The conflict between self and “right”
For some time I had been searching for an opportunity to explore a hitherto unsolved but hugely important question, without the answer to which I did not feel the certainty to make fully meaningful decisions when steering my life. The question that tormented me was this: Is there an objective purpose to human existence? Do we possess any cosmic significance, any cosmic purpose? Are we called to serve some higher plan unknown to us? Or are we obliged to create our own subjective goals, naming them important—even sacred—while relying entirely on our own subjective criteria ignoring completely the possibility of a higher, objective, external purpose?
I might have felt that my purpose was truly important to me, but could there nevertheless exist some higher cosmic plan to which my values and trajectory are opposed? Merely entertaining that thought, was enough to shake the faith in myself and I can’t think of many worse things for one’s wellbeing than constant self-doubt. This persistent, underlying feeling deprived me of the joy of certainty, of full conviction and acceptance of my values and of myself. It took one more internal exploration to resolve this issue and this is what this post is all about.
God and “human choice”
When I characterize a purpose as “objective”, I mean something that is not set by humanity itself but by an external agent, something that we could call God. Thus, the existence of objectivity depends on whether such an agent exists. Here the discussion often collapses into deadlock but luckily in this case, we can move beyond it: Whether a divine plan exists, our behavior should remain the same.
If there is no God, there is neither an external purpose. The only thing a human can do is to create purposes for himself, both individual and collective, without any hesitation in devoting himself fully to them. Because if no objective purpose exists, the solution is simple: the most natural decision (provided there is no other constraint) is to choose in alignment with your values and natural inclinations. Not only because the harmony of actions, values, and inclinations brings with it a sense of fulfillment in itself, but also because such harmony is essential for any long-term path and for overcoming the obstacles and hardships that may arise along the way. In this case, nothing stands against the formulation that your purpose is to bring your actions into harmony with your values and inclinations. If you believe in something, pursue it unwaveringly.
If there is a God and He is omnipotent, then again I do not think there can be any truly significant purpose, for everything has already been fulfilled through God’s omnipotence. There is nothing lacking, no gap that would be essentially useful that humanity could meaningfully fill. This of course, does not mean that a purpose could not still be set. Not a fundamentally significant one, but external and very real nonetheless. If there is a God who isn’t though omnipotent and there are things that remain beyond His reach, then there is room for some “cosmic” significance, for a purpose to which humanity might indeed have something to contribute.
In this case the problem is that even if an objective purpose truly exists, we can’t really know what it is. For, it is not revealed to us clearly, or it is not revealed at all (it might be that God doesn’t intervene at all in human affairs).
So if God doesn’t intervene to point us to a direction, all we are left with, is the natural way humans have to choose their objectives. Which is values and natural inclinations. Besides, this mechanism of selection is the best “lever” for the fulfillment of any purpose. And it could be that this is the plan after all. Because this pattern seems very much in tune with the rest of nature. Random people are scattered randomly across different environments, each “freely” pursuing their own goals, together shaping a broader outcome. Therefore, we could once again formulate the argument that your purpose is to bring your actions into harmony with your values and inclinations.
If God does intervene to point us to our purpose, common experience shows that His intervention is still cryptic, coming only in the form of subtle, ambiguous signs. So in the face of such ambiguity we can either delegate our choices to external authorities (holy men, priests, gurus, your boss god forbidden) or choose according to our own subjective criteria. In both cases though, would it be wise to suffer such a terrible cost, which is to live a life opposite to our values and inclinations based on arbitrary interpretations? With the very real possibility of being wrong anyway due to misinterpretation which misses the true meaning of the given message? Dostoevsky captured this tragedy writing: “And your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing”. So once again I would argue that the wisest path is to bring your actions into harmony with your values and inclinations. Not ignoring the signs but choosing to interpret them in a way that aligns with them.
It seems then, that in all cases the wisest course is to bring your actions into harmony with your values and inclinations. And even beyond that, I argue that this isn’t just the wisest course but your life’s purpose.
Schopenhauer wrote: “A man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills”. And in this context what he wills would be his purpose. Or more dramatically, Hollywood put it in the mouth of Achilles: “I chose nothing. I was born and this is what I am”.
Notice that this concept of purpose is not a hedonistic one. It doesn’t mean “I like it, therefore it’s meaningful” neither does it mean the opposite. An action in harmony with your values is not necessarily a pleasant one. When you help your elderly father to get dressed, you don’t derive the feeling of satisfaction from the act itself but from its harmony with your core values.
