![]() Here meaning is provided by the creed, often with the ultimate promise of escaping death altogether. In this void, religion has largely claimed a contemplative monopoly on the prescriptive meaning of life and death. That said, for the Existentialist, ‘meaning’ (and thus also ‘the meaning of life’), is primarily a descriptive rather than prescriptive notion. It gets us closer to considering what it is we value, which is central to shaping a meaningful life for ourselves as we pursue those values. The Existential tradition of continental philosophy proves more insightful: Existentialism emphasizes the subjective nature of being that is, the essence of what it is like to be us. It is both too abstract to be comprehensible to the uninitiated, and too divorced of sentiment to be of personal guidance. But frankly, none of this is very helpful to the individual struggling with mortality in search of meaning. Bertrand Russell’s words that “everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise” convey the analytic tradition’s admirable ambition for clarity. Until recently it has been remarkably absent in the analytic literature, and recent contributions have centered on unpacking ‘the meaning of life’: that is, most efforts have been made to understand the meaning of ‘meaning’, as well as getting a better grip of the term ‘life’. Having been schooled in the analytic philosophical tradition I don’t find myself laden with a rich history of thought on life’s meaning. And if the philosophers among us are not doing it, who is? It’s the elephant in the room of secular thought. Perhaps as independent thinkers philosophers nowadays have a tacit understanding that life’s meaning or value is a personal journey but most philosophers I know don’t seem to spend much time pondering the meaning of their own lives either. Few thinkers of a non-religious bent have tried to address the question of meaning head-on. Philosophers are often caricatured as dealing with the big questions, particularly the meaning of life, but I have rarely observed this to be a matter of concern among professional philosophers, other than fleetingly in conversation with colleagues after some beers. Now, confronted with the terminal nature of life at a young age, I wonder if I have sufficiently moved along this process of acceptance, which is invariably a very personal one. Rather, my obsession with death has hitherto been soothed by Socrates’ description of philosophy as the process by which one comes to accept one’s own death. News of looming death has not encouraged me to grasp for false consolation, though consolation is sorely needed. Having never had an inclination towards the supernatural, religion has never appeared to me as either credible or a source of comfort. From where does a faithless philosopher obtain consolation? What provides meaning for a life lived, and acceptance of a fate anticipated? Atheism and news of one’s impending death would appear to be a particularly unfortunate combination. I have just been told, at the age of 37, that I have stage four lung cancer. I am in the privileged but unenviable position of doing the latter. Public reflecting on life is often done in fear of, but seldom in the face of, death. I consider death to be the end of our conscious existence, and that any meaning that life may have resides with man. As an atheist and a Humanist, my approach to life has been grounded on rational thought and empirical evidence. In particular, I disbelieve claims to knowledge about God’s existence or will. SUBSCRIBE NOW Articles Atheist In A Foxhole David Rönnegard asks how a committed atheist confronted with death might find consolation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |