Content uploaded by Mario Radovan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mario Radovan on Oct 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
0
O
O
On
n
n
L
L
Li
i
if
f
fe
e
e
a
a
an
n
nd
d
d
D
D
De
e
ea
a
at
t
th
h
h
I
I
In
n
n
S
S
Se
e
ea
a
ar
r
rc
c
ch
h
h
o
o
of
f
f
M
M
Me
e
ea
a
an
n
ni
i
in
n
ng
g
g
third edition
Mario Radovan
1
Mario Radovan
On Life
and Death
In Search of Meaning
(third edition)
Pazin, 2025
NOTE: Page numbers in this format of the book are not the same as in the printed book;
paragraphs are numerated, so that contents can be cited by using paragraph numbers. Minor
revisions were made to this text after the book was printed.
2
On Life and Death:
In Search of Meaning
(third edition)
by Mario Radovan
© Mario Radovan, 2020, 2023, 2025
All rights reserved
Published by Mario Radovan
Pazin, 2025
Vlastita naklada
Typeset and printed by
"Josip Turčinović" d.o.o., Pazin
CIP record is available in the catalogue of
the University Library in Pula, number ...
ISBN: 978-953-8243-24-0
3
To those who perished,
leaving no trace behind
4
I listen to voices calling from darkness:
"What is the time of night?
What is the time of night?"
"Morning comes" - I reply -
"and then the night again".
(after Isaiah 22:11-12)
5
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................... 6
1. The framework of discourse ................................................................................... 7
1.1 Life is a fountain ............................................................................................... 7
1.2 Concepts of life and death ............................................................................. 13
1.3 Existence, time and mind .............................................................................. 17
1.4 Values, feelings and reason ........................................................................... 22
2. The question of meaning ...................................................................................... 28
2.1 Human situation and inclinations .................................................................. 28
2.2 The meaning as the ultimate reason .............................................................. 34
2.3 The seekers and creators of meaning ............................................................ 39
2.4 In search of a meaningful life ....................................................................... 44
3. Narratives and reality .......................................................................................... 50
3.1 The frameworks of existence ........................................................................ 50
3.2 The western traditional narratives .................................................................. 54
3.3 The eastern traditional narratives .................................................................. 59
3.4 The rational and the irrational ........................................................................ 65
3.5 Religion and science ...................................................................................... 70
4. Death and immortality ......................................................................................... 75
4.1 In the shadow of death .................................................................................. 75
4.2 Does death matter? ......................................................................................... 80
4.3 Finiteness and the meaning ............................................................................ 85
4.4 The challenge of immortality ......................................................................... 91
5. Absurdity and irony .............................................................................................. 97
5.1 Futility and defiance ...................................................................................... 97
5.2 The origin of absurdity ................................................................................. 102
5.3 Absurdity and society .................................................................................. 107
5.4 The art of irony ............................................................................................ 113
6. Reasons for living ................................................................................................ 119
6.1 Pessimism and optimism ............................................................................... 119
6.2 Existence and nonexistence ......................................................................... 124
6.3 Naturalism and humanism ............................................................................ 129
6.4 Imagination, creation and play ..................................................................... 134
6.5 The way of benevolence .............................................................................. 139
6
Preface
The book explores the perennial issue of the essence and meaning of human life. It seems
that people have lost the hope that life has a meaning, and they may be right. But since we were
born, we should be curious enough to explore the wondrous and awesome phenomena of exist-
ence and consciousness, and of the ephemerality of all beings and things.
The book puts forward brief descriptions of life, mind, values, time and death. We then ana-
lyze questions of the meaning of life and of meaningful ways of living; we give critical outlines
of various religious and secular responses to these questions. We speak of the absurdity of human
life and of immortality, of the pessimistic and optimistic view of life, and of good ways of living.
The book promotes a poetic view of life and such way of living; we ought to become the poets of
existence and ephemerality, instead of being ruthless destroyers of the soil from which we grow.
In this book, I retold and extended some contents from my earlier books, because some top-
ics are the lasting subjects of my interest, and because I always hope that I can tell things in a
better way. The book consists of paragraphs which are grouped into sections and chapters; each
paragraph is denoted by a pair of the form "x.y", where x is the number of the chapter, and y is the
number of the paragraph in that chapter. The pictures on the book cover were taken from the
place where the book was written.
Muntaura, October 2024
7
1. The framework
of discourse
1.1 Life is a fountain
1.1 - A man who lived in a big city went to see a sage who lived in a cave in mountain, to
ask him what was the meaning of life. Life is a fountain, responded the sage calmly, after some
time. The visitor was not happy with the answer; after a long and difficult journey into the moun-
tain, he expected something more; but the sage did not offer him much more than that. I read this
story in an anthology of essays on the meaning of life; I mentioned it here as an introduction to a
series of reflections and arguments about the elusive "something" called the meaning of life, for
which it is not sure whether it exists or not. These reflections and arguments are often not so
simple as this story looks like. But this simple story can be interpreted in various ways. There is a
contrast between the seeker's big expectations, and the calmness of the mountain sage. But sage's
simple answer may contain and indicate much more than it seems at first sight.
Facts and interpretations
1.2 - The man with long hair and beard, sitting in the cave, is not a real sage. He works for a
tourist company which receives foreign visitors and takes them into mountain, where they can see
fake sages and listen to their vague slogans. Fake sages look very calm and meditative, and tell
beautiful slogans to the visitors. If a visitor is not happy with their slogans, fake sages do not give
much additional explanation, because they do not possess knowledge to do that and they are not
paid for that. They do not care much for the visitors, because visitors have been coming regard-
less of the quality of answers they are given.
1.3 - The man in the cave is an authentic sage and he gave a proper answer to the man from a
city. People of the technological age expect a precise (algorithmic) solution to every problem and
such an answer to every question. The sage said what he said with the aim to awake the man who
sought the wisdom which he was not able to receive. Such a mind must first be awaked, so that it
becomes able to see life and to think about it in a proper way. The claim "Life is a fountain" is an
enlightening truth which expresses a sublime wisdom and beauty. But people whose minds have
been shaped by algorithmic thinking of the technological world and whose emotions have been
crippled by the stupefying media noise are not able to see a true wisdom and beauty.
1.4 - The response of the sage shows that a wise person does not try to find conceptual an-
swers to the questions for which such answers do not exist. Wise people do not waste their time
and energy on debates and poor arguments about issues which cannot be solved by debates. The
response of the sage indicates that the question of the meaning of life is not an ordinary question
to which an exact and universally valid conceptual answer can be given. The meaning of life is
8
something that a person must create for herself or accept from others, if she wants her life to have
a meaning. We can create or adopt a meaning of life; but we cannot discover it, as an island in the
sea, because the meaning by itself does not exist.
1.5 - What kind of answer has the visitor expected from the sage? An answer about which no
further questions can be asked? An answer that tells the man exactly how he must live for his life
to have a meaning? For example, "there are many caves in this mountain; make one of them your
abode and meditate; and try to find some food in the forest; otherwise, your meaningful life will
not last long". Or perhaps, "return to your home and life, but find a less stressful job; this will be
good for your health". Or maybe, "be kind to your wife and children, if you have them; if not,
give a charity to organizations which help children and women". Those who ask for the meaning
of life do usually not think about what kind of answer would give them what they seek for.
1.6 - Let us assume that the sage who lives in the cave knows what the meaning of life is and
how to live in the meaningful way. Then it is reasonable to assume that he himself lives in ac-
cordance with his knowledge. Hence, the sage would probably advice visitors to follow his way
and to live like him. A man from the consumerist world could hardly accept such an advice. Why
has he then come to the mountain to seek answers to his questions? What he expected from the
sage, and what has he been ready to accept as a useful and feasible advice? It is probably better
not to ask advice from the people like whom you would not like to be. If you want to learn how to
live do not ask advice from those who have withdrawn from life, and who do not live a real life.
Narratives and worldviews
1.7 - It has been said that religions teach people the true meaning of life. Religion brings the
ultimate good news to people, because it teaches that people transcend the life and death of this
world, and shows people the way that leads into a blissful eternity. Western religions preach that
by serving God and obeying his commandments, a person attains eternal bliss in paradise. Eastern
religions teach people (or selves) how to move through a series of lives toward the state of ever-
lasting peace and bliss, called moksa (in Hinduism) and nirvana (in Buddhism).
1.8 - Some secular souls teach that the purpose and meaning of life in this world is to reach a
spiritual perfection. Discourse about spiritual perfection sounds appealing and inspiring, but I
have difficulties with the understanding of concepts such as spiritual and perfection. Other poetic
souls have preached that people make life meaningful by living it in its fullness, in an open and
productive way. This path does not lead to paradise or moksa/nirvana, but brings the most excit-
ing and creative life that an ephemeral human being can experience. Such life transforms people
from the servants of chimerical deities into creators of their world and masters of their lives
1.9 - Poetic souls have preached that the meaning of life is love, and that only love can be-
stow meaning on life. Love raises people above time, suffering and death, and only love can do
that. Such a teaching sounds very poetic and inspiring; the problem is that it often looks more
difficult to find a true love than to find the meaning of life. Each life moves toward death; hence,
death may be considered the ultimate aim of life. Pessimists have preached that the sooner a life
reaches this goal, the better. Such teaching does not look appealing, but it may be correct. Many
things are not good, and human life could be one of such things.
1.10 - Sages, poets and prophets have produced many stories which give answers to the
question of the meaning of life; various leaders, scholastic souls and charlatans have produced
9
such stories too. Some of the stories that such people produced have been charming and appeal-
ing; some have been interesting and inspiring; some have been consoling and socially useful. But
many of such stories have been used in oppressive ways and for aggressive and destructive
purposes. Each of such stories can bring the meaning only to the people that accept it and do not
question its discourse. But such acceptances have been dangerous and they have facilitated very
bad things.
1.11 - A charming story may not manage to bestow a lasting peace on your life. Wisdom
may not be able to answer all questions and solve all problems in a happy way. But the insight
into the perennial issue of the meaning of life can help people to understand their situation and
inclinations better. This can help people to use their energy and direct their endeavours in the way
that makes their lives better. Understanding helps people to live their lives in a meaningful way
and to avoid doing what seems meaningless. We distinguish the meaning of life and a meaningful
way of living. Life does not have an ultimate (final, absolute) meaning, but it can be lived in a
meaningful way. We speak about that in the next chapter.
In search of a collocutor
1.12 - The man that went into the mounting seeking the answer to the question of the mean-
ing of life had probably heard various teachings about that issue. It seems that he was not happy
with those teachings; hence, he went to seek for a better answer to this question. But it may be
that the man did not expect a precise answer from the sage. It may be that he desired to meet a
collocutor who understands human anxiety and yearning, and who may know how to control
these inherent forces in the least painful way. The man seeks for a collocutor with whom it is a
pleasure to talk. He wants to challenge the sage who is supposed to know how to live and die, and
to see whether the sage really understands life and death better than the rest of us do. Such an
encounter may give the meaning to the life of a person; because the meaning is a feeling.
1.13 - The seemingly trivial claim, "Life is a fountain", may express the supreme truth about
human life. This claim may show the way that leads to the enlightenment, which the seeker was
looking for, but was not able to find. The simple claim of the sage has shown him this way. But
the situation may also be quite the opposite. The exchange of a couple of words between the two
very remote persons and lives may be a painful failure of an attempt of conversation between two
lonely human beings. Such failures have always happened and they will always happen. Many
people seek proper collocutors their entire life, but do not manage to find them. Many people live
and die without ever encountering a proper collocutor; it often seems that we all live and die
without proper collocutors.
1.14 - The seeker of the meaning who visited the sage in the mountain was disappointed with
the response he got. Did he expect to hear from the sage a secret teaching and the truth that will
enlighten him and give a lasting meaning to his life? On what basis he expected the sage to tell
this enlightening and salvation-bringing doctrine to him? Would it not be better for the sage to
publish his wisdom in a booklet and make a lot of money? Why would the sage tell the supreme
wisdom to an ignorant who is not able to understand this wisdom properly and convey it to the
world? Would it not be better that the sage put his salvation-bringing wisdom on the internet, so
that all people can be enlightened by it, understand the meaning of life and live happily? If the
knowledge of the meaning of life does make people happy - which may not be the case.
10
1.15 - People who live in caves do probably not know much about how to live outside a
cave, in common world. Such people withdrew from the world and life because they were not
able or willing to cope with efforts and frustrations that common life brings about. You can trust
me in this regard, because I spent the best part of my life in a small house in the forest on a hill
All my books were written at that place. I have usually stayed there for several days and nights
consecutively; I descended into civilization a couple of days weekly, to earn for living. I con-
structed a little house in the forest on the hill because I was not happy with the life in the valley.
After forty years of dwelling in the forest (in 2022), I do not know what to say about life, nor
what is the best way of living it. I am not sure whether I have lived an excellent life on the hill, or
I have wasted my life on writing books and watching the sky and the sun how it goes down
toward the sea on the horizon. It could be both: an excellent way of wasting a life.
1.16 - Is life an illusion? - asked somebody on a scientific network. Thousands of answers
were given to this question; most of them were not interesting. Answers were posted for months
and it may be that they are still posted. This shows what people think of in the background of
their professional activities. It is hard to answer the above question in a proper way because it is
hard to say what is illusion and what is life. But life does look like an illusion, because we - or I -
do not have a sense of time. I remembered at this moment an event that happened forty years ago,
and my memory and feelings about that event have been vivid as if it happened yesterday. Dec-
ades pass and we do not feel them; we pass and we do not know when this has been happening.
Life looks like an illusion indeed, like a sort of mirage; life is a fountain of illusions.
About the contents
1.17 - In the first chapter we present several entities and concepts which need to be defined
or described in a proper way for a clear discourse about life and death. It has been said that
scientists can easily distinguish "living matter" from "inert or dead matter"; but scientists have
not managed to produce a concise, complete and sound definition of life. A definition is complete
if it includes all entities it should include; a definition is sound if it does not include those entities
it should not include. The lack of a proper definition of life indicates that it is not clear what
exactly makes an entity a living being. The situation with the definition of death and of the
moment when death takes place has become problematic too. Many technological devices which
are used in medicine make the distinction between life and death more and more problematic. We
present these issues in the first chapter, in which we also give brief descriptions of the concepts of
time, mind, values, feelings and reason.
1.18 - The issue of the meaning of life used to be the core subject of philosophical enquiry;
outside of the academy it probably still is. But this topic has virtually disappeared from the
academic philosophical discourse. Why has this happened? What is wrong with this question? -
asks a professor of philosophy. He answers that this question is "extremely obscure, if not down-
right unintelligible"; in fact, its is not clear "what exactly the question is supposed to be asking".
The question of the meaning of life is vague; but this should not be the reason for philosophers
not to address this question. They should present this perennial issue in a clear way, and show
what can be known about it. But scholastic souls do not like to deal with issues which matter to
common people. They prefer to play games with abstract concepts, which are not relevant for
anybody except for the players of those games. We speak of the issue of the meaning of life and
of the meaningful way of living in chapter 2.
11
1.19 - The lamentations and fantasies about life and death have been produced by members
of an animal species that happened to have larger mental abilities than are needed for the physical
survival in this world. It seems that other animals do not have such problems, so that they would
live happily, if people were not destroying them and the world. Pundits say that the human brain
does not differ much from the brain of giraffe; but it seems that this difference matters. It seems
that only people ask about the meaning of life, and struggle with this tormenting question. But we
cannot be sure about that: we do not know what giraffes think about in their spare time. Anyway,
it is not possible to give a definitive (absolute) answer to the question of why we should live; but
we ought to seek the answer to the question of how we should live, since we are here, regardless
of whether it is good to be here (born) or not.
1.20 - It is hard to give a definitive answer to the question why we should live; but it is rather
clear why we do live. We are living beings, and living beings inherently aim to live, and struggle
for life as long as they can. We are conscious beings, and conscious beings inherently aim to be,
and struggle for being as long as they can. We live because we inherently desire to live and to be.
But the fact that we desire to live does not mean that life is something good; we may be cursed
with this desire that brings us more suffering than joy, and leads us to the painful and humiliating
end, called death.
1.21 - The third chapter gives critical outlines of religious narratives which interpret human
life and existence in ways that liberate people from the depressing reality of their ephemeral lives.
Religions raise people above their limitations and impotence. Not to be all and forever, means not
to be! - complains Miguel de Unamuno, a passionate Christian soul in search of consolation and
meaning. Shankara, a passionate Hindu self (soul), claims that he found what Unamuno yearned
for. Every individual self (consciousness) is a fleeting wavelet on the endless ocean of the univer-
sal self called Atman; and Atman is Brahman, the ultimate Reality: the One that knows no divi-
sions and limits. Shankara's vision looks like a perfect solution to the problem of human limita-
tions and ephemerality, at least at the conceptual level. In this chapter we speak of Western and
Eastern religions and of their responses to the challenges of life and death.
1.22 - Secular approach to life and existence points out that religions have been created and
used by power-holders, as the means for controlling and governing people. Deities and trans-
cendent realms and states are creations of the human imagination, led by people's needs, aims and
aspirations. Religious narratives are not compatible with people's experiences and obvious facts.
There is no indication that deities and transcendent realms and states exist, except as abstract
entities created by the human mind. We ought to adopt an image of life and reality, which is
compatible with people's experience and scientific knowledge, and to shape our lives in accord-
ance with such a narrative. We ought to learn to live and die in this and such world, because there
are no other worlds.
1.23 - Death throws a dark shadow over human life. We are travellers who know that they
will be killed on the way. It has been said that this makes every moment of the voyage more
exciting and precious; but death spoils the pleasure of travelling. Life is a voyage from nonexist-
ence to nonexistence, which has perplexed and terrified people since their beginnings. Sages and
rulers produced narratives which say that human life and reality are not such as we see them, and
that beyond this world of suffering and death, there is a transcendent reality of everlasting bliss,
toward which we move. People have considered death the greatest evil, and immortality the
greatest good, but things are not so simple. Death has some positive effects; immortality does not
answer the question of meaning; eternal existence could be boring, infinitely boring. Epicurus
12
and Lucretius tried to surmount death by means of reason; and Socrates accepted death with an
impressive calmness. We speak of these things in the fourth chapter.
1.24 - It has been said that human life is meaningless and absurd, because sub specie aeterni-
tatis, all our thoughts and feelings, endeavours and achievements are infinitely small and irrele-
vant, and will be forgotten. The expression sub specie aeternitatis means "under the aspect of
eternity"; many use the expression "from the point of view of the universe"; I prefer the expres-
sion "from the viewpoint of eternity". From that viewpoint, each human life is an inconceivably
small event, so that it could hardly be considered significant or have any meaning. This looks
utterly depressing, but from the point of view of the endless universe and eternity, every limited
phenomenon is infinitesimally small and irrelevant; nothing matters from the viewpoint of eterni-
ty. But why should we care for the universe and eternity? Your life matters to you and to some
other people, and this is a sufficient reason for you to aim to live your life in a meaningful way.
We speak of the sense of absurdity of human life and the possible responses to that sense in the
chapter five.
1.25 - The sun is burning its mass and it will burn out and die. All stars are burning and dy-
ing, and the entire universe is dying. The fact that every human being will die is utterly depress-
ing; the fact that the universe will die is utterly discouraging. All that people have done, thought
and felt will vanish, as if it never existed. The question arises whether it is good to be born into
such a reality or it is better not to be born. We do not have a universal criterion on the basis of
which we could answer to such a question for each person and for people in general. The way a
person feels life depends on her character and on the circumstances in which she lives. In the last
chapter, we argue that in spite of its tragic dimension, human life can be lived in a meaningful
way. This can be done by a constructive and benevolent behaviour toward others and the natural
world. Life is often hard and cruel, but goodness and compassion bring consolation and make life
an endurable and often happy experience. By our goodness and mutual support, we can create
and experience joy in our ephemeral lives in this strange world.
1.26 - It is hard to know how people feel life, because communities teach their members to
repress their sorrows and the sense of impotence, and require them to do so. Some people try to
be optimists; others abandon themselves to their pessimistic feelings. Optimists admit that life has
bad sides, but in spite of that, they approve life and existence. Pessimists claim that human life is
inherently frustrating and depressing, and that it is not possible to render it good. Pessimists and
optimists are both right. Human life is a tragedy which contains happy events and joyous mo-
ments; but taken as a whole, life looks depressing and I feel it so. However, if I had not been
given this gift or curse called life, I would not have known anything. I am a curious person, so
that I accept life; but my sense of life is closer to pessimism than to optimism.
1.27 - There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval between them - says
George Santayana. Indeed, but is it possible for people to enjoy that interval, called life, and in
what way this can be done? People try to make their lives enjoyable by means of deities and
transcendent realities; they try to make themselves happy by means of entertainment, machines
and intense activities. People long for happiness and struggle to find it; but happiness is an
elusive concept and mental state. People desire to be happy, but it is hard to say to what extent
they manage to be happy. People die; and they are not happy - wrote Albert Camus. People are
not happy with how life looks like, and they are not happy with the fact that they must die. It may
be that happiness does not exist; happiness could be an illusion invented by clever people, which
has been marketed in various packages by various traders to those who long for it.
13
1.2 Concepts of life and death
1.28 - People are limited beings with limitless aspirations; from this discrepancy spring the
lasting human anxiety and yearning. The greatest human limitation is the finiteness of human life.
This limitation has shaped people's discourse and behaviour since their beginnings. A discourse
about life and death assumes that people know what "life" and "death" are, although they do not
know precise definitions of these phenomena. I am not of medical profession, but I tried to learn
some basic technical things about life and death from the extensive articles "life" and "death" of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica (digital edition, 2016). Most technical data and quotations come
from these articles. Interpretations of those data, and additional explanations and comments are
mine.
On the definition of life
1.29 - The earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Experts say that "life can be traced
to fossils more than 3.4 billion years old", so that life is "only slightly younger than Earth". It
would be interested to know on what basis have expert proclaimed some fossils "life", and how
have those fossils lasted for billions of years. But we do not deal with such issues here; what
looks more interesting is the claim that "more than 99.9 percent of species that have ever lived
are extinct". This means that nearly all species that existed have vanished; this also indicates that
people have good chance to vanish too, in one way or another, possibly rather soon.
1.30 - Biology does not give a precise and universal definition of life, on the basis of which
it is possible to differentiate all living entities from all nonliving entities. "Life" or "living matter"
has been described as a "matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth,
metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction". The word "life" is a noun, but it has been
said that this word "might be better cast as a verb to reflect its essential status as a process". Life
is a process, but the noun "life" can name this process, as nouns normally do. Every living being
"is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation
of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism)", as well as of growth and other activities
mentioned above.
1.31 - Scientists and other people who participate in studies of life "easily distinguish living
matter from inert or dead matter", but they have not managed to produce a complete and sound
definition of life, which comprises all living beings and only living beings. Because some living
beings do not have some features that most living beings have; some entities that are not living
beings may have virtually all core features that characterize living beings. For these reasons, it is
hard to give a definition of life, which includes all what it should, and nothing more than that.
Because of the lack of universal definition, scientists use various definitions of life, which are
called the metabolic, physiological, biochemical, genetic, thermodynamic, and autopoietic defini-
tions of life. Each of these definitions describes life from the point of view indicated by its name.
