Hedonism, Meaning, and the Irrelevancy of Atheism vs. Faith (it's what you do not who you do it for)
I think life is inherently hedonistic. People are animals, and as animals we goes through life seeking those things that make us "feel good"
(and what makes each feel good is different than most - but not all - other people. I think the desire to satisfy a common pleasure consolidates everyone into a number of "communities", which only extend as far as that one pleasure, and unite all the members -whether they have explicity [admittedly] or implicitly [possessing the need to satisfy the particular pleasure] joined - under that one common pleasure. The community does not bind the members to each other in any other way, though people may try to form "friendship" connections to extend their sense of closeness with each other beyond the community's scope. I guess true uniqueness then, is the exact combination of the innumerable communities that one person belongs to, because mathematically I don't think anyone can be identical to another in every single one of their pleasures, displeasures, AND apathy regarding the other communities. For a visualization, imagine any one of those online services in which people create and join groups; yahoo groups is a good example.).
But none of that was my point in writing this down. Actually, I should clarify my first sentence. People are inherently hedonistic, not life. There's no way I'm going to claim to know the meaning of life. But after observing myself and others, I think it is human nature to be born hedonistic and live life trying to fulfill that same philosophy, no different than animals. But the reason I draw the distinction between people and life being hedonistic is because I think there is more to life than simple hedonism. I don't subscribe to the idea that humans are born above more important than animals, imitation-divine creatures that more religious people have tried to convince me we are. That's why I started off saying people are animals. I think we are, but we evolved our mental capacity instead of claws or camouflage (although sentience is a possible flaw in the logic; maybe that is some divine essence?).
HOWEVER, I think people do have the potential to rise above their basic animal natures. Maybe life doesn't have a meaning we are supposed to discover, but we have to create a meaning for it. I guess then it would be hard to say, when someone creates a meaning, whether it is right or wrong. Maybe it's impossible to judge meaning morally, as long as it rises above the animal level. Maybe the human ability to create a meaning for life and rise above the bareness of hedonism is what religions deem as a divine essence in people; it sounds godly to me. But this capacity to create meaning definitely doesn't have to come from some godly source. Maybe it does, maybe it's a product of evolution. I don't know, and I don't think it's important to know which is right, as long as it's recognized that this could be where the religions got the idea of humans being a higher life form.
So what IS important is not how we got this capacity for meaning, but what we do with it. And that means going beyond hedonism. Not eliminating it, because there's no way to destroy a part of your nature, and besides, everyone needs to secure their pleasures in life. But I think a moral meaning to life would be one that finds a way to balance hedonism with the rational autonomy Kant recognized in people.
There's so much more, but I this is enough for one entry, I think. Maybe I should rename my journal, I don't think this is a sepulcher any more.
(and what makes each feel good is different than most - but not all - other people. I think the desire to satisfy a common pleasure consolidates everyone into a number of "communities", which only extend as far as that one pleasure, and unite all the members -whether they have explicity [admittedly] or implicitly [possessing the need to satisfy the particular pleasure] joined - under that one common pleasure. The community does not bind the members to each other in any other way, though people may try to form "friendship" connections to extend their sense of closeness with each other beyond the community's scope. I guess true uniqueness then, is the exact combination of the innumerable communities that one person belongs to, because mathematically I don't think anyone can be identical to another in every single one of their pleasures, displeasures, AND apathy regarding the other communities. For a visualization, imagine any one of those online services in which people create and join groups; yahoo groups is a good example.).
But none of that was my point in writing this down. Actually, I should clarify my first sentence. People are inherently hedonistic, not life. There's no way I'm going to claim to know the meaning of life. But after observing myself and others, I think it is human nature to be born hedonistic and live life trying to fulfill that same philosophy, no different than animals. But the reason I draw the distinction between people and life being hedonistic is because I think there is more to life than simple hedonism. I don't subscribe to the idea that humans are born above more important than animals, imitation-divine creatures that more religious people have tried to convince me we are. That's why I started off saying people are animals. I think we are, but we evolved our mental capacity instead of claws or camouflage (although sentience is a possible flaw in the logic; maybe that is some divine essence?).
HOWEVER, I think people do have the potential to rise above their basic animal natures. Maybe life doesn't have a meaning we are supposed to discover, but we have to create a meaning for it. I guess then it would be hard to say, when someone creates a meaning, whether it is right or wrong. Maybe it's impossible to judge meaning morally, as long as it rises above the animal level. Maybe the human ability to create a meaning for life and rise above the bareness of hedonism is what religions deem as a divine essence in people; it sounds godly to me. But this capacity to create meaning definitely doesn't have to come from some godly source. Maybe it does, maybe it's a product of evolution. I don't know, and I don't think it's important to know which is right, as long as it's recognized that this could be where the religions got the idea of humans being a higher life form.
So what IS important is not how we got this capacity for meaning, but what we do with it. And that means going beyond hedonism. Not eliminating it, because there's no way to destroy a part of your nature, and besides, everyone needs to secure their pleasures in life. But I think a moral meaning to life would be one that finds a way to balance hedonism with the rational autonomy Kant recognized in people.
There's so much more, but I this is enough for one entry, I think. Maybe I should rename my journal, I don't think this is a sepulcher any more.