basis of historical evidence, no concrete assessment thus far is possible either way. Perhaps the future will bring with it a definitive verdict. References 1. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus 2. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
About the Author: See Our Contributors
list for more about the author |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|