1.32 - Life is a complex phenomenon which appears in countless forms and has a large va-
riety of features, so that it is hard to define it in a unique way. There are claims that life is a fuzzy
phenomenon; "living systems are distinguished from nonliving systems only by degrees", says
Paul Churchland. "There is no metaphysical gap to be bridged: only a smooth slope to be scaled,
a slope measured in degrees of order and in degrees of self-regulation". Such claims about fuzzi-
ness look confusing, if scientists can "easily distinguish living matter from inert or dead matter",
14
as it is said above. Fuzziness should make difficult to distinguish those entities that are alive from
those that are not considered such. In any case, fuzziness makes difficult to give a precise defini-
tion of life, because a definition must not introduce a sharp distinction where such distinction
does not exist in reality.
1.33 - A human being has been described as an "ambulatory collection" of some ten thou-
sand trillion cells. Such a huge number of cells is needed for one single human body. A cell is
called the "minimal living unit" and "the minimal unit of life". Cells that constitute a human body
are basically the same as those that other animals are made of. A cell typically consists of one
central nucleus and of other things around it. Experts say that every cell is "a marvel of detailed
and complex architecture", and it looks "frenetic with activity" when observed by a microscope.
Therefore, a human being is an ambulatory collection of very active and mutually interacting
cells. This ambulatory collection functions remarkably well as long as it can, but it is an ephem-
eral phenomenon and it declines and collapses after a certain amount of functioning.
1.34 - Living beings have been sensing their environment and responding to outer stimuli
since the beginnings of life. The ability to sense the environment and to respond to outer stimuli
are core features of entities that are considered alive. But it is hard to say which living beings are
conscious of what they do and which are not. It is hard to say at what level of the development of
life has evolution produced consciousness. People are conscious and self-conscious beings, but it
is hard to say whether other animals are self-conscious. Does a mouse regret for the fact that it is
a mouse and not a lion or at least a dog which can chase cats? It is hard to say whether living
beings of low cognitive abilities make a choice on the basis of a conscious deliberation, or they
simply respond to outer stimuli in a physiologically predetermined way.
The appearance of life
1.35 - Living organisms are produced by the existing living organisms, and cells come from
other cells. How then life began? A rational explanation of the origin of life assumes that life was
produced by processes in collections of inanimate entities (molecules) and by interactions of such
collections and processes. This assumption finds a strong confirmation in the fact that living
beings consists of nonliving matter. Life is essentially a feature of a collection of molecules and
of the processes those molecules perform. It is hard to imagine how a movement and interactions
of nonliving entities produced life: how this process became "alive". But life exists, so we can
assume that this remarkable event has taken place at least once, and possibly many times, in the
remote past. Life has been reproducing, growing and spreading ever since.
1.36 - The claim that a new kind of entity (quality) was produced by certain processes and
interactions does not really explain how this entity was created. It is usually said that life emerged
from nonliving matter, but this does not explain much either. After the appearance (emergence)
of life, the next great event in the history of existence was the emergence of consciousness. Life
emerged from nonliving matter, and consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter and life.
The emergence of phenomena of completely different kind opens a new ontological dimension of
existence. We now have nonliving matter, unconscious life, and conscious living beings; in the
next section we will add to this the dimension of abstract entities, such as numbers, languages,
deities and symphonies, created by the human mind.
1.37 - Experiments have shown that most of the "essential building blocks" (monomers) of
proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids can be produced in the conditions which are similar to
15
those that are supposed to have existed on Earth in the time when life began. But such entities are
considered the food for living beings rather than living beings themselves. Experiments have
produced also more complex structures and entities, but the path from the lifeless matter to a
living being has not been fully understood yet. The problem is how to make the step from a
lifeless matter to a living matter (being). Life can be observed and described in many ways, but
life is "an emergent phenomenon", says James Lovelock, and we may never manage to explain it
in a clear and complete way.
1.38 - It is assumed that the first forms of life were crystal-like molecular "aggregates"
which became able to change their chemical composition by "absorbing energy" from their
environment in the way that made them "autonomous systems". In this way the first cells were
formed and life emerged. One of the basic features of these cells was the ability to replicate
themselves. But autonomy and replication are not sufficient for the definition of life. Many
entities can be considered autonomous systems, and computer viruses are quite good in replicat-
ing themselves.
1.39 - I live mostly in the natural environment, among plants and grasses, animals and bee-
tles. I hold that all living beings have an inherent will to live, and always struggle for life. It may
not look appropriate to speak about the will of plants and other living beings for which we as-
sume that are not conscious, such as bacteria or worms; but I have an impression that all living
beings behave as if they wish to live and to propagate life. Anyway, I use the expression the will
to live as a figurative description of the behaviour of living beings around me. This expression
points at the way living beings behave, regardless of whether they do that consciously or not. In
the same way, the will to be seems inherent to conscious beings. The will to be may be the mani-
festation of the will to live, at the level of conscious existence.
The hour of our death
1.40 - Death can be described as the cessation of life; but there is no universal (unique) defi-
nition of life. Experts say that "the most useful definitions of life" are those that "stress" specific
functions of the living organism. Death can then be described as "the irreversible loss of such
functions". But not all functions are equally important for life, so that they are not equally appro-
priate indicators of death. It has been said that the "death of the brain is the necessary and suffi-
cient condition for death of the individual", and that "the physiological core of brain death is the
death of the brain stem". The death of the brain has been called the "point of no return" and the
definitive end of life.
1.41 - The brain stem is the area at the base of the brain, which contains many elements that
are essential for the functioning of the body. It contains "centres" that are "responsible" for
breathing and the maintenance of blood pressure; it contains the "activating system" that "plays a
crucial role in maintaining alertness" and "in generating the capacity for consciousness". All "the
motor outputs from the cerebral hemispheres ... are routed through the brain stem". Such motor
outputs are essential for the ability of movement and speech. The "nerve fibres responsible for the
integrated functioning of the organism as a whole" pass through the brain stem. Most sensory
inputs also travel through that part of the brain. The brain stem is "so tightly packed with im-
portant structures that small lesions there often have devastating effects".
1.42 - Except in the case of very destructive conditions, such as extreme heat, body does not
die instantly. Various parts of the human body die with different speeds, and they may retain
16
some essential qualities several hours or days after the heart stopped working. Cells differ widely
in their capacities of surviving without the oxygen supply, which ceases when the heart and blood
circulation stop functioning. Dying is a process that lasts a certain time; death is the state that this
process produces. Dying is a finite process, but it is not quite sure when this process ends. This is
a medical, legal and cultural issue, as well as a conceptual and technological issue.
1.43 - Various devices have made it possible "to maintain ventilation (by respirators), cardi-
ac functions (by various pumping devices), feeding (by the intravenous route), and the elimina-
tion of the waste products of metabolism (by dialysis) in a body whose brain is irreversibly dead".
Therefore, essential functions of the human body, such as respiration, blood circulation, feeding
and the elimination of the waste products can be maintained by means of technological devices,
after the death of the brain. If we assume that the death of the brain means the cessation of life,
we can say that machines can keep the body of a dead person alive, which creates a problematic
situation.
1.44 - People struggle for life as long as they can; technology has allowed them to achieve
remarkable results in this struggle. But the intense use of medical devices may cause a lot of
useless suffering to terminally ill people. The prolonging of life of a person that has irreversibly
lost her physical and mental abilities, by means of technical devices, often looks senseless and
may be cruel and humiliating. The fact that people produced machines that can prolong the life of
a dying person for a certain amount of time does not give the right to anybody to use such ma-
chines in the way that ignores other factors. It is cruel to keep alive by means of machines a
person who is in a hopeless condition, whose life is only suffering, and who does not want to be
kept alive in such a state any longer. In a reasonable society, such things should not be allowed.
What sense it makes to prolong the life of a person for one day, one month, or one century when
this life is not life anymore and there is no chance that it could become life ever again? I would
not want to be kept alive in a hopeless situation by means of machines.
1.45 - Those who oppose euthanasia because of their respect of human life understand this
respect in a different way than I do. I support euthanasia in those situations in which nothing but
suffering has remained, and I do that precisely because of the respect for human life and dignity.
Every death is unique, as every life is, so that it is difficult to speak of these issues in general
terms. Attitudes about these issues are a matter of character and sensibility. It has been said that
the legalization of euthanasia would create a pressure on every old and ill person to accept it and
to do what is "reasonable" and what is her "duty". Such claims are legitimate, but it is possible to
find a reasonable solution. Every person should have the possibility to make a statement regard-
ing this issue before she is exposed to any pressure. Such a statement could be simple and it
would be registered in the medical documentation of that person. One day, when a competent
medical commission concludes that the conditions from the statement are fulfilled, the story
would be over. Such statements could be abused; but abuses of those who are weak and helpless
can happen also without such statements.
1.46 - Death has been utterly depressing for people since their beginnings. Poets and sages
have always tried to express human helplessness in front of this monster, as well as to console
people in front of it. A natural death does not make human life so miserable as a violent death
does; people have been killing each other since their beginnings. Destructive and cruel behaviour
makes the very existence of people repulsive. The one who killed an innocent person, killed the
world, said a poet. But people have gotten used to push aside the horrors of yesterday to be able
to endure the horrors of this day.
17
1.3 Existence, time and mind
1.47 - People have always asked about the origin of the world and people, and about the
ephemerality of human lives. Rulers and sages produced many answers to such questions because
they served their needs, as well as the needs of people. But existence, life and consciousness have
remained three great wonders and mysteries. It is not possible to know why there is something
instead of nothing. It is a wonder that inanimate matter produced life, and it is a wonder that life
produced consciousness and the human mind that is aware of these wonders and mysteries.
1.48 - The inanimate cosmic process produced life, sentient beings, and the human mind that
observes, questions and evaluates the process that produced it, as well as itself. Science may one
day explain how the "ghost" (mind) is produced by the "machine" (brain), but we do not know
how such an explanation could look like. Because science speaks in objective ("third-person")
way, while consciousness is intrinsically a subjective ("first-person") phenomenon.
The mystery of existence
1.49 - The mystery of existence cannot be resolved; it is not possible to explain why there is
something instead of nothing. We describe specific phenomena and explain their origin by means
of other phenomena and relationships between them. The existence as a whole comprises every-
thing (by definition), so that there is nothing outside of it; this means that there is nothing by
means of which the existence itself could be explained. The source and cause of existence should
be something that transcends existence; therefore, something that does not exist. What does not
exist cannot cause or explain anything.
1.50 - The source of everything that is should reside beyond the limits of everything that is.
Beyond everything that is, there is nothing, so that it is not possible to speak in a consistent way
about the source of everything that is. Such discourse is cognitively empty and it does not give
any real explanation. Nothing factually correct, logically consistent and cognitively relevant can
be said about the origin of existence. The question why there is something instead of nothing
cannot be answered, but it can be asked; reflective minds have always asked such questions.
1.51 - It has been argued that the reality we know is created by the Will that transcends the
phenomenal reality that we know. But the assumption that the universe was created by the Will,
Creator or God that transcends the realm of created phenomena does not solve the mystery of
existence; it only pushes this mystery one step further: from the perceivable reality to its uncon-
ceivable Creator. The question about the origin, which we ask about existence, can and must be
asked about Creator too. The assumption of Creator makes the mystery of existence even greater.
Instead of the initial question, why there is something instead of nothing, we must now ask why
there is Creator instead of nothing, and why this Creator, not some other. The trick with Creator
does not solve the mystery of existence.
1.52 - Theologians claim that if we consider the universe a series of events (finite or infinite,
the same) it is legitimate to ask for the origin and cause of this series. They describe this cause as
the "first" and "uncaused", and call it God. We do not know much about God, but we know that
he must exist, because this is the only way existence can be made "intelligible", they say. This
argument is not good. If you insist that the universe must have a cause, and that the principle of
causality leads to God, then you must ask for the cause of the existence of God. You cannot use
the principle of causality when it serves your purpose and ignore it when it creates you difficul-
18
ties. If the universe must have a cause, then God must have a cause; if God can exist without a
cause, then the universe can exist without a cause. Second, the claim that an assumption is neces-
sary for something to be "intelligible" does not mean that this assumption is correct; it may be
that existence is simply not intelligible. Existence simply is, and this is nearly all that can be said
about that.
1.53 - People have always asked about the origin of existence and about the purpose and aim
of human life. They were not happy with the claim that the source of existence cannot exist; they
have not been happy with the claim that life is a futile way from nonexistence to nonexistence.
Myths and religions have offered people more exciting and more appealing answers to their
questions. Those answers do not look factually correct and logically coherent, but people have
loved and needed stories about transcendent realities and states of everlasting bliss. Most people
need or love a narrative which explains existence in an encouraging way, and describes human
life as a way that leads from this world of frustrations and death to the realm of everlasting bliss.
Such narratives may not be convincing in terms of material facts and logical coherence, but they
are appealing and many people love and need them. People need a consolation for the fact that
they were born and that they must suffer and die; and they love wondrous stories that bring them
such a consolation and hope.
1.54 - The famous big bang theory does not explain the origin of existence; it describes in
what way the present universe has developed. The big bang could not have happened out of
nothing, because "nothing" cannot explode; such explosion would contradict basic laws of
physics and of human understanding. If at the big bang exploded something, then this explosion
was not the beginning of existence, because that "something" that exploded already existed and
made the explosion possible. For the big bang to take place, something had to exist, and some-
thing had to cause the explosion. The big bang must have been the result of an existing process,
because only a process can cause another process (explosion). This means that it is not possible to
speak in a coherent way of the absolute beginning of existence and happening. Hence, we must
assume that the process of existence does not have a beginning.
1.55 - Regarding the question why there is something instead of nothing, let me mention that
I do not know whether it is possible to imagine "nothing" as absolute nonexistence. I can imagine
the absence of some things, or even the absence of every thing I can imagine. But I do not know
whether I can imagine the absence everything. The most I manage imagine is an empty space, but
this is not nonexistence: emptiness is more than nothingness. A verse from Rig Veda says that
before the creation, no thing existed, nor did nothing exist. So, even nothing did not exist before it
was created; this suggests that nothing is something, and that nonexistence must be less than
nothing. Anyway, it seems hard to imagine the absence of everything.
A cosmic miracle
1.56 - Experts say that the appearance of life on Earth looks like a cosmic miracle. If certain
"constants" (physical values) were not such as they have been, the universe would have devel-
oped in a different way, and the present life on Earth would have not appeared. Several constants
(conditions) that were needed for life to appear have been very precise (narrow), and hence very
improbable; and all those conditions had to be fulfilled at the same time. Even a small change in
the value of any of them would have made the development of life on Earth impossible. This
sounds dramatic, but the universe has been such as it has been and this is why we are here. If the
universe were different, we would have probably not been here and that is all. We are contingent
19
creatures, and it was quite possible that we do not appear. If the physical constants mentioned
above were different, something else would have taken place and some other phenomena would
have appeared, possibly better, more beautiful, and more exciting than the present ones are.
1.57 - The fact that the universe is such as it is does not impress me, and the fact that people
exist does not impress me either. What impresses me is the fact that ephemeral creatures, such as
people, are so impressed by the fact that they exist. They say that Creator created them in his own
image and that the world is the stage that Creator made for people to play their comedies and
tragedies on it. What an arrogance of cosmic proportions! We exist, but we were not created by
anybody; nothing was created because of us, and we do not serve any purpose beyond living our
lives. We simply coexist with stars and rats, with rivers and butterflies, and with countless other
phenomena. Existence is amazing, charming and awesome, but it was not invented by anybody,
and it was not created for people. Existence was not created; it simply is, as a happening without
a beginning and purpose.
1.58 - Everything can be considered normal, but our existence here and now does look like a
cosmic miracle. Out of billions of solar systems, only for the one in which we dwell is known that
it supports life. Earth has existed for several billion years; various humanoid beings have existed
only during the last thousandth part of the existence of Earth, and human civilization has existed
only during the last thousandth part of the existence of humanoids. Our knowledge of the uni-
verse is limited in spatial and temporal terms, but it seems that the appearance of beings such as
people belongs among the extremely rare cosmic phenomena.
1.59 - People have called themselves the consciousness of the universe and the supreme
creation of the process of existence. But people have also been terrified and depressed by their
ephemeral existence. They have tried to console and encourage themselves by wondrous stories
about their greatness and eternal lasting. But they have always known that they have been dust
and that to dust they return. We are very important to ourselves here and now, but from a distant
point of view, we are all irrelevant. We are ephemeral beings with infinite aspirations, which
makes us a tragic cosmic phenomenon. Maybe it would have been better that those cosmic
constants were different than they have been.
The river of existence
1.60 - Many have tried to describe time in a proper way, but discourse about time has re-
mained imprecise, incomplete and mostly inconsistent. I consider time an element of language,
by means of which people express their experience and understanding of the changing physical
reality. Time is an element of language, not an ingredient of physical reality; time is an abstract
entity, like numbers. Time does not flow: time is the artificial bank, created by the human mind,
in relation to which the physical world flows.
1.61 - Time has been described as an invisible river that carries all things until they sink in
its waves. But time is not a river and it does not flow. Physical reality is a process which produc-
es changes; figuratively speaking, physical reality is a river that flows by itself and does not need
anything beyond itself to be what it is. Time is not part of physical reality; time is an abstract
entity by means of which people express their perception and experience of the changing physical
reality. Matter and living beings are not "carried along" by time; things change by their nature;
they are not carried anywhere. People express their experience of change in terms of the passage
of time, but this is a figurative discourse.
20
1.62 - Aging is not caused by time, but by change which is inherent to the physical world.
The passage of time and our passage in time are figurative descriptions of the fact that everything
changes. All physical things change: winds blow and rivers flow, grasses grow and birds fly,
people change, get older and pass away. Physical reality is a river that flows; time is the abstract
dimension onto which the human mind projects its experience of the changing (flowing) physical
reality. Time is the means by which we measure the intensity and amount of change. Time does
not pass, but we do: we are hourglasses which runs only once.
1.63 - We express time by cyclic movement of a chosen process. But a cyclic movement is
not time: it is a process. There is no time in the physical world; there are only processes. When
we say that somebody is fifty, we say how much has that person lived, in comparison with the
cyclic movement of the earth around the sun. Time is a measure of the intensity and amount of
change, expressed in terms of chosen cyclic processes, such as the rotation of the earth around the
sun and around itself, and the oscillation of some chosen atoms or other particles. Physical reality
is a process of becoming and vanishing; human mind projects its perception and experience of
this process onto an abstract dimension (coordinate), called time. The points on this dimension
are determined by a chosen cyclic process. This cyclic process then serves as the measure of the
intensity of the development of other processes.
1.64 - Every thing that people can perceive, feel or think about belongs into one of the fol-
lowing three classes: the class of physical entities (C1), the class of mental entities (C2), and the
class of abstract entities (C3). These classes show three spheres (spaces) of existence, and three
ontological dimensions of reality. The first class comprises all physical entities; the second class
comprises all mental states; the third class comprises all abstract entities. Stones, rivers and trees
belong to the class of physical entities. Mental states are natural phenomena which emerge from
physical entities (brain), but they are a new kind of entities and constitute a new ontological class
(dimension) which consists of mental states, such as desire, pain, love and anger. Human mind
(mental entities) produces abstract entities, which form a new ontological dimension of reality
and existence. Such creations of the human mind are numbers and languages, theories, deities and
symphonies, as well as all forms created by the human mind. A book consists of physical carrier
(C1) and of contents which is an abstract entity (C3).
1.65 - Time, space, causality and numbers belong to the class of abstract entities, by means of
which we describe our perception and understanding of the world and life. Abstract entities are not
part of physical reality (C1); they are creations of the human mind (C2), and they form a new
sphere (dimension) of existence (C3). Time is a product (creation) of the mind, but it is not a
specific mental state, like the pain I feel in my left knee, or my love for Julia. Time is a measure,
and all measures are created by people (and adopted by consensus), which means that they are
abstract entities. The metaphor of the flow of time has its poetic appeal and it points at the transi-
toriness of physical phenomena. But transitoriness is inherent to physical phenomena; time does
not cause it; it only describes it.
1.66 - There are claims that the "passage of time" is necessary for a change to take place.
The relationship between change and time may look problematic because it is usually observed in
the wrong way. It is wrong to start from the position that events take place "in time" and that a
change "needs time" to take place. Physical reality is a process, and change is intrinsic to a
process. Change is also an essential dimension of the human perception and understanding of
physical reality. Change is ontologically and epistemologically prior to time: we perceive change,
21
not time. If there were no change, nobody would speak of time; nobody would have invented
time.
1.67 - It is usually assumed that physics knows best what time is, because time plays a prom-
inent role in its theories. But physics consists of many theories; each of those theories describes a
class of phenomena observed at a certain level of observation. Different theories, such as quan-
tum theory and the theory of relativity, speak of time in different ways, so that physics does not
give one image of time, but several, which do not look mutually compatible. It is actually not
clear what time means in physics, and whether it means anything beyond its technical (formal)
role in a theory. Physics is not in a position to tell us "what time is" and how it "flows", because
different theories of physics speak of time in different ways which are not mutually consistent.
Let us mention that a discourse about time in quantum theory looks vague and incomplete, and a
discourse about time in the theory of relativity (special and general) looks structurally wrong and
logically inconsistent.
A fissure on the face of existence
1.68 - For a discourse about time, we need the past and the future; for the past and the future
to exist, a now is needed which stands between them and in relation to which they are the past
and the future. "Now" is a state of the conscious mind and it exists only for the mind. The lan-
guage of physics does not register mental states and cannot express the state "now". "Now" is a
mental state and it does not exist in the inanimate physical world; hence, there is no past and no
future, and no flow of time in the physical world. Time is not a physical phenomenon, independ-
ent of the mind. Events in the inanimate physical world can be considered "ordered" or "directed"
because of the way they evolve (take place), but there is no basis for considering this order (or
direction) temporal by itself.
1.69 - The inanimate physical world is now-less, and hence time-less. Conscious mind intro-
duces "now" into existence, and with this it sets time in motion. Without conscious beings,
processes on the earth would evolve as a "reality in motion", as they were evolving before the
conscious mind appeared on its surface. But there would not be time in such a world, because it is
not possible to speak of time as something independent of the conscious mind. This is a concep-
tual issue, not empirical; clocks do not know time; only a conscious mind can know time, because
it knows "now", "past" and "future", which a clock does not know. The mind projects its
knowledge of time onto the inanimate physical world; but this is how the mind interprets reality,
not something that is intrinsic to reality and that the mind discovered in it.
1.70 - We do not have a good theory of the mind; hence, the mind and consciousness are
usually described in figurative ways. I call consciousness a separation and a fissure on the face of
non-conscious physical reality. Consciousness emerges from the physical world, but it is not a
physical entity or any kind of "substance". Hence, it can be figuratively called a separation and a
fissure on the face of physical reality, through which existence observes and feels itself. Con-
sciousness is a structural feature of certain physical entities (brains) or a feature of physical
structures of a certain kind. But consciousness is a very peculiar feature: it sees the world and
feels it, it knows it and can transcend it by its thoughts and imagination.
1.71 - Physical reality is a process, and my body is a process: it is a tiny sub-process of the
endless process, called the universe. My consciousness is a fissure on the face of physical reality,
through which my elusive "I" observes physical reality from which it emerges. The conscious
22
mind is radically different from the physical reality (C1) from which it emerges. The mind creates
its sphere of subjective reality (C2): the sphere of pain and pleasure, of joy and sorrow, of anxiety
and yearning. The mind explores the soil from which it has grown: it measures the universe,
counts its galaxies and stars, computes their movements and speeds. The mind creates the realm
of abstract entities (C3), which consists of the creations of its thoughts and imagination.