Self acceptance
A trap to avoid in this path, is to get in a pointless constant doubt of your own personal values. You have born and raised the way you are, with your very own set of inclinations and values instilled to you by fate (your genes, your family, your culture etc.). All these factors have shaped you into the person you are and there is not much meaning trying to fight them. Because there is no objective criterion to judge them by. Everything is subjective, noone knows the truth or what is objectively good and evil.
That doesn’t mean though that you should avoid self growth. Being self-reflective and adapting your thinking to new data, is part of what it takes to becoming wiser along the way. Yet without acting against your present values and inclinations. That is, against your present self. If along the way new values take root within you, then you are bound to act in accordance with them.
It could very well be, that your core values are not commonly accepted. You should not be intimidated by that because you can’t be meaningfully accused of being wrong or being against the way things should be. There is no objective moral scale to judge you by. We cannot accuse a Nazi of not being faithful to his values or of not “following his calling”, or even of being objectively wrong. What we can do is accuse him of not having values similar to ours, fight him, defeat him, punish him for it and try to alter the environment that created him. You are therefore “morally” free to follow your purpose, but so are others. So be prepared to face their judge and to receive the consequences of your actions (in this world or, who knows for sure, even in the other).
Sidenotes
Good and evil
The question of objective purpose affects directly the question of objective good and evil. To judge anything as good or evil, a criterion is required; but a criterion presupposes a purpose. We need a purpose to be able to judge if something brings us closer to it or further away from it. Without a purpose, nothing can be judged and everything is equal. Thus, because we don’t know the objective purpose we can neither know the objective good and the objective evil. Every action can only be judged according to the subjective criteria of the person judging it.
Happiness
I sometimes hear the naive answer “happiness” to the question of life’s purpose. Easy, but rather insufficient, for it misses something important. Try to imagine a perfect drug that generates a permanent sense of fulfillment and happiness regardless of external conditions and without any side effect. Such a thing could become a reality in the future. Could we ever accept that the users of such a drug have thereby achieved the purpose of life?
Some of them, yes. Those who hold as their supreme value happiness itself as a feeling. Yet I think that for many people this state, as pleasant as it might be, would by no means be fulfilling. Because I think, the purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the happiness that emerges from the harmony of actions, values and inclinations. A form of “virtuous happiness” where virtue lies in that very harmony. Different for each individual, this state is better described by the greek word “eudaimonia” as used by Aristotle.
Human diversity as an important value
Fortunately the complete degeneration of values is very difficult, if not impossible. I say fortunately, because I believe that diversity, both individual and cultural, is a precious trait of humans and of their societies. A trait I would rather see preserved than replaced by a global homogenization of values and cultures.
And as unrelated as it may initially seem, this preference of mine stems from (among other things) our ignorance of the truth and of any objective purpose, if such a purpose exists. If we knew where we were meant to go, then we could choose a particular human version or a particular cultural identity that would bring us closer to our objective purpose. But since we do not know, diversity offers more chances of eventually reaching it, if it exists at all. Just as, when faced with a black and uncharted map, one must advance in many directions in order to form a sense of the terrain. Some path may reveal the destination—but beforehand, we cannot know which one.
If there is no purpose, nothing can be evaluated objectively, which means that diversity itself becomes a matter of preference—that is, of values. Personally, it is something I desire, if only for aesthetic reasons. But if we do desire it, how much diversity is needed? I would answer: the greatest possible. Yet the smaller the entity, the harder it is for it to survive. What we seek then, is the smallest possible entity still large enough to endure—at least for the foreseeable future—whether that entity is a language, a musical genre, an architectural style, a philosophy, a local shop, a sports club or anything else.
Ranking of values
The size of the entity also raises another troubling issue: fighting a losing battle. How meaningful is it to resist the death of something when its end is inevitable? As with everything, the meaning arises from your values. One value is to fight until the end, regardless of the outcome; that fight is a value in itself. A conflicting value is the avoidance of futile effort. Thus, in choosing a stance on this matter, as on any other, you need a hierarchy of values. The ranking of values is fundamental for achieving eudaimonia and it should be among the very first aims one sets.
Overcoming dead ends by changing frame
A trick we often use when we cannot judge between two options using a specific criterion, is to change the criterion at decision time, to change the frame. For example, I may not know which of two actions will ultimately prove more correct, so I choose the easier one. Or the more aesthetically appealing one. Or something else entirely. As I reflected on this simple trick—one we often employ without even noticing—I began to wonder whether it could be more than just a human strategy. Could it be possible that it is an inherent property of the universe itself, where natural dead ends are overcome by other kinds of criteria? Where for example the position of a particle’s quantum leap could be determined, not by necessity, but by something like aesthetic preference?