Purpose to Life?
A Dialogue: We live like there is one, but is it an illusion…
Justin Bailey and Maxximilian Seijo, friends with differing perspectives, dialogue about a difficult question.
Justin starts…
Loren Eiseley once wrote that man is a Cosmic Orphan—the only creature in the universe asking, “Why? What is life’s goal? Is there a reason for existence?” Some have called this “the human predicament”; a predicament amplified by 21st century cosmology.
The entropic heat death of our universe, currently predicted by the majority of scientists, looms in the future like a dark shadow. Galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, and every other physical object that requires complex chemistry will be casualties of nature’s law—humans included.
In light of the human predicament, and the physical universe’s tragically indifferent end…
Is there any ultimate purpose to life?
Simple Answers
Max: No, but only because of the way that the debate is typically framed.
Justin: Yes, and I think it is externally predefined by a transcendent reality (God).
Max // Answer
When one asks the question, “Does life have a purpose?” They are usually speaking in the frame of a predefined purpose. A purpose imposed on them by a creator. I like to look at purpose in a different way. Let’s suppose that there is no intelligent creator. No God that in any way resembles the image thought up by humans over the centuries. How do we look at purpose when that is the case?
The only way I see life having a purpose, is in the realm of survival.
Because I am agnostic towards the existence of a God, I don't like to have my logic rely on such an existence. The only way I see life having a purpose, is in the realm of survival. All life—from a biological perspective—wants to survive. And when I say survive, I don't just mean on a first person basis. They want a legacy. Just as we as humans want to be remembered, a single cell wants to make its mark on its ecosystem.
One shouldn't get physiological purpose confused with mental purpose. I think the idea of a unified mental purpose among a species to be unsubstantiated. I don’t think we are born with a sense of purpose for a particular direction. Our sense of purpose is molded by all of our experiences.
The question of purpose can be a hard thing to discuss. Most of the time people are arguing from different perspectives. They base their words on different ideologies. One defines purpose one way, and one the other. Does life have a purpose that was set forth by an omnipotent God? I don’t think so. But that doesn’t mean that biologically we don’t wake up every morning and try to survive.
Justin // Response
For sure. Differing perspectives can muddy the conversational waters. Let’s first try to clear that up.
For the purpose (pun intended) of this discussion, purpose refers to an objective, ultimate reason for the existence of the cosmos and, particularly, self conscious, question asking creatures found within it.
I agree that purpose is often spoken in terms of predefinition. Yet, is not “survival” a predefined purpose; a purpose imposed by… Nature? The only thing that changes by removing God is a foundational difference. That difference then needs to be examined.
…the belief that survival is the only way life has a purpose — if true — reduces to just a predetermined, genetically driven neurological difference between our minds, which natural selection is “trying out” for more behaviorally adaptive reproductive viability.
On this foundational framework, I agree that one’s logic is reasonably inclined to rely solely on survival benefit, that is to say, natural law, but I think an argument can be made which undercuts the rationality of that decision. At the heart of natural selection is the idea that adaptive behavior — advanced by advantageous genetic variation — drives evolution forward. In this scheme, adaptive behavior would be directly caused by one’s individual neurology, and its quasi-instinctive response to external factors (e.g., ecological, cultural). Beliefs would then follow as an epiphenomena in one’s mental experience. Now, the question is whether these beliefs could be rationally affirmed as true. In short, the belief that survival is the only way life has a purpose — if true — reduces to just a predetermined, genetically driven neurological difference between our minds, which natural selection is “trying out” for more behaviorally adaptive reproductive viability.
So, the difficulty is: Does one rationally believe (consider the truth value in all possible propositions) that survival is the only way life has a purpose, or has an unguided genetic variation just caused neurology and produced behavior in which that predetermined belief emerges?
The belief may or may not be true. In any case, I don’t think it can be rationally affirmed in such a framework.
Max // Response
It’s interesting. Because the thought I get when I read what you said about beliefs, and their possible relationship to survival, is that maybe beliefs, or better yet thoughts, are our brain’s way of adapting to our environment. We analyze—over years—our surroundings, the people to our left and right, and we develop ideas about them and about life. Could this behavior of learning from our surroundings be evolutionary in nature? Not just adaptive behavior in a physical sense, but fundamentally in a mental sense.
I suppose survival would be a predefined notion of purpose imposed by natural law. I think the origin of this purpose is what’s up for debate. Did the laws of physics that we live under create this environment of competitive survival? Or was this something that was always in the aforementioned laws?
It’s ironic, this sort of topic isn’t something that I typically think about. Though, in thinking about it, I feel I’m living the question.
It’s ironic, this sort of topic isn’t something that I typically think about. Though, in thinking about it, I feel I’m living the question. Is the thinking about an ultimate purpose proof that there is a purpose? This idea that we can envision an ultimate purpose—just think about that for a second—it’s not something to look upon lightly. How does the fact that we can envision a purpose weigh on our reasoning?
I think the question of whether there is an ultimate purpose for us is a question that is practically unanswerable. We can narrow the scope, but I don’t think we will ever come to a verifiable resolution—and nor should we. In the end, I think everybody has their own purpose. After digesting your response, I find myself reverting back to the idea portrayed in the picture to the left. Whether that’s good or not, I’m not sure. However, for me, it’s the most palatable of answers.
Justin // Final Response
If by unanswerable you mean with verifiable certainty, then I agree. Though, I think one can come to a reasonable, all be it partial, resolution inductively. Even scientific methodology must philosophically assume this to proceed.
Not different from scientific models, philosophical models regarding the phenomena of “purpose” try to best explain the evidence. In an oversimplified form, let’s compare the two general models/theories we have discussed:
1. If there is NO ultimate purpose, and all of reality can be reduced to natural law, then the subjective creation of purpose — only for survival benefit — is one of many options. Each one, the “secular free thinker” and the “religious fundamentalist,” finds it more plausible to create, believe, and live by the reality their local culture deems palatable. Purpose becomes an arbitrary existential assertion. Rational discussion is undercut, and ironically, popular moral battles (e.g., equality, justice, etc.) are ultimately subjective exercises in utility interpreted by the societal forces currently in power.
This is not how you and I behave toward purpose.
2. If there IS an ultimate purpose, rational discussion has solid footing, moral battles have extreme significance, palatability is not sufficient, one’s response to such a reality becomes objectively important, and it is externally predefined.
This is how you and I behave toward purpose.
We are either irrationally pretending to live in an illusory world containing ultimate purpose, or our intuitions are right. Without taking away from the massive role survival plays in our physiological and mental existence’s assent to the potential of ultimate purpose, I think there is more to it than only survival. I think there is an ultimate purpose. I think this human intuition is right.
The origin of purpose is the crux of the matter. In your questions above, I would add one more: Does nature’s law find its source in something or someone other than itself?
Though our current answers differ, you eloquently articulated a thought everyone should all continue to seriously ponder…
“This idea that we can envision an ultimate purpose—just think about that for a second—it’s not something to look upon lightly.”
Thought Provoking Quotes… from the other’s perspective.
Each participant is asked to select a favorite/thought provoking quote from the other’s perspective.
Max: “We are either irrationally pretending to live in an illusory world containing ultimate purpose, or our intuitions are right.”
Justin: “The only way I see life having a purpose, is in the realm of survival.”