1.72 - Past events exist no more; future events do not exist yet; only the present events exist:
only the present physical reality physically exists. The past exists only as memories and records
of a reality that is no more; the future exists only as the expectation of a reality that is not yet. The
past and the future can exist only in the form of the present memories and expectations. Memo-
ries and expectations exert influence on the present mental states which shape the present events;
but the past and the future do not exist in the material sense. Only the present reality exists: "to
exist" and "to exist now" means the same. Strictly speaking, the present has no duration (exten-
sion), which makes it timeless; this creates conceptual problems, which we do not need to deal
with here.
1.73 - The conscious mind is a painful separation that yearns for unity. Poets and thinkers of
the East and of the West have sought a unity with the endless existence. Their stories are often
poetic and charming, but I am not impressed by them. I spend most of my time in nature, and I
love trees and grass, birds and lizards, rain and wind, sun and starry sky. I feel well in the natural
environment, but I feel as something separate from the space in which I dwell. I am I, and the
rest is the rest. I cannot draw a precise line between me and the rest, and there is no need to do
that, but such a line does exist. I am more than Nothing and less than All; I do not desire to
become either of the two, but I know that I will become the former. I will die and vanish forever,
which I consider utterly sad, but there is nothing I can do in this regard. I could try to convince
myself that this is not so, but I know that I would not manage to charm myself by illusions. I try
to enjoy existence as long as I can; I try to think that I have learned and done almost enough, and
that it is nearly the time when I can go without much regret. Or with the greatest possible regret,
but accepting what cannot be avoided.
1.4 Values, feelings and reason
1.74 - Values are not inherent to the physical world; they are human creations. People chose
their values and aims on the basis of their needs, fears and desires, and in this way they create a
value system. We must choose values and aims on the basis of our feelings, because reason by
itself does not have a basis on which it could make a choice or take a decision. Reason must be
given the values and aims, on the basis of which it can then take a rational decision and construct
a valid argument for a choice in a given situation. Reason constructs its arguments and advocates
(justifies) its choices and decisions on the basis of a given value system. People and communities
have developed value systems which mutually differ to a certain extent; every such system
expresses needs, fears and desires of those who created it.
Qualities and Values
1.75 - Primary qualities are those qualities that are considered inherent to physical entities;
such qualities are solidity, extension, shape, quantity, motion and others. Primary qualities are
23
considered independent of observers; they are said to be "genuine qualities" of things, which can
be described by means of formal (mathematical) systems. Immanuel Kant could argue here that
nothing that a cognitive system knows is completely independent from that system, but we will
not deal with this issue here.
1.76 - Secondary qualities exist only for sentient beings of certain perceptive abilities; such
qualities are colour, sound, smell, taste, touch and others. It is said that secondary qualities "exist
only in consciousness"; they are not genuine features of the physical world. The state of con-
sciousness which experiences such qualities is caused by certain primary qualities of physical
entities. Secondary qualities can be called relational because they are a product of the interaction
between physical entities and conscious mind.
1.77 - The human mind has introduced one more kind of qualities, called tertiary qualities.
These qualities are goodness, beauty, truth, justice and others; qualities of this kind are not
inherent to the physical world. These qualities can be assigned to the phenomena of the physical
world, but they essentially and existentially depend on the conscious mind. They exist only for
the subject (individual or collective) that produces them and is capable of experiencing them. All
values, as well as the meaning of life, belong to the class of tertiary qualities.
1.78 - Values, aims and meaning exist only for conscious sentient beings; only such beings
need and seek them, and only such beings can create and experience them. Individual lives and
human history have those values and meaning that people assign to them. Goodness, beauty and
meaning do not exist by themselves, independently of a subject. There is often a broad consensus
among people about what is good and what is evil, but a consensus does not make a subjective
entity objective. By objective we mean independent of observers; the fact that people agree about
certain values does not mean that these values are independent of observers, because without the
observers, they would not exist. Human values are essentially and existentially dependent on the
human mind.
1.79 - People have different inclinations and wishes, but they are driven by the same anxie-
ties and yearnings, which spring from people's limitations and aspirations, so that their views of
basic values converge. Most people know the same kinds of needs and desires, sorrows, joys and
fears, so that a broad consensus can be reached among people about basic values: about what is
good and what is evil. This should be enough for people, societies and humanity to function and
live in peace, in accordance with the values and principles they have adopted by consensus. But
people and communities do often not behave in the way they call good, because they are often
selfish and sometimes evil.
1.80 - It is said that entities can have instrumental and intrinsic values. An entity has instru-
mental value if it is useful for the realization of something that has intrinsic value. But the con-
cept of intrinsic value is problematic, because nothing is valuable by itself: nothing is good or
bad, beautiful or ugly by itself. Every value is a value (exists) only for a subject, which can be
individual or collective. We can say that some entities are valuable as the means, others as the
ends; but all values depend on the subject that considers them values. There are no objective
values which exist independently of any subject, because every value is a value only for a subject.
24
The nature of values
1.81 - Those who say that certain things are valuable because people appreciate them are
called subjectivists. Those who claim that people appreciate certain things because those things
are valuable by themselves are called objectivists. We claim that people have inherent needs and
desires; some things (objects and activities) satisfy the needs and desires of most people better
than other things do. Most people consider every entity valuable to the extent this entity satisfies
their needs and desires. But nothing has a value (is good or bad) by itself, and nothing is neces-
sarily considered good or beautiful by all people. Entities may have all sorts of features, but their
values depend on subjects. This is the relational view of values, which assumes that a value is a
relation between a subject and an object.
1.82 - A subject is an entity that is able to perceive and feel entities as good or bad, beautiful
or ugly; a subject can be an individual or a community. An object is any entity that a subject can
perceive or imagine. According to the relational view, a value is a relationship between a subject
and an object. Beauty is not (only) in the eye of beholder, but it needs a beholder to be a beauty.
Values depend on subject's preferences; an entity that nobody appreciates has no value. No entity
has a value until a value is assigned to it by a subject; when people cease to appreciate an entity,
this entity ceases to have value. Valuable is what people have made valuable by their choice and
behaviour. Values are created by people and they can be changed or annihilated by people. Such
claims may seem problematic, but this is how things are in reality.
1.83 - We call subjective what depends on a subject; objective is what is independent of any
specific subject. Laws of physics are considered objective because everybody can use and test
them. My love for Julia is subjective because nobody else can feel it, and without me (the sub-
ject) this love would not exist. Instruments can register the physical (objective) state of my brain,
but they do not feel my feelings. According to the relational view, values depend on a subject;
this makes values subjective. We choose our values, and by our choice we create them. Our
values are values for us, because we have made them our values. Our choices are based on our
daily needs and desires, and on our inherent anxiety and yearning; we have no stronger grounds
on the basis of which we could choose our values. Human values and principles of behaviour
cannot have a stronger foundation than people's feelings and consensus - and they do not need a
stronger foundation.
1.84 - The attributive view of values assumes that values are features (attributes) of entities
and that they do not depend on any subject (observer). The beauty of a flower in the wilderness
does not depend on the fact that nobody has ever seen it. According to the relational view, paint-
ings of Van Gogh did not have value at the time when nobody appreciated them and nobody
wanted to buy them; according to the attributive view, a masterpiece has a value also when
nobody considers it valuable. The attributive view may look convincing, but there is actually no
basis for the claim that an entity has value if nobody knows this entity or nobody considers it
valuable.
1.85 - According to the substantive view, values are ideas which can be instantiated by spe-
cific entities to a certain extent. An act is good if it is an instance of the idea Goodness; a painting
is beautiful to the extent it instantiates Beauty; a statement is true if it is an instance of Truth.
Values are Goodness, Beauty and Truth, as ideas or Plato's everlasting Forms, not their instantia-
tions. The substantive view is interesting, but it does not look good. A flower is not beautiful
because it instantiates the everlasting idea Beauty. People began to feel some things as beautiful;
25
they then introduced the noun "beauty" and the idea of beauty. Feelings come before the concepts
and ideas that express them. Each of the three views we presented has difficulties, but the rela-
tional view looks the most appropriate and realistic.
1.86 - Many people say that if all living beings were to disappear, what is evil would contin-
ue to be evil. Such discourse is vague, to put it mildly. Values are not ingredients of the inanimate
universe; good and evil are not part of the world in the way stones and rivers are. Values have
been introduced by conscious and sensitive beings (people) and they exist only for such beings.
The existence of goodness and beauty depends on conscious sensitive beings in the way in which
the existence of rivers and stones does not. Stones can exist without any subject, but the good and
evil cannot. If all living beings were to vanish, mountains and rivers would continue to exist, but
values would not. Without a subject, the concepts of good and evil, ugliness and beauty would
mean nothing. A value by itself does not exist. Values and ethical principles cannot exist without
a subject, because they are what they are only for a subject and by the choice of the subject.
1.87 - Some values may be adopted by virtually all people and communities; but this does
not mean that those values are objective and independent of people. All values are essentially
subjective because they depend on people's needs, fears, desires and understanding. Some values
are products of the main features of the human nature (inclinations) and situation, and they may
last as long as people and their situation last. But all values depend on people's needs, fears,
desires, understanding and situation, which makes values subjective. Value systems evolves with
time; people create new values by adopting them, and eliminate old values by abandoning them.
Let us hope that this process leads toward more benevolent people and cooperative communities.
1.88 - It is not possible to discover objective values in the universe, because there are no ob-
jective values. The fact that values are subjective is not a problem when people are ready to seek
consensus and able to find it, as well as to accept differences and tolerate dissenters to a reasona-
ble extent. The view (and fact) that values are relational and subjective does not imply moral
relativism; on the contrary, this view stresses people's responsibility for the choices of values and
principles of behaviour they make. Values and moral principles are subjective, but they are not
arbitrary. People know the same fears and desires, so that they can reach a consensus about the
basic values and principles of behaviour.
1.89 - Those who struggle against a ruthless destruction of the natural world speak of the in-
herent values and rights of the natural world, which people must respect. I support the struggle
against the destruction of the natural world, but such discourse about values and rights is not
good. Values and rights are something that people assign to all entities, including themselves, and
they do that from their point of view. We ought to assign values to the natural world and to care
about it because of ourselves. The natural world is the soil from which we have grown, and we
need that soil. We must not destroy, because with the destruction of other beings and things, we
destroy ourselves: we make ourselves ugly and unhappy. If people love life and beauty - as they
say they do - they ought to respect the life and beauty of the natural world. People have gained
the power to control many natural processes; they must now learn to control themselves. This is
the most difficult task that people have encountered on their way toward the open horizon of
existence.
26
The comparison of values
1.90 - People and communities adopt values and principles of behaviour on the basis of their
needs, fears and desires. We can analyse the coherence of a set of values and principles, but we
cannot prove (show) that those values and principles are the best possible choice, as long as our
evaluation is based on those values and principles. A value system S1 can be evaluated from (in
terms of) a value system S2; the system S2 should then be evaluated in terms of a value system
S3, and so on, without an end. It can be argued that the system S2 (in terms of which we evalu-
ate) contains more basic values than the system S1 (which we evaluate); but S2 can also be only
different from S1. Neither of the two options gives an evaluation of S1 from a neutral point of
view, because no point of view is neutral. Values are a matter of feeling and choice rather than a
matter of proving.
1.91 - It is not possible to show that the value system S1 is better than the value system S2 to
somebody who do not accept the system S1. It is not possible to prove that one kind of behaviour
is better than another to the people who do not accept that way of behaviour. The best we can do
is to explain our values and principles in a clear way and invite others to adopt those values and
principles. We can try to convince them to do so, but we cannot prove that those who refuse to do
so are wrong; they have probably adopted other values and principles. We can consider their
choice regrettable and harmful for them and for others, but we cannot prove anything, because for
a proof, we need a set of common basic values and principles; and in such a situation we do not
have that. People may choose their values and principles of behaviour for various reasons; they
may do that to defend themselves or to justify their aggressive behaviour, to provoke others or to
attract their attention. A serial killer said he did not regret the way he had lived, because this
made him famous. Fame is the supreme value for many.
1.92 - There is no neutral standpoint from which human life and existence can be observed
and evaluated by a disinterested observer, and there is no such observer. People are the observers
and the subject of observation; they are the creators and evaluators of their reality and of them-
selves. Every evaluation is subjective, but it shows one facet of human reality, observed from a
specific point of view. By such evaluations, humanity can move toward an agreement about what
is good and what is evil, what is just and what is unjust, what should be done and what should not
be done. If humanity manages to reach such an agreement, and if people and communities are
benevolent, then they should behave in accordance with that agreement. The problem is that
communities interpret events in partial ways, and power-holders have seldom been benevolent
toward others. This is an essential problem to which it will be difficult to find a solution.
1.93 - Pundits have tried to rank (grade) values. One such ranking looks like this: love (the
feeling of love), goodness (benevolence, morality), knowledge (intellectual activity), beauty
(aesthetic experience), creative activity, physical activity, excitement, pleasure (a feeling of
pleasure). It is hard to say on the basis of what criteria such a ranking should be made. This can
be done on the basis of the personal attitude of the author of the list, or on the basis of the domi-
nant attitudes in a community. Different subjects can have different sets of values, or rank the
same values in different ways.
Reason is the means
1.94 - In a debate between the rationalist and the sentimentalist approach to morality, David
Hume wrote that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to
27
any other office than to serve and obey them". Such a claim may seem too strong, but Hume is
basically right. Discourse and behaviour of people have been shaped by feelings and passions
rather than by reason. Reason by itself has no motivations or aims, so that it must listen to emo-
tions and try to fulfil their aims. Reason is the engine, but emotions decide where this engine
carries us. Reason analyses, estimates and decides on the basis of values and aims which are
chosen by feelings. To be able to analyse and decide, reason must be given the values and aims
(desires) on the basis of which it can operate. Reason seeks the way toward a given goal, but
goals are chosen by feelings (needs, fears, desires). Reason can help in resolving conflicts be-
tween goals: it can show what will be sacrificed for the realization of a goal; but reason cannot
decide whether the achievement of a goal is worth the expected sacrifices. Such decisions are a
matter of feelings.
1.95 - People cannot follow "pure reason" in their behaviour and life, because pure reason
does not know values and aims. Values and aims are chosen and set by feelings. Reason is the
means which tries to realize what emotions ask it to do. Reason seeks ways to achieve what
emotions desire to achieve, and to create what emotions wish it to be. Reason created deities,
paradise and hell because emotions wished that such things existed, and demanded reason to
create them. Without emotions, reason would not have any reason (motivation) to do anything.
Reason is the means by which emotions try to realize their aims; reason by itself has no aims.
This holds for everyday activities as well as for the greatest aspirations that people have been able
to imagine. Values and aims are neither rational nor irrational by themselves, but they should be
mutually coherent; reason can and should analyse whether they are mutually coherent.
1.96 - Human rationality consists in the way in which people think and act; people are ra-
tional at the level of the means and methods they create and use. But emotions and passions have
shaped people's behaviour and human history much stronger than reason has done at the opera-
tive level. A passionate dedication to a doctrine or to an activity can make a person feel that her
life has a purpose and meaning. But the doctrine and activity to which a person dedicated herself
may severely limit her life and be harmful for that person and for others. The sense of purpose
and meaning springs from the assumed greatness of the aim to which we dedicate our lives and
from the strength of our dedication. People and humanity have always lived in this way, and they
live in this way nowadays. But lives of many people who passionately dedicated themselves to a
doctrine and to an enterprise have often been destructive and meaningless.
1.97 - Life is often frustrating and hard, but in spite of that, people wish to live and they
struggle for life. People do not desire to live because reason says to them that life is good and that
it is good to be alive, but because they are living beings. And living beings inherently struggle for
life, and aim to live as long as they can. Reason may tell us that life is a sad and meaningless
enterprise, but the inherent will to live and to be is stronger than the judgement of reason. We live
and struggle for life because we inherently wish to live. My life has not been very pleasant, but in
spite of that, I wish to live and I do not want to cease to be. I do not have a rational justification
for this desire; this is an inherent desire of living beings. I have not concluded that it is good to
live by a rational deliberation; I live following my feelings. All animals struggle to live and to
avoid death, although their mental abilities are probably not large enough for them to reflect
about the value and meaning of life.
28
2. The question
of meaning
2.1 Human situation and inclinations
2.1 - People are creators of tools and narratives, seekers of meaning, and perplexed wander-
ers in the wilderness of existence. People call themselves rational beings and creators, but they
have produced many irrational narratives, and they have been the biggest destroyers among all
creatures of the earth. Driven by anxiety and yearning, people have sought salvation beyond the
limits of this world; they have sacrificed many real possibilities trying to realize their dreams.
People call themselves social beings and create communities; but they have always fought against
other communities, and aimed to destroy them. The way in which people behave and speak
shows that they are troubled creatures; they are the only troubled creatures. Only people are a
problem to themselves: the problem they cannot solve and from which they cannot run away.
Limitations and aspirations
2.2 - Driven by needs, fears and desires, and frustrated by their limitations, people have de-
scribed themselves and their situation in many ways. They have called themselves servants of
gods and everlasting souls, fallen angels and the future dwellers of transcendent realms. They
have called themselves the creators of machines, disguised machines and the future pets of the
future machines of immense intelligence. They have called themselves the most miserable of all
creatures of the earth, and the tragic heroes of existence and ephemerality. People have also been
the most powerful of all creatures of the earth, the masters of the present world and the creators
of future worlds.
2.3 - Human nature and behaviour are determined by people's inherent limitations and aspi-
rations. The discrepancy between those limitations and aspirations creates anxiety and yearning
in people, which drive people's activities and imagination, their creative and destructive behav-
iours. It is hard to say what are the basic characteristics (features) of people. The following four
features seem the most essential: (1) the awareness of human limitations in power and duration,
(2) the inherent desire to transcend those limitations, (3) the desire for an encouraging vision of
human life and existence, (4) the desire for operative power that facilitates activities and control.
These basic features of people and of their situation can manifest themselves in various ways, but
they have always driven and steered people's behaviour. The lasting tension between people's
limitations and aspirations creates a lasting anxiety and yearning, which pervades people's minds
and shapes their discourse and behaviour.
2.4 - Some say that people do not have an inherent nature (essence), and that every individu-
al can make of himself whatever he wishes or chooses to make. Every person constantly shapes
29
herself and her life as she wishes and chooses to do. With people, existence comes before the
essence, they say. A human being comes into existence as an open space of possibilities; during
his life, he constantly chooses and decides what he does, and in this way he shapes himself and
his essence. A human being is not only free to choose and create himself: he is compelled to do
so, because he must constantly make choices, and in this way he creates himself. I consider such
discourse wrong. The fact that people are compelled to choose among some given options does
not mean that they do not have a nature, determined by their inherent limitations and aspirations.
People do not choose arbitrarily; their choices are determined by their nature and situation, and
they manifest them. A choice may be called "free", but every choice is determined by inherent
human needs, fears and desires. We are what we make (of) ourselves, but the process of self-
making is moved and directed by our nature and situation.
2.5 - People are beings of limited possibilities and limitless aspirations; this creates a lasting
tension and restlessness in people. The limitation in time (duration) has shaped people's discourse
and behaviour the most. By their narratives and activities, people have tried to transcend this
limitation, or to cover it up with the veils of charming illusions. Deities and transcendent realities
show people's lasting desire to transcend their limitations, especially their limited duration.
Science and technology have not managed to make people immortal yet, but they have done so
many miracles that they could achieve also this miracle. This would change the human situation
essentially; this would make people happy for several days, but not necessarily forever. We speak
of this possibility in chapter 4.
2.6 - People have the ability to ask questions that cannot be answered, and they cannot not
ask such questions. This creates a sense of awe and confusion in people, and the sense of absurdi-
ty of human life. Pundits say that the sense of absurdity arises in the encounter of the sensitive,
conscious and reflective human being and the non-conscious and indifferent universe. Poets and
sages have always spoken about the misery of human life, which looks larger than any descrip-
tion can express. But nobody says how a perfect human life would look like. I can say how my
life could be made better, but I do not know how a perfect life of a sensitive, conscious and
reflective being would look like. Eternal dwelling in paradise would probably not make me feel
perfectly; life in paradise could be boring. The life of limitations looks depressing; but people
have not managed to imagine how a perfect (absolutely happy) life would look like. It may be
that such a conscious life is not possible, because consciousness inherently asks more than it can
be answered, and it never feels completely at home.
The asking separation
2.7 - I call consciousness the asking separation and a fissure on the face of physical reality,
through which existence watches itself. Consciousness inherently asks for the meaning of exist-
ence and for the meaning of its own existence. The sense of separation creates anxiety, so that
consciousness yearns for the unity of existence. Poets and sages have tried to bridge the painful
separation, which consciousness inherently is, and to make existence One in peace with itself.
Some such attempts look inventive and poetic, but they cannot succeed in their aims, because
consciousness is a separation, and without that, consciousness would not be what it is. A limited
consciousness is an anomaly in the endless desert of the non-conscious; it is a painful separation
which yearns for the unity which it cannot achieve, because in such a unity it would cease to be
what it essentially is.
30
2.8 - It has been said that religions express the feeling that "things are not as they ought to
be". But it is hard to say how things should and could be. The feeling that things are not such as
they ought to be springs from the limitation, frustrations and fear, from the sense of separation,
loneliness, impotence and absurdity. "Religion is the consequent of the estrangement of man from
the ground of his being and of his attempts to return to it", says Paul Tillich. Such grandiose
claims do not say much. What is "the ground" of human being from which people have been
"estranged"? Consciousness is estrangement: it is a separation, a fissure on the face of existence.
To be, means to be an estrangement, a separation, and to feel like this. This separation opens a
space of great challenges and excitements, but it is pervaded by anxiety and yearning.
2.9 - A ruthless socioeconomic system creates the sense of alienation in people. Some social
thinkers have aimed to create a more just and humane socioeconomic system in which people
would not feel alienated. A socioeconomic system exerts a strong influence on how people feel
and behave, but it could hardly eliminate inherent anxiety and yearning and the sense of aliena-
tion. A more just and compassionate system could make people's lives much better, but it would
not eliminate separations between people, nor the inherent anxieties and yearnings of the finite
beings with infinite aspirations.
2.10 - Consciousness is anxious for the fact that it is finite, because it desires to last and to be
forever. The awareness of its finiteness casts a dark shadow over consciousness and it laments
this tragic fact. Finiteness is the most depressing fact of human reality, but it does not necessarily
make human life meaningless; we speak of this issue in chapter 6. The fact that something is
finite does not make it meaningless; but the fact that everything is ephemeral and that it will
vanishes forever, fills human consciousness - the only witness of this tragedy of cosmic propor-
tion - with a sense of sadness.
Beyond time and ephemerality
2.11 - We are ephemeral creatures in the infinity of space and time. We do not know why we
are here and why only for a brief period of time. Other living beings do not know answers to such
questions either, but only people ask such questions, to which they do not find satisfactory
answers. In the infinity of space and time, people are inconceivably small and powerless; they
last for an instant and then vanish forever. Pascal was impressed by the fact that people do not
fall in despair when they see in what a terrible situation they are. He call people superior to the
universe that "kills" them, because people know suffering and death, while the universe knows
nothing. Pascal tried to raise people above their desperate situation by extolling their knowledge
and dignity. But this attempt to make people superior to the dumb and cruel universe is not so
good as it may seem. The universe that kills us also creates us; whether this is a good combina-
tion is another matter. We are part of the universe: what we know and feel, the universe knows
and feels. But the awareness of ephemerality shapes people's lives more than anything else does.
2.12 - People have known that human life has no purpose and meaning beyond itself since
ancient times. They have responded to this depressing reality in various ways. Some have
preached the rejection of life, and some, but not many, have done so. A large majority of people
throughout history have sought salvation and liberation in transcendent realms and states, created
by their yearning and imagination. People and communities have developed narratives which say
that reality is not such as it seems that it is, and that at the end all shall be well. Religions tell
such encouraging stories, each in its way. But many people consider the embracing of a religion a
self-deception, which compromises person's rationality and integrity.
31
2.13 - Advocates of the religious view of life and existence argue that human life cannot
have a value and meaning without the existence of the transcendent that gives people the possibil-
ity to rise beyond the ephemerality and insignificance of the endeavours and tribulations of this
world. We do not have exact knowledge and clear understanding of the transcendent, but we
know that its existence and our faith in its existence are necessary for human ephemeral lives in
this world to have a meaning. Faith in the transcendent bounds people to the eternal Reality and
gives the meaning to their tribulations and ephemeral lives in this world. So speak advocates of
the religious attitude toward life and existence.
2.14 - It has been said that watching the reality of human life such as it really is, is emotion-
ally harmful. Encouraging narratives and their rituals protect people from depressing truths.
Religions shield people from the suffering that life and death bring about, and from the fact that
they and those whom they love will vanish forever. Most people are not able to live without the
help of a narrative that protects them from the truth of their limitation and ephemerality. This
may be correct, but such shields do not protect everybody; some people are not able to hide
behind such shields. A bigger problem is that religions often support oppressive behaviour in
communities and aggressive behaviour toward other communities.
2.15 - Everlasting life and unlimited operative power would not liberate people from the
tormenting question of the meaning of life and existence. But limitations and ephemerality are
direct causes of people's anxiety and yearning, and of the sense of absurdity of human life. The
fact that my power is so limited and that I am getting old and will vanish soon, makes me feel bad
and sad, and creates the sense of absurdity of life in me. The removal of these limitations would
not solve the problem of the meaning, but their presence makes this problem obvious.
2.16 - People have always sought ways to transcend their ephemerality and reach a state of
everlasting peace and happiness. They have done this by means of narratives, rites and drugs, as
well as by means of art, science and technology. Those means may not bring people everlasting
bliss they yearn for, but they have served as opiates by means of which people have displaced the
awareness of their limitations and ephemerality. Passionate commitments and intense activities of
various kinds displace the painful awareness of limitation and ephemerality. People have always
produced and consumed such opiates in large quantities.
The sense of discontent
2.17 - The awareness of ephemerality stimulates some people to behave in a constructive and
compassionate way; the same awareness incites other people to behave in aggressive and destruc-
tive way. People are not able to live like cats, which can "sleep contentedly" for the most part of
the day, say experts for people. There is a sense of "discontent" in the human being, which causes
people constantly to explore and create, as well as to destroy what they created, and to destroy
each other. Experts say that human restlessness is caused by the "hunger" of the human brains for
"new inputs", which it needs for "functioning at optimal capacity". I do not know whether the
optimal brain functioning is the best explanation here; people's inherent limitations and limitless
aspirations could be a better explanation for human restlessness. Anxiety and yearning move
people and make them the most restless of all creatures.
2.18 - The feeling of anxiety and yearning was driving Homer's warriors in their aggressive
enterprises. Helen, a beautiful daughter of Zeus's, was not the cause of the Trojan war and of the
huge destruction and suffering that the war brought about. Helen was the excuse for the war.
32
Things have not changed much in this regard since ancient times. It looks more noble to fight
because of the divine Helen than for mineral resources, but the essence is the same. People have
fought and destroyed each other not only because of material reasons, but also to flee from their
anxieties and of the awareness of their ephemerality. Fleeing from the awareness of death and
ephemerality, people have created and destroyed countless fortresses and kingdoms, on the earth
and in the heavens. By passionate creation and destruction, people try to displace the awareness
of their ephemerality, since they cannot transcend it.
2.19 - We are all sentenced to death, without the right to appeal and without a hope of being
reprieved. The sentence can be carried out tomorrow at dawn or in a hundred years, the same; it
may be carried out by a violent act or it may take place as part of the natural course of events.
The judgement has been passed for each of us and the execution will come, sooner or later the
same, because it will last forever. And "forever" makes every period of time - as well as every-
thing that is transitory - insignificant. We have been sentenced to death for the reason which is
not known to us. The awareness of the approaching death is depressing and terrifying; hence,
people have always done their best to displace this awareness. A passionate commitment to a
narrative and activity, and intense consumption of various opiates (commodities, entertainments)
have been the main ways in which people have tried to displace the painful awareness of their
depressing and hopeless situation.
2.20 - Poets and sages have preached that suffering can be eliminated (or avoided) by the
change of attitude. What we consider bad depends on our desires and attitudes. When something
we consider bad is unavoidable and cannot be changed, we ought to change our attitude toward
that. By accepting what cannot be changed or avoided, and by controlling our desires, we liberate
ourselves from suffering. This is part of Buddha's teaching, as well as of Stoic teaching and
attitude toward life. A Buddhist sage taught that every acquisition ends in dispersion and every
building ends in ruins; every meeting leads to separation, and every birth leads to death. Hence,
people ought to renounce acquisition and building, meeting and giving birth. Stoics taught that
we ought to alter our desires in such a way that we do not regard bad what is inevitable. Epictetus
says: "Ask not that events should happen as you will, but let your will be that events should hap-
pen as they do, and you shall have peace."
2.21 - So spoke sages of the East and of the West, but I do not like their discourse. Such
teaching looks like a magic solution for all problems that life and death bring about, but I do not
like such solutions. I am not able to abandon my inherent desires and I do not want to do that; the
same may hold for most people. The extinction of basic human desires looks like the extinction
of life, in order to avoid death. Kill life in yourself, and you will avoid the pain of losing it. Do
not meet, and you will avoid the pain of separation. So spoke various saviours and liberators, but
such teaching is not appealing to me and I could not follow it. I do not want to discard life, in
order to avoid the pain of losing it. The sense of sorrow is better than the sense of indifference.
Those who live with passion, die; those who are indifferent have never lived.
2.22 - Some experts for human souls say that that most people live in a state of silent des-
pair; they are not happy with life, but they try to be polite and not to lament. Other experts say
that most people live in denial, because they cannot live with the awareness of the depressing
reality of human life and death; hence, they negate this reality or displace the thoughts about it
from their awareness. People go on living because the biological will to live compels them to do
so; the same do the mental will to be and the terror of nonbeing. Such claims do not give a
pleasant picture of human life.
33
The will to be
2.23 - The universe is a process which moves toward the state of complete equilibrium in
which everything will stop. Stars are burning and dying, and the universe moves toward the state
of a motionless darkness and total death. If we are doomed to vanish, and if human life is absurd,
as many have say, why do we struggle to maintain it, and why do we produce new generations? It
has been that it would be better to eliminate human life before cosmic changes eliminate it. If
human life is pervaded by frustrations and suffering, it makes no sense to maintain it and pass it
on, especially not since it is doomed to the inevitable disappearance in the future.
2.24 - If life has no purpose beyond itself, and if it looks absurd, why do we continue to live
and reproduce life? Is this because we are not strong enough to eliminate ourselves, at the indi-
vidual and global level? Why do people not stop producing new people, which means new lives
pervaded by frustrations and suffering? This is because living beings inherently aim to live: they
struggle to live and to reproduce life. The universe produced living beings with the inherent will
to live, before it produced sensitivity, reason and the reflective mind. Some people have argued
that human life is such that it should have better not existed; but the will to live has been greater
than the adversities that life brings about.
2.25 - Living beings inherently aim to live and to spread life, regardless of whether they feel
happy or not, or if they feel anything at all. We assume that plants do not feel anything, although
we cannot be sure that this is so. In conscious beings, the will to live manifests itself as the will to
be. This will is normally present in all people; also those who do not feel happy wish to be, and
they struggle to be. The will to live is pre-rational because it appeared before reason, and exists
also without reason. We want to live because of our biological features, not because our reason
computed that it is good for us to be alive and to live. People continue to live in spite of the fact
that their reason says them that life is a tedious and futile effort. I use the expression "the will to
live" in a figurative way here, which points at the tendency of behaviour rather than to its causes.
I speak of the issues of will in general in another book.
2.26 - Human life could be eliminated by the cessation of procreation. If children were pro-
duced "by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? " - asks Schopen-
hauer. Would not people "have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the
burden of existence?" Such discourse is rhetorically effective, but it does not say much. First,
why should people be completely rational? Is it rational to be completely rational? "Pure reason"
does not have a basis on which it could decide what is good and what is bad, and what should be
done. Feelings are necessary for setting values and for the evaluation of behaviours; and feelings
lead to the production of children. This is not only the feeling of joy that children bring, but also
the terror of nonexistence and the desire to exceed death.
2.27 - The appearance of living beings in the inanimate universe looks like an accidental
phenomenon; the appearance of the finite mind with infinite aspirations looks like a tragic acci-
dent. Many have called human life sad phenomenon; but others have argued that human life is
not a bad thing; it depends on how we interpret it. Life is full of limitations and frustrations; it is
pervaded by suffering and it looks absurd and tragic. But all this does not necessarily mean that it
would have been better that conscious living beings never existed. In spite of all its drawbacks, a
human life is a unique phenomenon and experience, which should not be belittled and discarded.
Human life looks like a tragic endeavour, but it is an impressive experience and it can be lived in
a meaningful way.
34
2.2 The meaning as the ultimate reason
2.28 - We must distinguish the question of the meaning of life and the question of the mean-
ingful way of living. The first issue regards the reason for living; the second issues regards the
appropriate way of living. The question of the meaning of life asks why we live and why is life
worth living, if it really is. The question of the meaningful life regards the issue of how to live.
The question "why", asked in the open (unlimited) domain of existence, cannot have a definitive
answer, because for every answer to such question the question "why" can be asked. Human life
does not have a definitive (absolute) meaning. But we must always deal with the issue of how to
live the life that has been bestowed or imposed on us. The "why" question does not have the final
(absolute) answer, but we must constantly answer to the "how" question, and we do this by our
lives.
A question without a final answer
2.29 - The question of the meaning of life can regard various things. This question can ask
why does life exist, why do sensitive and conscious beings exist, and why do people exist. This
question can be more specific and ask why do I exist, and why only for a limited period of time.
This question can ask whether a life in a certain state and conditions makes a sense. It can be
argued that some lives have meaning, while others have little meaning or do not have any mean-
ing at all. But the basic question, which is usually missing in discourse about the meaning of life,
is what do we mean by the expression "the meaning of life". The question whether human life has
a meaning comes after that. We assume here that the search for the meaning of life is a search for
the ultimate reason for living. By the ultimate reason, we mean a definitive reason which cannot
be questioned any further, and we claim that such an ultimate reason cannot exist.
2.30 - The question of the meaning of life cannot have a definitive (final, absolute) answer,
because for every state or activity that can be offered as "the meaning of life", the question why is
this the meaning of life can be asked. There is no definitive (absolute) answer to the question of
meaning, which would make impossible a further asking of the question "why". It may be possi-
ble to give the final answer to the question "why" in the context of a specific (limited) situation,
but this question does not have a definitive answer in the open (unlimited) space of existence.
Whatever you offer me as the answer to the question of the meaning of my life, I can and should
repeat the same question why is this the meaning of my life. You can offer me a place in paradise,
and I can ask why should I spend eternity in paradise, which could be a boring place for me. I can
consider my existence in paradise meaningless.
2.31 - The question about the meaning of life asks for the ultimate (absolute) reason for liv-
ing, for which no further questions "why" can be asked. Such an ultimate reason cannot exist,
because for every given reason (answer), the question "why" can be asked. Every reason can be
questioned: for every answer the question "why" can be asked. The series of questions "why" has
no end: it does not lead to the ultimate answer, because such an answer does not exist. We can
call the inherent will to live and to be the ultimate reason for living; but this will is a given fact;
the question of meaning asks why we should obey this will instead of resisting it. People and
communities adopt various answers to the question of meaning, but adopted answers are not
absolute and they can be questioned and criticized. We adopt a narrative and a way of life which
we consider the most suitable for us; but this does not answer the question of why we should do
that, and what is the ultimate meaning of life.
35
2.32 - We normally end a process of explanation and justification when we reach a point at
which we are "content" with the result we produced. Because when we reach a certain level
(depth) of explanation and justification, we consider an entity explained sufficiently well. Such a
behaviour is good for practical purposes, but it is not good enough for the question of meaning. A
reflective mind that asks for the meaning of its own existence never reaches a point at which it
feels no need to ask a further "why". The mind may stop asking, because it sees that it is hopeless
to continue, but this does not mean that a reflective mind is content with the answer (explanation)
it has reached. People adopt a narrative and stop asking, because they have no other possibility,
not because they have been content with the explanation that the narrative gives them.
2.33 - Sophisticated minds, such a metaphysicians and theologians, say that the problem of
meaning "can be avoided or transcended only by something without limits, only by something
that cannot be stood outside of, even in imagination". Because "the question about meaning is
stopped and cannot get a grip only when there is nowhere else to stand." Such discourse is not
clear enough for me. It seems that the above claims suggest that only God can (and does) solve
the problem of meaning. It is assumed that God is infinite; this means that it is not possible to
stand out of it and ask for the meaning of his existence. God knows everything, including the
meaning and purpose of people's existence. But this is a tautological solution which says that the
question is "stopped" by the creation (assumption) of the situation in which the question cannot
be asked. I do not think that such a situation can exist; in every situation and for every situation, it
is possible to ask for the cause and meaning (purpose) of its existence. There is no situation in
which the mind cannot ask for its cause and purpose (meaning).
The meaning as serving a purpose
2.34 - Many religions preach that the universe and people were created by God who trans-
cend human understanding. People may not understand the purpose of their lives, but God who
created everything, knows the purpose of every being he created and of everything that takes
place in the world. God has told people how they ought to behave and live, and he monitors their
behaviour. By living in accordance with God's instructions, people participate in the realization of
his plan, and this gives meaning to their activities and lives. Those who live in accordance with
God's instructions, will attain eternal bliss; those who do not, will be punished by eternal suffer-
ing. Such narratives may not look convincing, but it is said that most people could not endure the
tribulations that life and death bring about, without the help of a narrative that claims that human
life has a purpose and meaning that transcend the limits of this world of ephemerality and suffer-
ing.
2.35 - There is no need to enter into here analyses of such narratives; let us only mention
some things. There is no evidence that God exists; there is no indication or a clear argument for
the assumption that the universe was created by anybody. We do not know God's plan; we may
not be happy with his plan, and we may not appreciate our role in its realization. The role as-
signed to us could be destructive, and humiliating for us. A meaning imposed on people, which
they do not approve, cannot be their meaning. The meaning of my life can only be something that
I accept as the meaning of my life: the meaning cannot be imposed on me. It seems strange that
the omnipotent God needs my help to realize his plan. Promoters of the religious answer to the
question of meaning claim that without the transcendent - or at least the faith in it - people's lives
cannot have any meaning (purpose). This may be correct, but stories about the inconceivable
transcendent beings and realities do not solve the question of purpose and meaning of human life.
36
2.36 - A narrative that presents people as workers on the realization of God's plan has its
charm and its social role, but it does not solve the problem of the meaning of life. God may give
people the possibility to attain a place in paradise, but the eternal dwelling in paradise does not
make the existence of a person meaningful. Eternal bliss does not solve the problem of the
meaning of human existence, nor of God's existence or of any existence. Narratives which preach
that human life gains the meaning when it is lived in accordance with God's commandments
assume that God's plan and intensions are reasonable and benevolent. But this may not be so;
God may not be such as we wish him to be; he may be evil, and his aim may be to produce evil.
His plan may be destructive and cruel. The aim of God's creation may be destruction; the aim of
life may be death; the aim of existence may be suffering.
2.37 - The claim that a finite human life cannot have a lasting meaning without God may be
correct, but the question is whether God solves the problem of meaning. We must first ask for the
meaning and purpose of the existence of God. Finite human life may not have an inherent mean-
ing, but God's infinite existence does not have an inherent meaning either. No existence, ephem-
eral or eternal, in this world or in a transcendent reality, has an inherent meaning, because such a
meaning does not exist. The assumption that God is omniscient and omnipotent does not imply
that his existence has a meaning. The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence lead to contra-
diction, which makes these concepts meaningless. God does not solve the problem of meaning,
because this problem cannot be solved, either by people or by gods. Those whose cognitive
abilities are big enough to reach (produce) the question of meaning and the sense of absurdity
must learn to live with them. People try to defend themselves from this tormenting question by
adopting narratives which offer solutions to this problem, but such attempts may not give satis-
factory results.
2.38 - Those who advocate a secular view of life says that religion makes human life mean-
ingless rather than meaningful, because it reduces people to servants of God and to the means for
the realization of his aims. People are required to be obedient and they are not allowed to ask
critical questions. To be a servant and the means is not a respectable and pleasant position;
serving a purpose is not enough for having a meaning. But religions offer everlasting rewards to
those who accept them and live in accordance with their demands. Religions also have eternal
punishments for those who do not yield to their demands. So, religions do not treat people as
mere means: people are very well paid for their obedience and service. And for most people, any
activity and behaviour looks meaningful when it is well paid.
2.39 - Human life cannot be given the meaning by something that transcend this world, nor
can the meaning be found in the outer world; the meaning can only be created by people. Only
people ask for meaning, only they need it, and only they can create and experience it. People and
humanity must create the meaning of their existence if they want to have it. Only they can assign
meaning to their lives and history, and by this, bestow a meaning on overall existence. This is not
an absolute meaning, but a human choice of attitude and behaviour in the situation in which
people find themselves. The meaning of life is a matter of choice and it is subjective. There can
be a wide consensus about the meaning of life, but the meaning does not exist in the objective
sense, as something independent of those who seek it and who adopted it. There is no absolute or
objective meaning; every meaning is created by people, in the framework of their emotions and
abilities.
37
Questioning the question
2.40 - There are claims that the question of the meaning of life is not a valid question. Such
claims are based on the assumption that we should not consider a question something to which it
is not possible to give a proper answer. According to this principle (assumption), the conclusion
that the question of the meaning of life cannot have a definitive answer means that this is not a
real question, in spite of the fact that it looks like a question. Such a series of words can be an
expression of awe and bewilderment, but it is not a real question, for the simple reason that it
cannot be answered. I do not share such view; I hold that the fact that it is not possible to give a
definitive answer to a semantically valid (understandable) question does not mean that this is not
a (valid) question. The view that questions which cannot be answered in a definitive (absolute)
way are not real questions is too restrictive and it looks arbitrary.
2.41 - A series of words can have the form of question, but it may not be a valid question for
semantic reasons. Such is the following series of words: "Why are purple ideas so sleepy tomor-
row?". We cannot give a proper answer to such a question because it looks semantically mean-
ingless and we do not understand it. On the other hand, the question "What is the meaning of
human life?" looks semantically valid (understandable). I hold that semantically valid questions
do not belong to the same class as semantically invalid questions, regardless of whether they have
definitive answers or not. There is no need to exclude a formally valid question except in the case
when it is semantically invalid (meaningless). Why would questions which explore the limits of
what can be understood and expressed not be considered valid questions? The issue of what is
semantically valid and what is not may be complex and we cannot deal with it here; but I hold
that we should make a distinction between the two kinds of questions we mentioned above.
2.42 - Unanswerable questions explore the limits of language and understanding. By such
explorations, we can learn that life does not have an absolute meaning, and that it is up to us to
use our time and energy in the most meaningful way in the context of our reality. We realize that
the meaning of life cannot be found in the outer world, but must be created by those who seek it
and want to have it. By such exploration, we can learn that the meaning of life is a matter of
choice and consensus, which means that the meaning is essentially subjective. The meaning is
usually adopted at the level of communities; people know the same needs, fears and desires, so
that they accept a common narrative about values and life. People adopt narratives because they
need them for psychological and social purposes, not because they believe in their correctness.
Narratives have usually been produced and imposed by power-holders.
2.43 - By means of questions people often express emotions, a sense of awe and perplexity.
By questions, people express a regret for what has gone by and what has been lost or missed, and
for what shall be lost and vanish. Many questions are primarily expressions of emotions, but I do
not think that because of that such questions are not questions. It is not possible to give definitive
(absolute) answers to the questions that ask about the ultimate entities (origin, meaning), because
there are no such answers for such questions. But such border questions explore the limits of
human language, understanding and imagination. These are probably also be the limits of divine
understanding, because nobody can answer the questions to which it is not possible to answer.
God may know the answer why the universe exists, but he could hardly answer why there is God
instead of nothing. Unanswerable questions show that people have been able of asking more than
it can be answered, as well as human unlimited curiosity. We should be proud of our ability, and
not discard those questions that are too big to be answered. The question of the meaning of life is
38
a legitimate question, although it does not have an absolute answer. Something can be a valid
question, regardless of whether it can be answered or not.
What do we seek for?
2.44 - What do we seek and what answer do we expect when we ask for the meaning of life?
What would we accept as a definitive answer to this question? A big chocolate? A little harem? A
happy family life in this world? A place in paradise or the state of nirvana? Or several such things
combined? Why would we accept some things instead of some others? After a long discussion, a
scholastic soul reached the conclusion that "there is as yet no consensus" about the question what
the meaning of life is. This is an excellent conclusion indeed. There will never be a complete
consensus about this issue, because people have different inclinations and aspirations. Consensus
is not a definitive answer, but an adopted answer, which may be changed. However, a discourse
about the meaning of life must make clear what we seek for, what can be obtained, and what
cannot be reached because it does not exist
2.45 - It has been said that the problem of the meaning arises because of people's limitations
and the finiteness of human life; and that the solution to this problem lies in the transcending of
those limits. This may seem so, but it is not so. Human limitations make the problem of meaning
obvious; but the unlimited is not meaningful by itself, or for the fact that it is unlimited. Unlim-
ited (infinite) life would face the same question "why" ("what for") as the limited life faces,
which does not have a definitive (absolute) answer. Infinity looks infinitely appealing to the
finite, but it does not solve much.
2.46 - It has been said that the purpose, aim and meaning of the life in this world is to de-
serve and attain eternal bliss in paradise or in some other transcendent state, such as nirvana and
moksa. But this does not solve the problem, because it can be asked what is the purpose and
meaning of an eternal existence in paradise or in some other blissful state. It is not possible to
give a definitive answer to such question, but most people are happy with everlasting bliss, and
do not ask critical questions about that. Transcendent realities may not exist, but they serve
psychological and social needs of people and communities. Those who accept transcendent
solutions of the issue of the meaning of life do not ask what meaning it has to spend eternity in
paradise or in the state of moksa or nirvana. Those who have God know that all shall be well;
they do not ask why there is God instead of nothing, because this would spoil their nice story and
bring them troubles.
2.47 - Some learned souls say that many people do not have sufficient cognitive abilities to
understand the question of the meaning of life. This may hold for some people, but such claims
are generally wrong. Poor people, without a formal education, have often understood life well,
but have not spoken much about that, because they have known that they could not do much in
this regard. Such people have often been exploited and sent to wars to kill and die, and they have
not had any power or privileges. They learned that life is hard and that heaven is far, and they got
used to live with this. It is wrong to say that Tolstoy's peasants did not have problems with the
meaning of life because they were not aware of that problem. They were aware of the problem,
but they had to struggle for life, so that they did not have time to meditate about its meaning, as
the privileged can do. Their lives were hard, and they knew that they cannot change their situa-
tion. They learned to suffer and endure, and not to make much noise about that. Poor people have
known life and death much better than most scholastic minds.
39
2.48 - Peasants of my native village used to say that life is a joke which must not be taken
too seriously. Later I learned that life is often a bad joke. Tolstoy called life a "stupid joke" and a
"stupid fraud"; Clarence Darrow, a compassionate soul, says that life is an "awful joke". Such
claims show how perplexing and depressing phenomenon life has been. Poets and sages produced
many wondrous stories about life and death, by which they tried to console themselves and others
for the fact that they were born and that they must suffer and die. Such stories are frameworks
and backgrounds of people's lives and existence, but they do not give answers to unanswerable
questions. When the question "why" appears, it cannot be eliminated by a definitive answer; it
can only be calmed by the adoption of pseudo-answers, by means of which people try to endure
the challenge of life and death.
2.3 The seekers and creators of meaning
2.49 - Life and existence do not have any inherent values and meaning; but people have
needed values and meaning, so they have assigned these qualities to various entities, including
people's lives. Values and meaning that people assign to the world and to their lives are deter-
mined by people's needs and desires, and they create a framework within which people can live in
a meaningful way. Values and the meaning are tertiary qualities; they are not features of physical
reality by itself; they are created by subjects, they exist only for subjects, and can be experienced
only by subjects. The fact that life does not have an inherent meaning gives us the freedom to
choose our values and a meaningful way of life; this also makes us responsible for what we chose
and do, and how we shape our lives and the world.
Objectivist view of meaning
2.50 - There are claims that the meaning of life is "out there"; we must recognize it and live
in accordance with it. Those who advocate such a view are called objectivists. They claim that
human life has a meaning when it is lived in accordance with those values and principles which
express inherent features of reality and of human life. They also say that life has the meaning
when it is lived in accordance with a doctrine, such as religious narrative, a moral doctrine or
some other doctrine or vision. These two claims are different. Doctrines are people's creations
and they express views and aims of those who created them, not the objective features of reality
"out there". Objectivists do usually not distinguish the meaning of life ("why") and a meaningful
way of life ("how"), which makes their discourse imprecise. I claim that neither the meaning of
life nor a meaningful way of life are objective and independent of the subjects for whom they are
what they are.
2.51 - The concept "objective meaning" looks like a contradiction in terms, because every
meaning is a meaning for a subject, which means that the meaning is subjective. Objective
meaning of life, which is independent of all subjects does not exist. A subject may be individual
or collective; it may be an individual mind of a certain level of cognitive abilities, or a communi-
ty which creates or adopts its values and meaning by the consensus of its members. But a consen-
sus does not make subjective entities objective. Good and evil, beauty and ugliness, meaning and
the lack of it are a matter of feelings and consensus. Values and meaning can be imposed by a
narrative and power-holders, but this does not make them objective.
40
2.52 - Objectivists say that the meaning is "mind-independent", at least "partially", and that
the meaning exists without being "the object of anyone's mental state". Such discourse looks
vague or wrong. Most people may have a similar feeling and understanding of what is meaningful
and what is not, but this does not mean that the meaning exists independently of people. Primary
qualities, such as solidity, extension and shape are considered independent of the mind, but the
meaning is not a primary quality and it is not independent of the mind (subject). The meaning
belongs to tertiary qualities, which are essentially and existentially dependent on a subject that
creates them, for whom they exist and for whom they are what they are.
2.53 - Most people consider some behaviours meaningful and other meaningless, but this
does not mean that those behaviours are inherently or objectively meaningful or meaningless.
Similar attitudes of most people show that most people are basically similar and have similar
feelings toward many things; they approve some things and condemn others. But the similarity of
attitudes, and a broad consensus about essential issues, do not make values and value judgements
objective. If an objective meaning of life were to exist, but I would not consider it appropriate
and would not accept it, what should then be done? Should the objective meaning somehow
override my feelings and thoughts, and be imposed on me? Society can impose its values and
meaning, and it often does so; but if I do not accept them they are not my values and meaning.
2.54 - Life in this world does not have any inherent (objective) meaning. If there is a trans-
cendent reality (God), it must first solve the problem of the meaning of its own existence - if it
can, which I doubt. If the transcendent then wants to confer a meaning on human lives, it can do
that only with the consent of people: only if people accept this gift. Because nothing can be the
meaning of human life if people do not accept this as the meaning of their lives. A meaning that
is inherent to the universe, or conferred on me by a transcendent entity (God) would not be my
meaning. I could consider such a meaning bad and refuse to accept it. The universe cannot give
us a meaning because it does not have it; God cannot impose a meaning on us. The meaning of
human life can come only from people and with the consent of people. We are free to assign the
meaning to our lives in the way we consider best, and we are responsible for what we choose and
do.
The meaning as feeling
2.55 - People have been tormented by the ephemerality of life, and they have asked for the
meaning of such life. Poets and sages have produced consoling and encouraging stories about the
depressing human reality. Such stories have helped many people to endure their ephemeral lives,
but they have not eliminated the sense of impotence, futility and absurdity that has pervaded
people's thoughts. Human life does not have an inherent or objective meaning. The meaning of
life is a feeling, a state of the mind, rather than an objective knowledge.
2.56 - Only a reflective mind feels a need for meaning and asks for meaning, and can create
the meaning it needs and seeks for. Those who need the meaning must create it to have it; and the
meaning can exist only for those who need it and who are able to create and experience it. My life
is worth living for me if I feel it in that way; in that case, I can say that my life has a meaning for
me. If my life were to last forever and if it were to produce something that has eternal value, this
would not be a sufficient reason for me to consider my life meaningful, if I would not feel it in
that way. Meaning is essentially a feeling; the sense of absence of meaning and of the absurdity is
a feeling too.
41
2.57 - People may love life for various reasons. Some may love life because it is the way to
paradise and to eternal bliss. Others may love life because it is a wondrous and awesome phe-
nomenon which serves no purpose and has no meaning beyond the challenge and excitement of
living it. I may love life precisely because it is a purposeless play of creation and destruction, of
becoming and vanishing, without a final aim and a lasting effect. A poetic soul said that he
wanted to free existence from the burden of purpose and aim, and to transform it into a free play
of chance. Such a view looks exaggerated; chance does not look appealing to me. But I consider
reasonable to aim to shape life and existence as a constructive and benevolent play. Anyway, life
can be considered worthwhile for various reasons.
2.58 - We evaluate life on the basis of our feelings. What gives life the meaning is a feeling
that life is worth living, in spite of all frustrations and sufferings that it brings about. A person
may have a feeling that life is not worth living and that it has no meaning. A person may con-
clude that her life has a meaning if she holds that the sum of good things she experienced in life
outweighs the sum of bad things she experienced. But the meaning of life is a matter of feeling
rather than of calculation. The feelings of a person probably depend on her experiences, but they
are not based on a quantitative evaluation and computation.
2.59 - My life may not matter from the viewpoint of eternity, but it should matter to me now.
If my life were to matter from the viewpoint of eternity, but would not matter to me now, this
would be a bad life. The idea that my life has a cosmic role and purpose, and that I am supposed
to carry out a specific task looks exciting and charming; but I live my life now, and my life is
worthwhile for me to the extent I feel it so now. The present feeling of life depends on the expec-
tation of the future events, but lives takes place now. A person may live in the way she believes -
or hopes - it leads her to eternal bliss. Such a way of living may make many people happy, but
such a life would not be suitable for me.
2.60 - The fact that other people consider my life meaningful does not make my life mean-
ingful for me. Various incentives may come from the outside, but a life can be made meaningful
only from the inside. God may decide what is the meaning of my life from his point of view; but
if I do not share his view, his decision will not make my life meaningful for me. My life cannot
have any meaning for me except the one I accept. Nothing can give meaning to my life if I do not
feel and accept this as something that gives meaning to my life. It is me who decides whether my
life has a meaning or not. Nobody else, deities included, can give the meaning to my life if I do
not accept it. It is hard to say to what extent a destructive and cruel behaviour of others can
destroy the meaning of a person's life.
2.61 - A series of questions "why" and answers to those questions does not lead to the final
answer to the question of the meaning of life, because such answer does not exist. But we may try
to ignore this fact, and assume that the meaning of life consists in the challenge and excitements
of living it. The series of "why" questions seeks for an absolute reason for living, but such a
reason does not exist. The meaning understood as a feeling offers a solution to this problem. It
has bee said that life has a meaning for the one who feels love, and that only love can give mean-
ing to life. The one who lives with love does not ask for the meaning of life; he feels and lives
that meaning. I hold that a benevolent attitude toward others and toward the world makes people
feel good and gives meaning to life. But benevolence also brings frustrations, because some
people abuse the benevolence of others.
42
2.62 - If you are happy with your life, you can assume that your life has a meaning; if you
are not happy with your life, you can assume that your life does not have meaning for you. But if
life in general is meaningless, it does not make sense to be sad because of that; we should do our
best to enjoy life such as it is. This may be a wise attitude, but it is not easy to live in such way.
The way we feel life is not a matter of choice or decision; each person feels her life in the way
she does. I do not think that a person can simply chose to enjoy life, if she does not feel it as
something joyous.
Creating the meaning
2.63 - Life and existence do not have an inherent meaning which people can and should dis-
cover. The meaning is not inherent to anything; it does not exist in the objective sense, so that
people cannot discover it in the outer world. The meaning is something that a subject assigns to
his activities and relationships, and by this to existence itself. People's lives have that purpose and
meaning which people assign them; they do this at the individual and collective level. Human
history has no meaning and it knows no aims beyond the ones that people assign to it.
2.64 - Only people ask for the meaning, and only people can answer to this question. Stones
and animals cannot do that because they do not know the question; gods cannot do that because
they do not exist; and if they existed, they would have to answer to the question of meaning in the
same way people do. We do not discover values and mining; we assign them to the phenomena
we experience and to our behaviour. We assign values and meaning on the basis of our needs,
fears and desires, which can be very different. Some people have tried to give meaning to their
lives by fighting against people of other religion, nation or race. Others have tried to give a
meaning to their lives by promoting a friendship among all people and by helping those in needs.
Every coherent answer to the question of the meaning of life is formally legitimate, but answers
ought to be evaluated on the basis of their effects. Many answers which people have given to the
question of meaning have been destructive and regrettable.
2.65 - It has been said that a human life is sufficient by itself and that there is no need to ask
for the meaning of life beyond the life itself. A life lived in the best possible way in given condi-
tions, ought to be considered sufficient, because there is nothing besides or beyond it. This looks
correct; but people have never felt their ephemeral lives as something that is sufficient by itself. If
they have felt life in this way, they would have not lamented their ephemerality and the vanity of
all human endeavours, as they have done, since ancient times to the present days. People have
always sought a way to transcend their ephemeral lives in this world. There is no indication that
such a way exists; hence, human life can be considered an inherently unsatisfactory phenomenon
rather than sufficient by itself.
2.66 - It seems that the question of the meaning of life is felt differently by different people.
Most people seem happy with pragmatic answers to this question, which consist in pursuing
generally appreciated goals, such as gaining wealth, fame, power and similar. Other people may
pursue the same goals, but they hold that the meaning of life must be something that transcends
this world of ephemerality and death. Such people usually seek a solution in religion. Those who
are not ready to go down that path, try to displace the tormenting question of meaning by means
of various activities and opiates.
2.67 - People have always tried to create oases of meaning in the desert of existence that
knows no aims and has no meaning. People nowadays try to do that by various kinds of intense
43
consumption and by stupefying entertainment. The struggle for the meaning has often made
people's lives more miserable and meaningless than they could have been without that struggle;
but the struggle for meaning goes on because people need a meaning, and their achievements in
this struggle have been fragile. We must learn to give meaning to our lives by a constructive and
benevolent behaviour, not by aggressive and destructive behaviour, as people have usually done.
Ephemerality and opiates
2.68 - The ability to remember and to imagine has allowed people to learn and plan, and to
gain a great knowledge and operative power. But this ability has made people aware of their
ephemerality; we see that we are something ephemeral that will vanish soon. We can imagine
endless duration and we know that each of us has been given the possibility to walk only an
infinitely small fraction of this endless way, without stopping and returning, always moving
toward our eternal disappearance. We can embrace our ephemerality and live in peace or with a
sense of resignation. But most people have not lived in such a way. They have tried to flee from
ephemerality into chimerical realms of eternal bliss, created by their imagination. People flee into
intense activities and stupefying noise, by means of which they try to displace the awareness of
their ephemerality. Many activities do not aim to achieve material results, but serve as opiates by
means of which people shield themselves from the depressing awareness of their ephemerality.
2.69 - Can a lasting meaning exist for ephemeral beings in the world of transitoriness? Can
we imagine a situation in which the sense of absurdity would disappear and the question of the
meaning of life would cease to exist? Can we imagine something - in this world or beyond it -
that is inherently meaningful and radiates meaning to the entire existence? We do not know
anything like this; people have not managed to imagine anything like this in a proper way. Noth-
ing is inherently meaningful and nothing radiates meaning. Those beings that feel the need for
meaning must constantly create it if they want to have it.
2.70 - We ask for the meaning of our endeavours and lives because everything we do is
ephemeral, and such are our lives. We try to assign meaning to our activities and lives, but we
know that everything is ephemeral and vanishes forever. The question of the meaning of life
springs from the depressing fact that everything is ephemeral: this is a voice of regret and sorrow
because of the ephemerality of everything. However, if we and our deeds were to last forever, the
question of the meaning of life and existence would not disappear. We would still ask why do we
exist, and why does anything exist. A transcendent reality and eternal duration do not solve the
issue of meaning, because the question of meaning does not have a definitive answer and cannot
be answered. Those who arrived to this question must learn to live with it, in this world of
ephemerality and suffering, as well as in the chimerical transcendent realms of eternal bliss.
2.71 - People have been aware that they are ephemeral beings in the endless space of exist-
ence, and this has made them feel absurd phenomena and tragic beings. People have always
sought ways to transcend their depressing situation by means of their imagination and narratives
which present human life and existence in an encouraging way. They have used their mental
abilities for the creation of appealing visions of human life and existence. Such attempts look like
a self-deception. I do not know whether such wondrous creations of the human mind manage to
eliminate the sense of absurdity, and create the sense of meaning in people. I am not capable of
such self-deception; I do not know to what extent are other people successful in doing that.
44
2.72 - Marx called religion "the opium of the people"; he did this in the context of his criti-
cism of the ruthless capitalism which creates such living conditions that people need religion to
be able to endure life in such conditions. Marx is basically right, but socioeconomic system is not
the only thing that oppresses and depresses people: life does this by itself. The awareness of their
limitation and ephemerality depresses people; the same does frustrations, regrets and fears that
life brings about. To be able to live with all this, people created many opiates, not only religion.
They created cultures and rites, games and wars, science and technology, noisy festivities and
stupefying entertainment; all these activities have a strong opiate dimension. People have always
needed opiates and they have always produced them in large quantities.
2.73 - People have always sought ways to transcend their ephemerality, or to cease to be
aware of it. Consciousness wants to be infinite, or to cease to be aware of its finiteness: it wants
to become what it is not, or to forget what it is. Opiates have always played an essential role in
people's struggle against frustrations and suffering that life and death bring about. But opiates
narrow mental activities of people and prevent them from reflecting in a critical way about their
walk toward the horizon of existence. Opiates prevent people from creating new visions and
achieving their best possibilities. People have always needed and loved opiates, but instead of
seeking for new stupefying opiates, we ought to seek for new possibilities of creative play. We
ought to seek for new possibilities of using our knowledge and operative power in a constructive
and benevolent way which widens human horizons and promotes a poetic attitude toward life and
existence.
2.74 - People walk along the ways they themselves create; by their walk they shape their re-
ality and themselves. People are unfinished creations that cannot be finished without ceasing to
be what they essentially are: beings in a ceaseless motion and self-creation. A reflective mind
asks questions that cannot be answered in a way that satisfies human reason and emotions. The
mind cannot cease asking such questions without ceasing to be what it essentially is. Reflective
mind makes people feel the way they feel, and be what they are.
2.4 In search of a meaningful life
2.75 - People are a product of the cosmic process. There are is indication that this process is
conscious and that it has a will or aim. The process of existence has not produced people for any
reason or purpose, because this process knows no reasons and purposes. But people have been
produced and they are here. Instead of asking for the nonexistent reason and purpose of their
existence, people ought to ask what is the best they can do with their lives. We claim that the best
we can do is to use our abilities and time in a constructive and benevolent way; we ought to aim
to do what is considered the best in a given situation. But people have had different views about
what is the best.
2.76 - The issue of the meaning of life regards the question of why we live; the issue of a
meaningful behaviour and life regards the question of how to live. The question "why" does not
have a definitive (final) answer, because for every answer, the same question "why" can be asked.
The question how we should live, since we are here, is more practical and we must answer to this
question in some way. People have advocated and adopted different views of life and ways of
living. It is not possible to prove that one view and way of life is more meaningful than another;
different teachings (doctrines) promote and require different ways of life. We may not agree
45
about what is the most meaningful way of life, but we ought to speak about that issue, because we
share the same world and interact with each other.
What is meaningful?
2.77 - It has been said that a person lives in a meaningful way when she is "actively and at
least somewhat successfully engaged in a project (or projects) of positive value". This claim
looks reasonable, but it does not say enough. The question is what should be considered a "posi-
tive value" and according to which value system. People dedicate their lives to various aims,
ideals and illusions, which give them the reason and strength to live. We dedicate our time and
energy to some activities because this is how life looks like and how it functions. We must do
something with our lives and spend them in some way; the question is what we should do and
how we should live. The question is what is the best and most meaningful way for people to
spend their lives.
2.78 - It has been said that a meaningful life is a life that "does good, or is good, or realizes
value". Such claims say rather little. The question is what is good and valuable; people have
different views about that. It looks meaningful and reasonable to take care for your health, to
enjoy in harmless activities you love, to help others, and to do many other constructive and
benevolent things. A behaviour can be considered constructive when it aims to minimize suffer-
ing and destruction, to create what is good and beautiful, and to promote understanding. We can
assume that such behaviour makes life meaningful, regardless of whether human life in general is
something good or something bad. We should behave in a constructive and benevolent way, since
we are here, regardless of whether it is good to be here or not.
2.79 - It has been said that life is meaningful when it is lived in a way that contributes to the
realization of worthy aims. A person lives in a meaningful way when she behaves in the way that
is good for her, for her community and for humanity. Such claims look reasonable and useful, but
they do not say much. It is often difficult to say what is best for a person, her community and
humanity. It is difficult to behave in a way that satisfies all these demands and various others.
Who should say what is worthy and what is best? What looks good for a person may not be good
for her community, and what a community considers good for itself may not be good for humani-
ty. Issues related to economy, religions, cultures and nations are often controversial and divisive.
Conquerors and saints, who have been eulogized by their communities, have often done big evils
to other people and communities.
2.80 - Those who promote religion claim that without the transcendent reality, or the faith in
it, human life does not have a purpose and cannot be integrated into the wholeness of existence.
Without the sense of purpose and wholeness, human life has no meaning and is not worth living.
Without the assumption that human beings transcend the life in this world, people are not moti-
vated to behave in a moral way, which has very bad effects. So speak advocates of religion, but I
do not share their view. The awareness that there are no transcendent worlds has inspired num-
berless people to live their unique lives in this world in a constructive and benevolent way.
Precisely because our endeavours and lives do not have a transcendental purpose and meaning,
we ought to do our best to make our ephemeral terrestrial existence as good and beautiful as we
can.
2.81 - Secularists say that those that have preached transcendent realms and states have often
made life in this world worse. Instead of dealing with other worlds, secularists aim to promote
46
social justice, constructive behaviour and solidarity, knowledge, material position of people and
the creation of beauty. To live in a meaningful way, we ought to shape our activities and lives
according to these values and aims. The secular view does not eliminate the tragic feeling of the
finite consciousness that yearns for infinity, but it argues that by a constructive and benevolent
behaviour, people can spend their limited lives in this world in the most meaningful way that this
can be done. People can live in a reasonable and meaningful way without faith in the transcend-
ent, and numberless people have lived and died in this way.
2.82 - It is hard to give a universal answer to the question of what activities and behaviours
are meaningful and make life meaningful, because people and communities have different views
about that. For most people, what is meaningful and what is not is determined by their social
environment and material situation. There is usually a broad consensus about the issue of values
and behaviour inside communities, but different communities (cultures, societies) may consider
meaningful different behaviours. In spite of all differences, people and communities must aim to
reach a consensus about what is meaningful and what is meaningless. Such consensus would
contribute to the avoiding of conflicts, although it would probably not eliminate them, because
people are restless creatures. Some people and communities do not manage to sustain their
aggressive inclinations; aggressive behaviour is part of their understanding of the meaningful life.
Meaning requires activity
2.83 - A life without cares and aims would be empty, boring and meaningless. It may seem
meaningless to care, struggle and create, when we know that all we do will vanish in a near future
and that we will vanish too. But a life without aims and cares would be unbearably boring and
meaningless. By our constructive endeavours and care, we confer value and meaning on our lives
and on lives of others. By such behaviour, we make life meaningful, in spite of the fact that it
looks futile and meaningless when observed from the viewpoint of eternity. Existence as a whole
has no purpose and meaning, but its ephemeral parts can be pleasant and meaningful if we make
them such.
2.84 - When we achieve a goal, we cannot stand idle and enjoy what we have done, for the
rest of our life. Every achievement and state gradually lose their charm, and the sense of boredom
begins to haunt people again. This compels people to set a new goal and direct their energy and
activities toward its realization. Human life consists of activities and states of boredom, which
follow each other. This game may look meaningless, but this is how human life looks like. It is
hard to imagine a static world and life, in which every being has reached its place and stands still
and feels happy forever. Existence is a process, and every life is a process. Also gods are always
doing something; they try to run away from boredom.
2.85 - It has been said that what makes life meaningful are activities, not the results of those
activities. Activities matter, because people are restless creatures, and activities bring them new
challenges, excitements and satisfactions. But the effects of activities matter too. We ought to
seek satisfaction in what we do, but we also ought to care about the effects of our activities.
Human life and history do not have an inherent meaning. People can make their lives and human
history meaningful by their constructive activities and behaviour, by their mutual relationships,
and by their behaviour toward their environment and the natural world. In this way, people can
live their ephemeral lives in a meaningful way and give a meaning to existence itself, to the
extent that this can be done, in spite of the fact that life and existence do not have any inherent
value or meaning.
47
2.86 - It is hard to say whether a human life is a gift or a punishment; whether it is better to
be or not to be; we speak of this issue in the last chapter. Anyway, we know human needs, limita-
tions and aspirations; in this framework we ought to shape our activities and behaviour in the way
that makes our lives and lives of all beings the best that it can be. We should not expect too much
from others, because people are peculiar creatures that ware square glasses and do other strange
things. In any case, people's lives are good, beautiful and meaningful to the extent that people and
humanity have managed to make them such.
The power of community
2.87 - Most people try to make their lives meaningful by living in accordance with dominant
narratives of the community in which they live. Such narratives tell people what is meaningful
and how they should live; by following such instructions, people assume that they live in a
meaningful way and they consider their lives meaningful. Traditional religions, socioeconomic
doctrines, national narratives and institutions seem too big and powerful to be questioned by
individuals. By joining something that is large and powerful, people try to free themselves from
the feeling that their lives have no meaning and purpose, or to repress and displace this depress-
ing feeling.
2.88 - People adopt narratives, join various communities and movements. By becoming part
of something large and powerful, people raise themselves above the sense of impotence and
irrelevance. By joining something that is large and powerful, people draw the meaning of their
lives from that large entity. But all such large entities - religions, social movements and scientific
endeavours - are human creations. We borrow meaning from entities that we created and pro-
claimed them meaningful. We assume that such large entities have been created by the best
human abilities and intentions, but this is often not so.
2.89 - People join movements which they support and which look appealing to them; they
take part in activities which they consider pleasant or believe that they will produce something
they approve. People embrace narratives and join communities because it is easier to live in
community than alone. It is easier for people to cope with anxieties, frustrations and painful
yearnings when they are in company with others who are in the same position. Such behaviour is
considered normal and belongs to the meaningful way of living. Collective activities and enthusi-
asm alleviate the burden of life and death, and the sense of fear impotence that people carry in
themselves.
2.90 - Those who have embraced a religion or national doctrine feel that they live in the
meaningful way; but such narratives have often promoted aggressive behaviour toward other
people and communities. Communities eulogize lives and enterprises of their heroes; but those
heroes have usually been aggressive rather than cooperative people. Those whom their communi-
ties call "great" have often done a lot of evil to other people and communities. Communities
eulogize those their members who were successful in fighting other communities, regardless of
the harm and evil that their enterprises have done to others. Conquerors and fanatics have been
considered great people; this is not good for humanity; such great people are not good for human-
ity.
2.91 - We ought to consider in critical way the doctrine we adopt and the activities in which
we participate. We ought to ask how our narrative treats other people and how our community
behaves toward other people and communities. A narrative which creates in some people the
48
feeling that their lives have a purpose and meaning can be destructive and bad for humanity.
Aggressive people love aggressive narratives, because such narratives justify and support their
aggressive behaviour. Some people find the meaning of their lives in doing evil to others. All
narratives are imperfect, and some look very bad. People and community need a narrative which
gives them a value system and principles of behaviour, as the framework and guidelines of their
behaviour and life. But all narratives must be analyzed and evaluated in terms of the effects they
produce. All narratives must to be constantly analyzed and evaluated, with the aim to make them
better and less harmful.
Meaning, success and satisfaction
2.92 - What values and aims should people adopt and follow to make their lives worthwhile
and meaningful? Knowledge, goodness and beauty used to be considered the supreme values and
the supreme aims to which people must aspire, to make their lives the best that human lives can
be. I hope that these three old ideals are still with us, but they look obsolete in contemporary
world; wealth, power and fame look much more appealing to the present-day people. In fact, the
former ideals have always been praised, and the latter have always been pursued by those who
have been able to do so. But I have a feeling that only by following the way of knowledge,
goodness and beauty can people make their lives meaningful and live in a decent way. The way
of power and fame looks appealing to people, but without a touch of benevolence, power and
fame look empty.
2.93 - Pessimists say that human life is not worth living, because every life is full of frustra-
tions and pervaded by suffering, and it leads toward its fall and disappearance. Optimists say that
every human life is worthwhile or can be made such. Realists say that for a life to be worth
living, certain material and social conditions are needed, a person must have a certain level of
abilities and be engaged in constructive activities. The conditions are often not optimal, many
people do not have great abilities, and most people do not use their abilities and opportunities in
optimal way. Communities do often not use their resources in a constructive and benevolent way.
For these reasons, lives of some people look bad, and lives of most people are less good than they
could have been. It is hard to give a more precise answer to the question whether life is worth
living or not.
2.94 - A person may consider her life frustrating and meaningless, because she failed to
achieve what she wished and struggled to achieve. Such a person may consider life a sad experi-
ence that brings more suffering than happiness. But she may also consider human life a wondrous
phenomenon that is worthy of being experienced, in spite of the fact that her life has not been
pleasant. A person may achieve her goal, but consider her life meaningless because she reached
the conclusion that she pursued a wrong goal, so that her success in its realization has not made
her feel happy. Such a person may consider life in general a worthwhile enterprise and experi-
ence, in spite of the fact that she has made a serious mistake. A person may live a comfortable
and successful life, but in spite of this, she may consider human life a depressing experience and
an ugly phenomenon which should better not exist.
2.95 - A meaningful life is not necessarily a happy life, and a sense of happiness does not
necessarily make a life meaningful. A person who holds that she lives a happy life may consider
life in general a meaningless voyage toward a humiliating fall and disappearance. A person who
feels unhappy can believe that human life is worth living and that life can be lived in a meaning-
ful way. A person who has experienced a lot of suffering may not consider her life meaningless.
49
A person who considers her life meaningful may not consider her life happy and pleasant. The
sense of happiness does not necessarily create a sense that life has a meaning; and unhappiness
does not necessarily create the sense that life is meaningless.
2.96 - The life of a person who does not feel happy may be significant and valuable for many
people. Such a person may have done excellent things which have been very useful to many
people; but she may consider life meaningless. She may work hard and do good, since she is here,
but she may consider being here a depressing and meaningless experience. Many people who
have lived in desperate conditions have loved life and struggled to survive, often without a real
possibility to succeed. To those people goes my deepest compassion; I have suffered with them
and I have painfully wished I could have helped them. Finally, I hope that there are people who
accept life in its entirety, such as it is, and enjoy the experience of living it. Many people try to
present their lives in this way, but I wonder how many people really feel life in this way.
2.97 - Our mind and our benevolent feelings can show us how to live our ephemeral lives in
a meaningful way. We call meaningful what we consider appropriate and optimal in a given
situation. The best option exists also in the situation in which no option is perfect or good
enough. We can behave and live in a meaningful way also if we consider life bad and if life is
bad. Every person faces the question of the meaningful way of life, and gives an answer to this
question by her own life. I am not quite happy with the answer my life has produced to this
question, but most of that answer has been given long ago and cannot be improved anymore.
2.98 - Every consciousness is a flash that splits the eternal darkness into two parts and then
disappears forever, as if it never existed. The best we can do is to make this play of flashes in the
endless darkness as pleasant and beautiful as it can be. Every person can consider her accidental
and ephemeral existence a wondrous gift and embrace it with joy; or she can consider it a calami-
ty and spend it in despair; there are other possibilities in between these extremes. The human
mind is an accidental and ephemeral product of the universe; but the universe without a reflective
mind that watches it with wonder and awe, would be an arcane place. Such a universe should
better not exist, because it would not mean anything to anybody: nobody would know about it.
This makes people's ephemeral lives exceptional and wondrous phenomena; they may be tragic,
but they should be lived in a meaningful way.
50
3. Narratives and reality
3.1 The frameworks of existence
3.1 - A narrative is a story or a collection of stories, which describes and explains something.
A narrative can explain a limited event or a complex phenomenon, including human history and
existence. We use the concept narrative in a broad sense, which comprises religions, socioeco-
nomic doctrines, and scientific theories. A narrative gives an image of reality it speaks about.
Narratives have ontological, epistemological and axiological dimension: they say what exists,
what is known (true), and what is good (right). Social narratives explain the past and the present,
and show people the way toward the future. They set values and principles of behaviour; they tell
people how they ought to live. Narratives serve power-holders as the means by which they shape
people's attitudes and behaviours, and govern communities.
Ruling and salvation
3.2 - Narratives shape relationships between people; they facilitate creation of communities
and introduce order into community. Narratives determine the structure of power in community:
by means of narratives, power-holders justify their power, control the behaviour of people, and
govern the community. A narrative interprets events, and shapes people's attitude toward those
events; it gives direction to individual and collective endeavours, and creates in people a sense of
purpose and meaning of their efforts, suffering and lives.
3.3 - People have shaped their world and lives by the technical means they possessed, but
their understanding of the world and life, as well as their behaviour and aims, have always been
shaped by narratives and by socioeconomic systems based on those narratives. A narrative
determines and justifies the way of production and the principles of distribution of wealth in
community. Narratives are not innocuous; they often promote oppressive behaviour of power-
holders inside community, and aggressive behaviour toward other communities.
3.4 - Narratives have served primarily social needs and purposes, but they have also ex-
pressed common people's needs, fears and desires; they have shown what kind of beings people
are and what they wish to be. Perplexed by their ephemerality and by the mystery of existence,
people began to create myths, by which they tried to explain phenomena and to communicate
with the invisible forces which produced and controlled those phenomena. Ancient myths were
gradually displaced by larger religious narratives and by scientific explanations. But people still
love old myths and try to produce new ones.
3.5 - When people became aware of their limitations and ephemerality, they began to seek
ways to transcend their depressing reality. They could not change the essential features of their
material reality, but their cognitive abilities allowed people to interpret (describe) human life and
51
the world in various consoling and encouraging ways. People created religious narratives which
describe human life and the world in ways people wished them to be. By the narratives that raise
people above this world, people gave a meaning to their ephemeral lives in this world of suffering
and death.
3.6 - Myths and narratives were needed for the creation of communities; hence, people were
producing myths and narratives much before they learned to speak about paradise, moksa or
nirvana. At the beginning, narratives were a matter of creating community and of ruling them. It
took a lot of time before the creators of religions developed solutions to the problem of suffering
and death, which was appealing to people and useful to rulers. God Yahweh, who allegedly
created the world and people, urges his "chosen people" to exterminate neighbouring tribes,
destroy their cities and seize their land. But Yahweh says nothing about soul, eternal life, paradise
and similar things. "You are dust, and to dust you shall return", says Yahweh to people.
3.7 - The oldest narratives and gods were good enough for ruling and entertaining people and
for waging wars. But people yearned for the liberation from the sufferings and death that life was
bringing them. They wanted to be saved and liberated from the misery of this world and from the
terror of eternal death. Poets and sages gradually produced narratives which were promising
people what they were yearning for. It was not easy to develop such narratives, and it was not
easy for people to accept the narratives that were promising them everlasting duration and bliss.
When Saul from Tarsus, who became Paul and the founder of Christianity, began to preach the
resurrection, Greeks, Romans and Jews did not listen to him and called him mad.
Transcending the harsh reality
3.8 - It is difficult to speak of religion in general, because there are notable differences be-
tween religions. It is not always clear whether a narrative should be considered a religion or a
secular doctrine or both. Some religions have one god, some have many gods, and some have no
gods. Jews and Christians have one god, Greeks had many gods; in Hinduism there are many
gods, in Buddha's teaching there are no gods; Chinese masters Confucius and Lao Tzu do not
speak of gods. Religion usually offers people a way of salvation and liberation, which is based on
a transcendent reality. But god Yahweh does not speak of transcendent reality: people are "dust"
and to dust they return. Eternal dwelling in Hades, which Homer describes as the "abode of
darkness" and utterly sad place, could hardly be considered a salvation.
3.9 - The western religions usually speak of salvation, while the eastern speak of liberation,
but this difference is not essential, because to be saved means to be liberated from something, and
to be liberated means to be saved from something. The eastern and western religions are techni-
cally different, but they both preach ways of salvation and liberation from the sufferings of this
world. Religious narratives are extensive and they contain different branches and churches; their
language is imprecise and their discourse is incomplete and usually inconsistent. Such narratives
speak by the language of emotions rather than by the language of reason. Religions could hardly
be presented as precise, consistent and complete stories, because they are not such stories. We put
forward critical outlines of some religions in next sections, without entering into the variety of
their narratives, because there is no need to do this here.
3.10 - The awareness that they are ephemeral beings - a smoke in the wind - has always sad-
dened people, and they have sought ways to transcend their bleak reality. Religions narratives
cover human reality with their veils of great promises and great illusions, which console people
52
and encourage them to endure hardships of life and the terror of death. They give people the
possibility to communicate with the unknown and with the realities that transcend human under-
standing and imagination. People are rational at the level of means and methods they produce and
use, but their imagination has been shaped by their anxiety which springs from their limitations in
time and power, and by their yearning to transcend all limitations.
3.11 - Religions describe human reality in ways that create in people a sense of purpose and
meaning of their endeavours and lives. The western and eastern religions do that in different
ways, but they both preach that behaviour of a person matters beyond the limits of this world.
They show people how their behaviour can lead them (or their souls and selves) to the realm and
state of eternal bliss. Religions calm the anxiety that springs from human ephemerality, and
promise people that their yearning will be satisfied if they live in the way that those religions
require them to live. Religion guides people and gives them support and comfort in difficult
moments of life. But religions promote irrational discourse and behaviour, which has harmful
effects.
3.12 - Many people need a religious narrative as a metaphysical background of their lives,
and many people love to have such a background, regardless of how implausible its contents are.
Religion is not a matter of material facts and knowledge, but a matter of needs and aims of people
and community. Religion aims to satisfy people's mental needs and to facilitate the realization of
the aims of community. Rituals and festivals bring people together and have a strong opiate
effect. Founders of large religions did not know natural sciences, but they knew people well; they
were good psychologists, sociologists, businessmen and often warriors.
3.13 - Many religions preach that everything that exists and happens has a purpose and
serves for the realization of God's plan, and that everything moves in a good direction. People
who embrace such teaching can endure accidents and suffering of this world easier, because they
know that at the end all shall be well - explains John Hick. Evil and suffering are part of our way
through this world, but this way leads to eternal bliss. Blessed are those who can believe in such
stories, if they really can; because I do not believe that people believe all they say they believe. In
any case, religion gives people an encouraging image of life and existence; it brings them deities
whom they can fear and worship, whom they can pray and to whom they can talk.
Discourse and behaviour
3.14 - People have accepted narratives because they have been appealing or useful to them,
or because they have been imposed on them. But it is hard to believe that people believed in the
contents of those narratives. When Moses remained little longer on the Mount Sinai, people
abandoned god Yahweh and replaced him with a golden calf which they made. And they began to
worship the golden calf instead of Yahweh. Moses and his priestly clan restored the faith in
Yahweh by the edge of sword: they slaughtered three thousand people in one day for that pur-
pose. It is hard to believe that ancient Greeks believed in their stories about Olympian deities.
People have always lived with their narratives, but it does not seem that they have believed in
those stories. However, narratives have mental, social, economic, political and military role also
when people do not believe what they say.
3.15 - Religions promise people salvation and liberation from sufferings of this world, and
everlasting bliss in a transcendent realm and state. Their narratives create mental and social
frameworks in which people can live, work and die with the sense that their lives have a purpose
53
and meaning. Those ancient religions which did not fulfil such individual and collective needs
were displaced by other religions. Olympian deities were interesting and entertaining, but they
did not offer much to mortal people; hence, people abandoned them and adopted new deities who
have promised people much more. Zeus and Aphrodite are my favourite deities, but they were
displaced by more serious narratives and deities. Religious narratives could be considered poetic
visions of reality, but people want more than that: they want a real salvation and liberation.
3.16 - Religious narratives are usually not factually correct and logically consistent; they are
not socially just, they are often aggressive and obstruct people's creative potentials. But pundits
say that people and communities need such narratives to be able to live and function. Such
narratives have been called "necessary lies we tell ourselves" in order to be able to live in this
wondrous and terrible world, full of charms and sufferings. Those who criticize religions and
expose their "vital lies", compel people to face the truth which they are not ready to live with. I
hold that people have always seen their reality through the veils of "vital lies" by which various
narratives have hidden reality; I hold that people can live with the awareness of their reality; but
power-holders have always imposed religions and other narratives on people for practical purpos-
es.
3.17 - For some people, the narrative with which they live is a matter of choice, for others it
is a matter of compulsion, but most people live in accordance with a narrative, without thinking
about that. Many people accet a religious narrative because they need such a narrative as the
means that helps them to cope with their anxieties and yearnings. People try to believe in the
good God because they need such God, and people love to believe what they wish to be true.
Power-holders have imposed narratives on people, because narratives are the means for govern-
ing people and communities. Factual correctness and logical consistency of a narrative do not
matter to those who seek a meaning and salvation, nor to those who need an efficient means for
governing people.
3.18 - A narrative contains its value system and principles of behaviour. A narrative is closed
if it does not accept its evaluation which is based on values and principles of another narrative.
Closed narratives do not allow internal criticisms and do not accept external criticisms; they
interpret everything in the way that supports their discourse and serves their aims. Narratives can
be closed to a different degree; religious narratives are quite closed; secular narratives are more
open, but not that much as they pretend they are. Closed and dogmatic narratives have been
appealing to many people. Adherents of such a narrative see that some elements of the narrative
are wrong or harmful, but they do not allow their narrative to be criticized and changed, because
they want to have a firm framework of behaviour and life. Closed narratives often justify the
persecution of those who do not accept them. Some people love to persecute others; such people
love and support closed narratives.
3.19 - There is no neutral standpoint from which a narratives can be observed and evaluated.
Every evaluation is made from the standpoint of a narrative and its values system, so that every
evaluation is relative. It is not possible to give an absolute evaluation of a narrative, but we can
select a set of values and principles, and estimate to what extent a specific narrative promotes
those values and principles, and to what extent it neglects or opposes them. We can show that
some narratives promote constructive behaviour, benevolence and universal solidarity to a larger
extent than others do; some narratives promote individual freedoms, others limit them; some
narratives widen the space of human knowledge and experience, others narrow that space and
obstruct people's creative potentials. We can compare narratives, but every evaluation is relative,
54
because it depends on the parameters according to which it is made, as well as on the choice and
interpretation of facts.
3.20 - A narrative can hinder some aggressive inclinations in people, and urge them to be-
have in a constructive and cooperative way. But narratives have often stimulated people and
communities to behave in aggressive way toward other communities. People have created and
followed aggressive and destructive narratives, sometimes out of ignorance or by mistake; but
they have done that purposely too, and they have followed them with great passion. Some people
and communities have loved to destroy others. A narrative can enslave people and community,
cripple them and lead them into misery; such things have happened throughout history. No
narrative is perfect, and some narratives have a strong destructive dimension.
3.21 - Humanity needs a narrative which stimulates people's constructive inclinations and
hinders their destructive inclinations. But power-holders have used a constructive discourse to
justify their oppressive and aggressive behaviour. In the name of truth and justice, freedom and
democracy, love and progress big evils have been done. Noble ideals have been used as the
justification for destructive behaviour and for the stimulation of people to such behaviour. A
narrative cannot prevent people from abusing it. This makes noble narratives dangerous weapons
in the hands of skilled manipulators, and there has always been skilled manipulators. For the
progress of humanity, it is necessary to find a solution to this problem, but it will be hard to find a
good solution. Instead of speaking in terms of truth, justice, freedom and love, we should speak
of constructive behaviour, benevolence and cooperation. People have done a lot of evil in the
name of the old ideals; it could be more difficult to do evil in the name of constructive coopera-
tion. But bad people have been able to do evil in the name of anything. In any case, attention
must be paid to the behaviour rather than to words; no sublime discourse should be accepted as
the justification for aggressive behaviour.
3.2 The western traditional narratives
3.22 - Religions are complex creations which have many dimensions and serve many pur-
poses. We speak of religion as the means by which people have tried to save and liberate them-
selves from the terror of ephemerality and death. The way to the liberation and salvation was long
and difficult, and it had two stages. Poets and sages first discovered or created immortal gods; by
this great creative act, they limited the power of death. Gods brought immortality, but people
were still dying. Poets and sages then discovered immortal soul (or self) in people. This is the
greatest discovery and creative act that the human mind has made. This is the victory of the
seemingly ephemeral beings over death: people have made themselves immortal like gods.
Dust that returns to dust
3.23 - Discourse of ancient Egyptians about life and death is complex, and contains two es-
sential elements: a life after death (afterlife), and the evaluation of the life of each person after
she dies. At the beginning, the life after death was available only to pharaohs (rulers), but later it
became available to all people. After a person dies, she is judged on the basis of her behaviour
during her life in this world. If a person is judged "pure", she becomes "like Osiris" (a deity) or
"an Osiris"; if a person is not judged pure, she is devoured by a monster who serves as the "eater
55
of the dead". Therefore, Egyptians gave the possibility of afterlife to all people; the realization of
this possibility depended on the individual merits of each person. Egyptian did not know soul, so
that their afterlife consisted in some form of physical existence.
3.24 - Jewish sages did not borrow the idea of the afterlife from their neighbours Egyptians.
Older books of the Old Testament (Torah, Pentateuch) accept death as a definitive state; they do
not speak of afterlife. Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, does not speak of afterlife, immor-
tal soul, paradise and similar things. He does not give people any hope of that kind. "You are
dust, and to dust you shall return", says Yahweh to the first people, Adam and Eve, whom he
personally created. In Babylonian and Sumerian narratives, death was explained by a "sin" which
people committed. In Hebrew narrative, Adam and Eve transgressed the command that Yahweh
had given them; this was a grave sin, which led to their expulsion from the Eden, and to people's
tribulations and death. People want to have an explanation for those things which they cannot
control and change.
3.25 - When people die they go to Sheol, a place about which not much is said. Sheol is a
realm of gloom and deep darkness in which nothing happens; the dead remain in Sheol forever,
as closed jars at the bottom of sea. Those who go down to Sheol do not come back and do not go
anywhere else; they do not do anything and nothing happens to them. There is no judgement after
death, so the good and the evil are in the same position. The Old Testament is a large collection
of texts, and it contains some stories which differ from the mainstream discourse. For example,
the dead prophet Samuel was made to speak by a medium, on the request of the king Saul. But in
general, in Hebrew narrative, death is the end of the person and of her existence.
3.26 - The Old Testament speaks of the interaction between Yahweh and Jewish people, and
about struggles and tribulations of that people. This book does not speak much about the meaning
of individual lives, but the awareness of the ephemerality of human life is very present in its
discourse. The Old Testament describes human life in a depressing terms. All human endeavours
and lives are destined to vanish as if they never existed. A life is "like a ship that sails through the
billowy water" and like a bird that "flies through the air", leaving no trace behind. Yahweh
forgives disobedience to his people because he knows that they are "but flesh" and "a wind that
passes and does not come again". Yahweh sees the human misery, but does not do anything to
change the hopeless condition of the people he created. He urges his chosen people to extermi-
nate neighbouring tribes, and promises a lot of cattle and a large offspring to those who follow his
commandments. The meaning of lives consists in the loyalty to Yahweh, which brings material
success and large offspring.
3.27 - People were not happy with Yahweh's discourse and behaviour, so that new ideas
about life and death began to appear. The book of prophet Isaiah, who flourished in the eighth
century BC, contains the claim that the dead shall arise and that their bodies shall live again. But
pundits say that only a part of Isaiah's book was written by him; other parts were added later.
They say that the idea of resurrection was developed in the period from the fourth century BC to
the second century AD. The prophet Daniel wrote in the second century BC that "many of those
who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake". Those who died will resurrect, and they will be
judged on the basis of their behaviour during their lives. Those who lived in the proper way will
be granted "everlasting life"; those who did not live in the proper way will be condemned to an
existence of "shame and everlasting contempt". The resurrection was meant here in a bodily
form; soul was not introduced yet into this story.
56
Soul and its upgrading
3.28 - In Greek narrative, people have a kind of soul. When they die, their souls go to Hades,
a place under the earth, and dwell there like "shadows" or "vaporous images" of the body. "Even
in the house of Hades there is left something, a soul and image, but there is no real heart of life in
it", says Homer. In such a state and form, a person continues to exist in Hades after the death of
her body; but Hades is such a gloomy place that the everlasting dwelling in this realm of darkness
looks very sad. Odysseus, who visited Hades alive and managed to return alive, calls this place
the "abode of darkness" and describes the state of its dwellers as very miserable. In spite of all
this, the Greek soul shields people from the terror of the complete disappearance and eternal
nonexistence. But such afterlife do not bring people the salvation and liberation that they have
yearned for. The dwellers of Hades can move and speak, but their existence looks very miserable;
the life of the dead in Hades does not look worth living.
3.29 - Hades does not have the moral dimension. People (souls) are not rewarded in Hades
for the good deeds they had done during their lives on the earth, nor are they punished for the
evils they had committed. Of all the dwellers of Hades only Ixion, Tantalus, and Sisyphus were
condemned to eternal torments, because "they had offended Zeus in person". Greek gods and
goddesses dwell mostly on the Olympus mountain; they love to party and to quarrel among
themselves and with people. They do not speak much about the meaning of the ephemeral human
lives, nor about the meaning of their everlasting divine existence.
3.30 - A great advance in the discourse about soul in the Greek narrative was made by mys-
tic teachers and prophets called Orphics, who were active in the fifth century BC. It seems that
they borrowed ideas about soul from the eastern narratives. In brief, the Orphic soul passes
through many consecutive incarnations in different bodies; in every incarnation the soul aims to
purify itself; this cycle of reincarnations (of births and deaths) lasts until the soul is purified; the
soul is then absorbed into the realm of the divine. The Orphic soul looks radically better than the
impotent shadows in Homer's gloomy Hades. This soul struggles for its purification and moves
toward the realm of the divine and of eternal bliss.
3.31 - Soul is a nonmaterial and immortal entity, which enters into a human body when it is
born, or maybe earlier or later, and dwells in it until the body dies. It seems that soul comes from
the realm of the divine; it is not quite clear why is soul sent into a body and into a cycle of rein-
carnations, but this does not matter here. Soul does not feel happy in the body; it struggles with
the passions of the body in which it dwells, and suffers because of the bad behaviour of that body.
Death is a deliverance of the immortal soul from the mortal body; but Orphic soul must enter into
a new body, until it reaches a perfect purity, and returns into the realm of the divine. Plato (the
fifth and fourth century BC) borrowed a lot from Orphics in his discourse about death and soul.
His stories are complex, but they present afterlife in positive light, so that Socrates can leave this
world with a great hope that he goes into a much better reality.
3.32 - Orphic soul passes through many bodies (lives) on its way to the divine realm; Chris-
tian soul, which will appear several centuries later, will travel only with one body (and its life)
toward the other world and her eternal bliss or eternal damnation. The discourse about soul has
advanced a lot, but many essential problems have not been solved. What is the evidence that soul
exists? How do a material body and nonmaterial soul stay together, and how they interact with
each other? Why is soul punished for of the sins of the body? There are many such questions, but
57
we do not deal with them here; we have only given an outline of the path along which people
arrived from "dust" to the immortal soul and eternal bliss.
3.33 - The assumption that there exists immortal soul, which dwells in body and is remova-
ble from it, is problematic. But at the psychological level, soul is the greatest invention of human
creative imagination. People first created immortal gods, but they continued to die. With the
invention of the immortal soul, people made themselves immortal like gods. This is the greatest
leap that people ever made. Only a step back, from the chimerical realm of eternal bliss to the
harsh reality of human life, would be equally great. People needed thousands of years to make the
first step (leap); they could need another several thousand years to make the second step (back), if
they ever manage to make it.
Christianity and its good news
3.34 - Christian religion adopted many things from Jewish narrative, including prophets' dis-
course about the resurrection of bodies. But the core element of the Christian discourse about life
and death became immortal soul. Christianity speaks of three spaces in their transcendent reality:
paradise, hell and purgatory. The souls of those who live in accordance with Christian teaching
will go to paradise. Those who do not follow Christian teaching are sinners and their souls will go
to hell if their sins are grave. The souls of those whose lives were not blameless, but were not big
sinners, spend some time in purgatory, as a punishment for their sins; after that they go to para-
dise. Purgatory was introduced later, for various reason. It gives people hope that even if they sin,
they may arrive to paradise after spending some time in purgatory. It stimulates people to pay
priests to pray for those who might be in purgatory, and in this way shorten their term in that
penitentiary.
3.35 - Yahweh from the Old Testament became God and heavenly Father of the Christian
New Testament. Yahweh did not give any indication that people were immortal nor that a trans-
cendent realm of eternal bliss existed. But Christians upgraded his discourse and brought to
people the good news that life in this world of suffering and death is the way along which every
person can arrive to paradise and everlasting bliss. People must live in accordance with Christian
teaching, and their souls shall arrive to paradise. Christianity has also promised a great power and
glory to the weak and meek who follow its teaching; the weak and meek love such promises.
Driven by their anxiety and yearning, people stepped beyond the boundaries of this world of
suffering and death, and created a realm of everlasting bliss into which they go after they die in
this world. By the power of their yearning and imagination, people created immortality and
eternal bliss for themselves.
3.36 - Christianity became the dominant religion of Roman empire during the fourth century
for several reasons; one of those reasons was that Christianity embraced all people and treated all
people as equal before God. Christianity made salvation available to everybody: to slaves and to
kings, to men and women, to common people and to sophisticated thinkers, to the strong and to
the weak and sick. This has made its teaching appealing to many, especially to those who have
been poor and powerless. God judges every person according to her merits, but God is also the
Father who loves his children and cares for them. God cares for every human being, regardless of
their abilities and possession, of their physical strength and social status, of their beauty or
ugliness, of their health or sickness. All people are given the possibility to save themselves and
arrive to paradise, and to dwell there in eternal bliss.
58
3.37 - People have considered ephemeral life in this world depressing and they have sought
ways that that lead to a better reality and everlasting existence. Christianity teaches that there
exists a radically better reality, and tells people how they must live in this world to arrive to this
radically better reality. The meaning of life in this world is not to enjoy the pleasures of this
world, but to deserve and attain a place in paradise and to dwell there in the eternal bliss. A
human life has the meaning when it is lived in accordance with God's commandments, because
God rewards with the eternal bliss in paradise those people (or their souls) who live in such way.
Lives of those who do not live in accordance with God's commandments (Christian teaching)
have no meaning; such lives end in disgrace and lead to hell. This narrative looks appealing; you
serve God and his Church in the life in this world, and with this you gain eternal bliss. Such
narratives have big drawbacks, as the following paragraphs illustrate that.
Spheres of existence
3.38 - I do not like Kierkegaard, but his discourse gives a relevant image of faith. He speaks
of three basic attitudes toward life and existence: aesthetic, moral, and religious. These attitudes
are called "views of life" and "spheres of existence", and they can be "stages of life" in the mental
development of a person. Each of these attitudes expresses a specific view of human life, and
shapes the way in which a person lives and experiences life. A person can chose any of these
attitudes; she can change the attitude during her life, in accordance with her experience and
feelings.
3.39 - The aesthetic attitude extols freedom; a person does what she desires and has the pos-
sibility to do. The moral attitude accepts obligations and responsibilities toward others and
toward community. This attitude restrains personal freedoms by moral feelings and duties. The
religious attitude requires a resolute "leap into the arms of God". Such a leap is triggered by the
pressure of anxiety and yearning, and of the sense of absurdity of human life. Such a leap is the
response to what a person believes is a divine call. But the person who makes such a leap does
not have an objective evidence or rational certainty that her belief is correct, so that she must
constantly struggle with doubt. The adoption of the religious attitude is a matter of emotions
rather than a matter of reason. The leap into fait can be explained rationally, but it is not based on
objective evidence: this is a passionate leap rather than a rational walk.
3.40 - Kierkegaard argues that the aesthetic and the moral attitude toward life cannot satisfy
people. These views and attitudes cannot give a sufficient support to a person in difficult mo-
ments of life. The aesthetic life is unstable; such life is a flow without a lasting substance: it does
not create a lasting meaning and does not have a lasting meaning. The moral attitude and life are
superior to the aesthetic life, but they do not offer enough. Only a passionate dedication to the
eternal God can bring a lasting sense of meaning and peace to the finite being with infinite
aspirations. Kierkegaard made the leap into the arms of God, and he entices others to do so. It
does not seem that by this leap he freed himself from anxiety and the sense of absurdity, which
haunted him. I hold that it is better to promote knowledge, goodness and beauty than to make
leaps into illusions. The promotion of these values may not lead to eternal bliss, but it could be
the best that people can do with their ephemeral lives.
3.41 - For those who are committed to their God, his requests have absolute priority and
power over everything else, including legal and moral norms. Kierkegaard considers Abraham an
exemplary person of faith, because he obeyed God's request to sacrifice his son. He was ready to
kill the boy when asked to do so by his god. Such a killing looks criminal and insane, but a true
59
person of faith listens to the word of God, not her own sense of good and evil. Abraham did not
object or ask anything: he obeyed. This is what preoccupies me with religion. Abraham is not my
hero; the faith of his kind has probably brought more evil than good to people and humanity. The
world and life would be better if people were able to live in a moral way, and to play in the
sphere of aesthetic creation, and leave ancient deities to dwell in peace on their mountains. But
we must not blame deities, because people produced them in their images.
3.3 The eastern traditional narratives
3.42 - The western religions speak of soul; the eastern religions speak of self. It is usually
taken that these two concepts mean essentially the same, but soul and self function in different
ways. In Christianity, one soul and one body spend one life together and they then end in paradise
or hell. In the eastern religions, every self passes through many bodies (lives) in its long way
toward the final liberation from this world of illusions and suffering. Each self carries its karma
and moves through many lives toward moksa (in Hinduism) or nirvana (in Buddhism). This is the
state of final liberation from the cycle of births (lives) and deaths in this world; this state trans-
cends human understanding and imagination; it can only be experienced by those selves that
reached it. In this section, we also present main Chinese teachings, although they are not religions
in the western sense of the concept.
Hinduism: you are All
3.43 - It seems that the teaching of Advaita Vedanta expresses the essence of Hindu dis-
course and culture in the best way; Shankara (eighth century) is the best-known master of this
teaching. There are other teachings in Hinduism, but we cannot deal with them here. In Advaita
Vedanta, the individual self (jiva) is considered an illusion which does not know its real essence.
The self (an individual conscious mind) is described as a fleeting swirl or wavelet on the endless
ocean of the universal Self, called Atman. The world of multiplicity, which an individual self
sees, consists of ephemeral illusions which hide the true reality and make it difficult for the self to
see it. The true reality of every self is Atman, which is Brahman: the limitless ultimate Reality,
the boundless Totality. Because Atman is Brahman and Brahman is Atman. When a self frees
itself from the illusion that it is something separate, it realizes its true reality and its infinity.
3.44 - Shankara says that "individual self is to be considered a mere appearance of the high-
est Self, like the reflection of the sun in the water; it is neither directly that (i.e., the highest Self)
nor a different thing". I try to say the same by the claim that every self is a manifestation of the
universal Self (Atman) and by this, of the boundless Totality (Brahman). The individual self and
the phenomenal world of multiplicity, as seen by the individual self, are ephemeral illusions
(maya). In her ignorance, a person feels as a separate and limited entity; but every self is a mani-
festation of Atman, and Atman is Brahman.
This ontological framework unifies the individual and the totality, the ephemeral manifesta-
tion and the everlasting essence, in an elegant way. Each individual self, which seems infinitely
small and ephemeral, is a manifestation of Consciousness (Atman), which is the limitless ultimate
Reality. Every self can say: I am Consciousness and Consciousness is All; or I am All, and All is
Consciousness. Such ontological image of existence looks charming; it is a good and liberating
news for those who are able to receive it.
60
3.45 - Brahman cannot be described because it has no shapes or parts, and no attributes.
People have tried to refer to it by expressions such as the limitless non-personal ultimate Reality,
the Absolute, the One, and by others names; but Brahman reduces all speech to silence and every
thought to no thought. However, people have always wished to speak and worship; hence, they
introduced two ways of referring to Brahman. The first way refers to Brahman without qualities
(nirguna); the second refers to Brahman to which people assign qualities in accordance with their
abilities and needs (saguna). People speak of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman, but there is
only one Brahman. Nirguna is Brahman as it is in itself; Saguna is Brahman that people can speak
about, think about and worship.
3.46 - The one who realizes the essence of his self can sing joyously together with a poet of
Upanishads: "I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am to the west. I am to the east. I am to the
south. I am to the north. I, indeed, am this whole world". But not everybody has been happy with
such infiniteness of the self. When "I" ceases to be something specific and separate, and becomes
everything (the universal Self), it ceases to be a point of reference, and signify nothing. Ramanuja
(eleventh century) held that the immortality of absorption (into Atman) is appealing to few
people. Another master says that he does not want to be sugar (Atman), but to be able to taste
sugar; he wants to remain a specific subject, not to vanish in the oneness of Atman/Brahman.
Common people want to preserve their individual identity. A poetic soul may enjoy the idea of
being a formless and boundless ocean of existence, but most people are too selfish and unimagi-
native for something like this: they want to enjoy their own infinity (immortality), only for
themselves.
3.47 - A person produces causes which do not come to fruition within her lifetime; a person
suffers effects of the causes that she had not produced. Hinduism assigns a karma to each self,
and takes that each self passes through a long series of lives and deaths ("a cycle of births and
deaths"), until it exhausts (spend) its karma. By a proper behaviour, the self diminishes its karma
and moves toward the state of its final liberation from the painful cycle of births and deaths; a bad
behaviour has the opposite effect. The idea of karma stimulates people to behave in a moral way
and carry out their duties; karma introduces a justice which transcends a single life and which
does usually not exist in a single life. When a body dies, the self that dwelt in that body moves
(migrates) into a new body. In what kind of body will the self enter (migrate) depends on its
karma. A pundit says that the self can migrate into "a plant, a cockroach, a canine intestinal
parasite, a mouse, or a human being". It is not clear (to me) what can an intestinal parasite or a
plant do with the karma that a self brought into such an entity from a person, but we do not deal
with such problems here. What matters is that every self passes through a long series of births and
deaths (lives) on its way to its final liberation.
3.48 - The doctrine of karma and reincarnation is consoling and encouraging for those who
live in harsh conditions and who are in a difficult situation. Regardless of how hard and miserable
a present life may be, it is only a stage on the way toward everlasting bliss. Furthermore, those
who behave well in the present life, will improve the state of their karma and they will be "born"
in a better conditions next time. Such doctrine promotes moral behaviour: a good behaviour is
rewarded, if not in the present life, then in the next incarnation; a bad behaviour is punished, if
not in the present life, then in the next one. A narrative about a series of incarnations through
which every self moves toward its final liberation looks more inventive than the western narra-
tives, in which a soul travels with one body only, from its birth to its death, and this journey
determines their eternity in paradise or hell.
61
3.49 - When it exhausts its karma, the self is liberated from further incarnations; the self is
liberated from the cycle of births and deaths, called samsara and "the wheel of samsara". This
cycle is actually a series of incarnations and deaths, which leads toward the state of the final
liberation from births and deaths. The liberated self realizes that it is Atman, which is Brahman,
and with this realization it enters into the state of timeless bliss (moksa). This state has been
described as the state beyond adherence and craving, of timeless bliss and extinction; but this
state transcends the possibilities of the human language and imagination. The state of moksa can
be compared with the state of soul in paradise, but these things technically different. Anyway,
these are the state and the place of everlasting bliss; the same holds for the state of nirvana in
Buddhism.
3.50 - The doctrine of reincarnation makes a person responsible for all that happens to her.
Such a doctrine implies that those who are in a bad position deserved to be in such a position by
their behaviour in their previous lives. This may be used as the justification for the exploitation
and abuse of those who are weaker or in a bad position. Their bad position can be justified by the
claim that they behaved badly in their previous lives. If people ask for social justice, they can be
told to behave better in the present life, and this will bring them a better incarnation in the next
life. The doctrine of karma and reincarnation has its positive sides, but its negative sides can be
larger than the positive ones. Such a narrative can be used for the justification of social injustices
and for the prevention of social changes. The same can be said for many narratives, but this one
looks very suitable for justifying what is not just and for preventing social changes.
Buddhism: All is emptiness
3.51 - Buddha builds his discourse on the issue of suffering, as the main feature of life, and
the core problem that people must face and solve. His teaching borrows many elements from
Hinduism, so that it has been called a heresy in the cultural space of Hinduism; but his teaching
brings important novelties. Buddha neglects and avoids conceptual debates, and preaches his
Four Noble Truths about suffering. These truths speak of suffering and of the origin of suffering,
of the cessation of suffering and of the way that leads to the cessation of suffering and to nirvana.
The Buddhist state of nirvana looks the same as the Hindu state of moksa; this state cannot be
described in a proper way, but it has been described as a state of timeless bliss.
3.52 - Buddha's First Noble Truth says that human life is pervaded by suffering. Birth and
aging are suffering, illnesses and dying are suffering. To be joined with what one does not love
means to suffer; to be separated from what one loves means to suffer; not to get what one desires
means to suffer. Life contains happy moments, but a sense of limitation and frustration, empti-
ness and suffering pervades lives of all people. People may not feel pain and sorrow in every
moment, but human life is inherently frustrating and pervaded by a sense of suffering. The
concept dukkha probably comes from the words du (unpleasant) and kha (hole), so that it has "the
connotation of painful emptiness". This concept suggests an unsatisfactory state, which includes
pain, anxiety and sorrow, say pundits. This concept is translated by words such as suffering,
impermanence, transitoriness, incompleteness and others. The translation "suffering" prevailed,
but the expression "painful emptiness" looks more suitable.
3.53 - Buddha's Second Noble Truth speaks of the origin (cause) of the suffering that per-
vades human life. The cause of frustrations and suffering is in craving for pleasure, in the attach-
ment to things and people, and in the craving for the lasting existence in the world of imperma-
nence and ephemerality. We suffer because we attach ourselves to what is impermanent, and we
62
crave for what is unattainable. Buddha's Third Noble Truth speaks of the cessation of suffering.
Suffering cannot be eliminated by the satisfaction of craving, because most things we crave for
we cannot attain. And we know that all we attain will be taken away from us. Accidents, diseases,
old age and death will take away from us all we crave for and what we achieved. Suffering can be
eliminated only by the elimination of its cause: by the cessation of craving and by the severing of
all attachments to impermanent and ephemeral phenomena.
3.54 - Buddha's Fourth Noble Truth shows the way that leads to the cessation of suffering.
This way if called the Eightfold Path because it consists of eight main principles of behaviour and
life, which lead to the cessation of suffering and to nirvana. These principles include right (cor-
rect) understanding, right attitude, right speech, right action and right meditation. To follow the
way of liberation, we must speak in the way that promotes truth and understanding, creates
friendship and harmony, and is useful to all. We must behave in the way that creates what is
good, and does not do harm to others. Buddha's teaching has a strong moral dimension, but his
main aim is to liberate people from suffering. On its way to the final liberation and nirvana, each
self passes through a long series ("cycle") of births (incarnations) and deaths, called the wheel of
samsara, in the same way as the self passes in Hinduism on its way to moksa.
3.55 - According to the Hindu narrative, the self suffers because of its feeling (illusion) of
limitation and ephemerality. The self attains liberation when it realizes that it is a manifestation of
Atman, which is Brahman: the infinite ultimate Reality. Buddhism abandoned the discourse about
Atman and Brahma, and assumed that existence is a play of ephemeral illusions behind which
there is nothing. The individual self and the phenomenal world are illusions; the "ultimate reality"
is nothingness or emptiness. Both teachings consider the individual self an illusion, but they
construct opposite ontological images around that assumption. Hinduism "extends" the individual
self to Totality (Atman, Brahman). Buddhism "reduces" the individual self and Totality to a play
of illusions, behind which there is nothing. In Hinduism, a self is liberated from suffering by the
realization that it is All. In Buddhism, a self is liberated from suffering by the realization that it is
nothing and that All is nothing: everything is a play of illusions. This realization is enlightening
and it brings the final liberation and nirvana.
3.56 - The cure that Buddha offers for the suffering that life and death bring about looks ra-
ther demanding. He asks people to reject in order not to have to lose; but by rejecting we lose
what we were afraid of losing. Sever your ties and extinguish your passions, and you will live and
die in piece, teaches Buddha. This looks like an invitation to extinguish life in order to minimize
suffering, to reject life in order to avoid losing it. But some people are born to live and suffer, and
they cannot change much in this regard, and they do not want to do that. People have always
sought a cure for the suffering that life and death bring about; but the question is whether any
cure can exist for the finite consciousness that asks unanswerable questions and yearns for
infinity. Suffering is inherent to the human mind; to cure this suffering by the extinction of its
desires may mean to cripple it.
3.57 - Buddhist say that by the cessation of craving and by the severing of personal attach-
ments, an individual does not reject life, but transcends his separation and unites with the whole
existence. Such unification eliminates selfishness, greed, thirst for power, hatred and conflicts
between people; it promotes modesty and compassion; this alleviates suffering and brings happi-
ness to all beings. The teaching of the impermanence and unreality of the self shows people that
bad behaviour (greed, aggression) makes no sense, and invites them to behave in a benevolent
and compassionate way. I appreciate the moral dimension of Buddhist teaching, but the question
63
is to what extent can this teaching achieve the goals it aims at. People have realized that they
have been smoke in the wind and bubbles on water long ago; but history shows that this has not
made people behave in a peaceful and compassionate way. The realization that everything is only
a play of illusions can stimulate people to behave in a benevolent and compassionate way, but
this realization can also incite their aggressive and destructive inclinations.
3.58 - Passing through a series of births, lives and deaths the self aims to exhaust its karma
and attain the final liberation and nirvana. People have described nirvana as the state of peace
and pure bliss, but this state cannot be described in a proper way; it can only be experienced by
an enlightened and liberated self. The one who lives in accordance with Buddha's teaching can
attain the state of nirvana in this world of births and deaths. The one who frees himself from false
believes about the reality of the self and the phenomenal world, who extinguishes his cravings
and severs his attachments, attains the state of nirvana in this world. Such a person lives a self-
less life of compassion, peace and pure happiness. Such a person behaves in the way that encour-
ages and helps others to attain the state of nirvana in this world. Hinduism contains a similar
possibility of attaining moksa in this world and life.
3.59 - Buddha refuses to deal with conceptual controversies about the nature of self and the
state of nirvana, because such controversies cannot be solved at the level of language, and they
cease to exist in the state of enlightenment which leads to nirvana. Suffering and the liberation
from suffering are what really matters, not conceptual disputes. A disciple once asked Buddha to
give some explanations about existence, life and death, or to admit that he does not know the
answers to such questions. Buddha responded to this challenge by the famous parable about a
man who has been struck by a poisoned arrow. If the man wastes time on asking questions about
where has the arrow come from, who let it fly, what wood the bow was made of, the man will die.
Such questions and answers are useless. What must be done is to pull the poisonous arrow from
the wounded man. Buddha teaches people how to pull the arrow of suffering from themselves,
which they have been hit with.
3.60 - The question is whether the suffering can be eliminated by ignoring or repressing
people's inherent desire to ask and to explore life and death. People like Parmenides, Protagoras,
Socrates and other Greek thinkers would not agree with Buddha about the irrelevance of concep-
tual issues. For them, a passionate discussion about such issues was the best medicine against the
arrows of unanswerable questions which hit reflective souls. Many such souls have dedicated
their lives to discussions about conceptual issues, which can be neither answered nor silenced in a
proper way. By lasting discussions about such issues, people have tries to neutralize the poison
from the arrow of limited power and limitless aspirations that hits all people.
3.61 - Buddhism avoids conceptual issues, but its narrative contains obvious conceptual
problems. It preaches the impermanence and unreality of everything, the self included; but a self
needs a permanence to be able to pass through a series of births and deaths and carry its karma.
The self aims to attain the state of nirvana, but what enters into nirvana if the self is an illusion
and emptiness? Buddha preaches the severing of all emotional attachments; he also preaches
benevolent and compassionate behaviour. Can a person sever all emotional bonds, and be com-
passionate at the same time? Religions and social narratives speak in images; they speak to
emotions, and they aim to achieve certain effects. The power of a religion consists in its appeal
and its effects, not in the conceptual clarity and coherence of its discourse; but such discourse
often has conceptual problems.
64
3.62 - Buddha does not speak of deities and divine commandments; he does not speak of di-
vine reward and punishment. He urges people to behave in a benevolent way for the sake of
themselves and their wellbeing, and for the sake of others and their wellbeing, not because of a
divine punishment or reward. Buddha teaches a sublime view of life and a noble way of life. He
does not require the extermination of neighbouring tribes, and does not limit compassion to the
members of one's own community; he preaches benevolence toward all beings, and compassion
for all beings. Buddha's teaching does not contain deities, but his followers later added various
deities to his narrative, to serve them as "objects for meditation", say pundits. People love deities
and they produce and consume them in a large quantity.
Confucius and Taoism
3.63 - The best known Chinese cultural figure is K'ung Fu Tzu, called Confucius. By his
teaching and activities, Confucius aimed to shape the behaviour of people and the structure and
functioning of community. Elements of his teaching were gathered by his followers into a book
called the Analects. This book speaks of many practical things, such as relationships in family
and society, tradition and customs; it does not speak of deities, salvation and liberation. Confu-
cius' teaching does not look like a religion, but it is often not possible to make a clear distinction
between a social doctrine and religion. Confucius was not particularly successful in his endeav-
ours during his lifetime, but his teaching later exerted a big influence on Chinese society and
culture, and it remained an outstanding symbol of that culture.
3.64 - In his endeavours to create order and harmony in community, Confucius strongly re-
lies on tradition. He requires a strict obeying of traditional rules of conduct in family and in
society, and a strict discipline in the performance of social and religious rituals. Pundits say that
Confucius insisted on tradition and precision in relationships and procedures because he wanted
to create a sense of order in people and to create order in society, in the rough historic time in
which he lived. This may be so, but it seems that he exaggerated in his affection for tradition.
New things may not be good, and some are bad; but there is no basis for believing that people of
past ages were wiser than the present people are, nor was life in past ages better than life in
contemporary age. We need to know the past and learn from it; we must learn what was good and
what was bad in past ages. But people and humanity cannot become better if they stick to the
discourse and practice of past ages. We should not follow tradition uncritically, without trying to
do things better and to make people and community better. By "better", I mean less ignorant and
aggressive, and more informed, benevolent and cooperative.
3.65 - Confucius is a practical person and he deals with issues of the life in this world. Good
(righteous) people care for the benefit of their families and of their community; they do not deal
with chimerical other worlds and deities. What can people know about other worlds when they do
not know how to live properly in this world? When asked about death, he answered that people
have not learned yet how to live, so that they could hardly know much about death. This clever
answer is problematic, because life and death are one whole and must be considered together.
Confucius does not ask about the meaning of life observed from the viewpoint of eternity, as
thinkers of the western tradition have done. His discourse deals with the issues of how people and
community should live and function in this world. It can be said that Confucius was seeking and
teaching a meaningful way of living.
3.66 - I have a lot of sympathy for Confucius' efforts and for his personal devotion to his
mission, but I do not like his excessive inclination toward tradition and strictness in manners and
65
procedures. I have more sympathy for Taoist poets and sages, who have been described as mysti-
cal wonderers and lovers of mountains and forests, rivers, clouds and sky. Their main book,
called Tao Teh Ching, is short, but its content is sophisticated and mostly mystical. This book
contains some very poetic places and interesting claims; the one I love the most runs as follows.
The one who speaks does not know; the one who knows does not speak. These simple words
reflect the essence of Taoist attitude toward discourse and life. The mystery of existence and the
most profound human emotions cannot be expressed by words. The one who understands Tao
teaches without words and steers events without action. Such claims sound mystical; Taoism
basically promotes a simple and natural life.
3.67 - It has been said that in some branches of Buddhism, such as Madhyamika and Zen,
discourse is purposefully shaped in the way that does not allow a clear understanding. Discourse
is made unclear in order to awake intuition and compel it to shape the understanding and steer
behaviour. It seems that Taoist discourse is often shaped in this way. I do not have much sympa-
thy for such kind of discourse, but I love Taoism because it promotes a simple life and a poetic
attitude toward life and existence.
3.4 The rational and the irrational
3.68 - We consider a discourse non-rational when it claims more than verifiable facts and
logically valid reasoning can confirm. We consider a discourse irrational when it claims what
contradicts obvious facts and valid reasoning. Religions contain rational elements, but essential
parts of their narratives are non-rational and irrational, because they claim more than facts and
reason can confirm, they negate what seems obvious, and they preach things for which there is no
indication that they might be true. The irrational dimension makes religions appealing to most
people, because their narratives negate what people do not want to be the case, and they claim
what people wish to be the case.
The irrational and meaning
3.69 - Advocates of religion say that religions make human life and existence look rational
and meaningful. Monotheistic religions have omnipotent and good God who keeps everything
under control and guarantees that all is well and that all shall be well. Other religions also intro-
duce order in communities and give direction and purpose to people's lives. Advocates of religion
claim that we must assume that there exists a transcendent reality, and live in connection with it,
in order to keep the integrity of individuals and community, and to give them "a sense of whole-
ness and direction". Only the bond with the transcendent can create the sense of purpose and
meaning in people and communities. I do not like a discourse about purpose and meaning, which
is based on assumptions that do not look plausible. But it can be said that religion speaks in
irrational way with the aim to make human reality look rational.
3.70 - It has been said that for the human life to have a meaning, people must have a soul or
self that transcends this world of violence, injustice and suffering. A benevolent person cannot
consider meaningful a life in the world dominated by ruthless force and pervaded by violence and
suffering. To be able to endure the life in this world, a good person must assume that there exists
a transcendent reality in which all injustices of this world will be rectified. Such discourse is
66
emotionally understandable, but the fact that something is needed and desired does not mean that
this something exists. People and communities should do their best to make life in this world
better, because the transcendent reality may not exist.
3.71 - Advocates of religion say that without the omniscient, omnipotent and good God, who
gives purpose and meaning to people's lives, ephemeral human lives would have no meaning and
would be absurd. This seems so; ephemeral beings with endless aspirations do look tragic and
absurd. But the assumption that we need omnipotent and good God to save us from the misery
and absurdity of existence does not mean that God does exist. Driven by anxiety and yearning,
people tried to imagine various deities and blissful states; but those transcendent entities, shaped
by the human imagination, belong to the class of abstract entities and there is no indication that
they exist anywhere else. Deities and transcendent worlds have been produced because of social,
psychological and other needs and desires. But needs and desires are not sufficient for the objec-
tive existence of what is needed or desired.
3.72 - A rational criticism of religious discourse does not achieve much effects and does not
make much sense. A discourse of religion is not rational and it cannot be made rational, because
it would cease to be what it essentially is; it would lose its power and cease to serve its purpose. It
is easy to find factually dubious (wrong) claims in religious narratives, as well as claims that are
not mutually compatible and contradict each other. But such discoveries do not have any effect;
material facts and logic are irrelevant in matters of religion. People do not become religious or
cease to be religious for logical reasons; they do this for social, psychological, economic and
other reasons. Facts and logic do not matter much in religious discourse.
3.73 - Religious narratives are not rational, but they serve various purposes which only such
narratives can fulfil. For example, if every human being has a role (function) in the realization of
God's plan, then every human life has a purpose, value and meaning. No human life, regardless of
how hard and miserable it may seem, is worthless and meaningless. Every human being has the
possibility to reach eternal bliss, so that every human life is worth living, regardless of how
miserable, painful and humiliating it may seem. Religions reduce people to servants, but they
offer them encouraging and appealing visions of human life and existence.
The power of illusions
3.74 - People have never filled happy with their ephemeral lives in this world; hence, they
produced the best images of human life and existence they were able to imagine. This was not a
bad thing: why would people not spend their ephemeral lives full of frustrations and suffering in a
hope that life in this world is a way toward a radically better reality and existence? The question
is whether people can believe in such wondrous stories, and what effects such stories have on
their behaviour and lives in this world. Irrational narratives - religious and secular - have been
appealing to many people; but such narratives have often stimulated aggressive attitudes and
behaviour. To improve the world and life, we must first improve our discourse; to do that, we
should make our discourse more rational and less irrational.
3.75 - Advocates of religion say that the belief in transcendent reality has survived various
challenges and continues to live in hearts and minds of most people. This may be correct, but I
am not sure that it is. Anyway, the alleged belief does not mean that illusions about transcendent
reality and eternal bliss are anything more than illusions. Religions show that people have always
needed and loved encouraging stories and visions; people may need and love such stories and
67
visions forever. Religious stories and visions, which look like illusions, have survived because
many people have needed and love such products; and power-holders have needed them as the
means for ruling people.
3.76 - Leo Tolstoy described the condition in which he found himself when he was fifty or
so. He was in a good health, famous and rich, but he was not able to live normally anymore,
because he was tormented by the feeling that life has no meaning. He struggled for years not to
carry out suicide; in this struggle, he accepted Christian religion, which he considered irrational
until then, and maybe after that too. He says that at the end he "accepted" Christianity, but it is
not clear what this means. Did he begin to believe what he considered irrational, or he accepted
Christian discourse and rituals as a game which helps people to endure life and death? It is hard
to begin to believe in your fiftieths in something you considered a fable, created for practical
purposes.
3.77 - I can believe that Tolstoy "accepted" religion; billions of people have done this for
various reasons. But I could hardly believe that he really believed in that what he accepted. It has
always been difficult to believe; even saints have had difficulties with believing. I have a feeling
that most religious people do not believe what they are supposed to believe. People accept a
narrative and practice, but do not really believe in what that narrative says. They participate in a
social participate, and this is nearly all that most people do. Many people need religion, and some
have been ready to kill and die for their religion; but such strong emotions manifest people's
anxieties and yearnings rather than belief.
3.78 - People often feel frustrated, powerless and lonely. God and other divine entities are a
company to those who do not have company, a help to those who need help but do not find it;
they are friends of those who have no friends; they love those whom nobody else loves. A sense
that they have a companion who is always with them helps people to endure the tribulations that
life and death bring about. God is a unique companion; he is omnipotent and good; he knows our
needs and desires and he can save us from every evil. Many people are in difficult situation, and
for them God is the greatest consolation and hope. Many people need a feeling that somebody is
always with them and that they are never alone. They can ask God for help at any moment and
thank him when things go well. They can talk to him and tell him things which they cannot tell to
anybody else. This does not hold for me, but many people need and want to have God for various
reasons, so that God will exist in the minds and hearts of many (most) people, in spite of the fact
that he could hardly be found anywhere else.
3.79 - Advocates of religion claim that people need something absolute that underlies every-
thing and transcends all tribulations and calamities of this world; something that transcends all
differences between people and bestows dignity and meaning on every human being. Religion
gives an encouraging vision of human life and existence; it tells people how to live and die, and it
facilitates the creation and functioning of community. Religion is a spring from which all people
can drink and quench their thirst; it unites the present people with those who lived in past ages
and with those who have to come. And so forth; if this were correct, religion would be a great
thing indeed. But religions have separated people and communities, and justified oppressive and
aggressive behaviour. Also those who write inspired eulogies to religion admit that the "spirit of
aggressiveness" has been the "very heart and soul" of religion.
68
Practical aims and effects
3.80 - Practical people say that religions must be evaluated on the basis of their effects; what
matters is whether a religion brings a richer and more satisfactory life to people and community.
Religion bestows value and meaning on human lives; it brings people hope and gives them
strength to bear tribulations and suffering that life and death bring about. This may be correct; but
I think that a rational person cannot believe something only because she considers such a believ-
ing useful for her. It is difficult to say what attitude toward life is better, and for whom. Some
people may consider useful to live with certain beliefs or illusions; others may consider such life
humiliating.
3.81 - It has been said that religions have been created because they are psychologically and
socially needed and useful. Regardless of the fact that their narratives are not rational, religions
create an optimistic framework of life and existence, which encourages people and helps them to
face the tribulations and sufferings that life and death bring about. This may be correct to a
certain extent, but a believing in something that looks irrational distorts people's discourse and
behaviour in a way that often brings more evil than good. An irrationally based narrative that
preaches love can be used as the justification for aggressive and destructive behaviour. When
discourse is irrational, it is easy to interpret facts in strange ways.
3.82 - Religion may console and encourage people, and give them hope that at the end, all
shall be well; we will get to paradise or attain an everlasting blissful state. But religions have not
done much on the elimination of injustice and oppression in this world. Christianity has preached
love, but it was part of the systems which practiced slavery, colonialism, imperialism and racism.
Hinduism and Buddhism preach compassion and charity, but they have not done much on the
elimination of structural inequalities and social injustice. Power-holders have used religion for
oppressive and aggressive purposes. Religions have not struggled for the material and mental
liberation of people, because such liberation diminishes the need for religion, and with this its
power.
3.83 - Faith gives people strength in difficult situation and terrible moments, but it also
makes people ready to commit terrible things and evils. Abraham was ready to sacrifice (kill) his
son when asked by his god to do so. People have done numberless evils in the name of their gods,
and they have that with pride. Religions have always been used as the means and justification for
aggressive, destructive and cruel behaviour. Bertrand Russell compared religion with a dragon
that stands at the door that lead into a better world; people must slay the dragon, he says, if they
want to enter into that world. I propose a milder solution: let us put the dragon to sleep. Dragons
are not so bad when they sleep, and they have their beauty and charm; but they do usually not
sleep.
3.84 - "Religion claims a place in human life, but the place it claims is not one of tolerance,
but of supremacy", says David Swenson. Religion is "the master passion" that seeks control of all
human thoughts, feelings and behaviours. "It strives to make all human activities its ministers -
servants that feed the sacred flame of faith", says Swenson. "To speak otherwise of religion is to
rob it of its spirit of aggressiveness"; and aggressiveness is the "very heart and soul" of true
religion. Swenson described the essence of religion in excellent way. I do not know whether he
was religious.
3.85 - I do not consider religion the source of aggressive behaviour and evil, as some have
called it. Religion is a powerful means which power-holders have created and used for the control
69
of people and for the aggression toward others and for their destruction. But also secular doc-
trines have been used for aggressive and destructive purposes. I once wrote that religion is the
means that allows evil people to do evil, and to do that with pride. The destruction of Iraq in 2003
and of several countries after that under the banner of freedom & democracy has shown that the
same can be said for freedom &democracy.
Is it rational to be rational?
3.86 - Religion is part of oppressive socioeconomic systems in which people have always
lived, says Karl Marks. Religion offers people illusory hopes and illusory happiness in the other
world, and in this way, diverts their attention from the social injustice in this world. It is neces-
sary to abolish religion, so that people become able to create and experience a real happiness in
this world. To become able to abandon religion, people must change the oppressive socioeco-
nomic system which compels people to seek consolation in the realm of illusions. Marx's criti-
cism of religion is actually a criticism of the socioeconomic system which creates the need for
religion in people. Such a criticism is mostly justified, but it does not tell the whole story. Human
life has been called tragic and futile since ancient times, by sages and by common people, by
kings and by slaves. People are finite beings with infinite aspirations, and this makes them
inherently tragic. Hence, people have always needed and loved appealing illusions, and many will
need and love such illusions forever.
3.87 - Sigmund Freud believes that reason will gradually prevail and raise people to a new
level of courage and freedom. "In the long run nothing can withstand reason and experience, and
the contradiction which religion offers to both is all too palpable", says Freud. The future may
show that Freud was right, but humanity has not advanced much in that direction since his time.
History has shown that passions - religious as well as national and material - have been able to
withstand reason quite successfully. The prevalence of reason may be delayed, possibly forever,
for several reasons. Illusions are appealing and many people need them, so that they do not
consider rational to abandon them. Those who are materially weaker need and use non-rational
narratives as the source of courage and strength in their struggle against the aggressive behaviour
of the materially stronger.
3.88 - It may be that it is not rational to be rational. A rational view of human life may not
make people happy and may not promote life. It has been said that a rational person, who sees life
clearly and do not evade reality, cannot be happy and live the richest life that a person can expe-
rience. This may be correct, but I am not sure that it is so. The question is whether a person can
choose not to be rational if she is rational, genetically or by upbringing. I think that rationality is
not a matter of choice; I cannot choose (decide) to be irrational if I am not. Religions have a
lasting appeal for many people and they have some positive effects; but the idea that we should
shape our lives and reality in accordance with certain ancient narratives is a defeat of modern
mind and human courage, at the individual and collective level.
3.89 - Is religion a transitory phenomenon in the development of humanity, or is it a lasting
expression of the lasting human nature and situation? As long as there are suffering and death, a
narrative that promises eternal bliss will have its appeal and its followers. How much power will
such a narrative have, it will depend on the socioeconomic system. The better people feel, the less
they need religion; the worse people feel, the more they need religion. I saw churches closed at
the time of state socialism, because people were not coming to the mass any more. Life was good
at that time, so that people did not care for gods and angels. But then barbaric capitalism arrived
70
in the 1989 and produced a big sense of fear and impotence in people. And people rushed to
churches to pray God for help, and to show loyalty to the new masters who imposed religion on
them. At that time, people did not rediscover God, but fear; and fear leads people to gods. Reli-
gion has a unique appeal, but people's response to this appeal depends on the socioeconomic
environment in which they live.
3.90 - A world without omnipotent God could be more open and exciting, awesome and ap-
pealing, better and more beautiful, poetic and touching. People led by a rational narrative could
behave better than those led by irrational narratives have usually done. But various forces have
compelled people to move in directions and along the ways that they have moved. Leaders and
communities created deities because they have needed them for various purposes. Let us hope
that people will learn to create less aggressive and destructive deities, if they cannot live without
them. People must learn to create better gods if they want to make their lives better. The problem
is that people create gods in their image.
3.5 Religion and science
3.91 - Science has shown that religious narratives are not credible at the level of material
facts. Pundits say that by this, science has undermined the sense of the meaning of life, which
religious narratives have created and maintained. This may be correct to a certain extent, but
science and religion deal with different dimensions of reality. Science deals with the phenomena
of this world and describes them in rational way, based on verifiable facts. Religion deals with
people's emotions and serves the needs of community. Discourse of religion is not rational and
negates obvious facts, so that it is not affected much by the rational discourse of science. The
scientifically most advanced country (USA) is one of the most religious countries in the world.
3.92 - Science and religion deal with different kinds of phenomena. Natural sciences, such as
physics, biology and chemistry, examine physical reality, and aim to understand its structure and
processes; they seek ways how to control and create physical processes. Religion deals with
people and community; it is the means for controlling people and governing community. Science
and religion are different creations of the human mind, driven by different needs and aspirations.
They speak different languages, use different methods, and have different aims and different
effects. By means of science and technology, people have done impressive things and gained a
great operative power. But religion promises people much more than science and technology
have brought to them. Hence, many people want to keep both, religion and science.
Scientific knowledge
3.93 - Natural sciences describe structures of physical entities and their mutual relationships;
they speak in quantitative terms and use precise (formal) languages. Scientific theories can be
tested; tests and observations can confirm that a theory is correct, or show that it is wrong; this is
the main feature of scientific discourse, and this makes it objective. Science generally describes
complex phenomena in terms of simpler phenomena that the complex phenomena consist of.
Such descriptions show how processes in the physical world take place; such knowledge facili-
tates a control of physical processes and the creation of new processes. Social sciences use
71
scientific methods for studying social phenomena, but we speak primarily of natural sciences
here.
3.94 - Natural sciences deal with physical phenomena, and aim to facilitate the production of
certain physical effects. Natural and technical sciences deal with the issue of how to produce a
safe airplane which can carry you to Honolulu; but they do not say that by visiting this city of
beautiful name you will gain a place in paradise. Science and religion are both products of the
human mind (needs and desires), but they deal with different issues, and aim to produce different
kinds of effects. Science aims to facilitate the control of physical processes; religion is the means
for governing people and society. Science produces the means by which people can realize their
aims, but it does not impose values and aims on people. Power-holders use the knowledge that
science produces, for the manipulation and control of people; but the aim of science is
knowledge, not a manipulation of people.
3.95 - Science is basically a method of describing physical phenomena. Scientific knowledge
is based on empirical (observable, verifiable) facts, and it is expressed in formal and quantitative
way. Scientific knowledge evolves and changes. Every perception and description of reality
depends on the perceptive and cognitive abilities of the observers and on their means (language,
technology) as well as on their aims. Every image of reality that an observer perceives is a possi-
ble image of reality, which has been produced by that observation; no image shows a definitive
truth about reality by itself. Reality can be described at different levels of observation (abstrac-
tion); entities can be grouped in different ways, and their mutual relationships can be described in
different ways. Observers with different abilities, means and aims can see different images of the
same reality.
3.96 - Science explains how processes evolve and how things happen; science does not say
why do people and the universe exist and why people should live. Hence, it has been said that
science does not make existence "intelligible, comprehensible and meaningful to people". Such
claims are misleading, because it is not possible to make existence intelligible and comprehensi-
ble. Science cannot explain why there is something instead of nothing, because this cannot be
explained. Science cannot decide whether existence is better than non-existence; it does not say
what is the meaning of life, because the views of these things are subjective. There are questions
which science does not answer, simply because there are no objective answers to those questions.
But what science cannot explain, nobody else can explain. Religions can tell consoling and
charming stories, but those stories do not contain objective knowledge which transcends the
scope of science, because there is no objective knowledge beyond or besides scientific
knowledge.
3.97 - Religion and science deal with different issues, use different means and methods, and
serve different purposes. Science aims to produce telephones, computers, airplanes, medicines,
bombs and similar things. Religion does not know how to produce telephones, computers and
airplanes, but it can secure you eternal bliss in paradise, moksa or nirvana, which science cannot
do yet. God has spoken to the shepherd Moses; goddesses visited the shepherd Paris; gods alleg-
edly speak to some politicians. I have not heard that gods or goddesses have spoken to scientists,
not even to Newton who was very religious. People may try to maintain both, religion and sci-
ence, but they should better not compare contents of scientific discourse with the contents of holy
books, because these are quite different stories.
72
Knowledge and needs
3.98 - Religions give answers to all questions, but their answers aim to satisfy certain needs
and to achiever certain effects; they are not coherent with observable reality. Different religions
describe human life and the world in different ways which are not mutually compatible; this
shows that their narratives are not objectively correct. Religions tell different stories about trans-
cendent reality, which are not mutually compatible; this shows that such stories are products of
human imagination rather than descriptions of objective reality. Religions have psychological and
social role, but their discourse does not look correct at the level of facts. Religions express and
serve certain needs of common people and certain needs of power-holders, but they do not
contain objective knowledge about objective reality.
3.99 - Sages and leaders of communities created religions as the means by which they could
control people and rule communities. They impose such narratives to their communities; many
people accept such narratives because they need a consoling and encouraging vision of life and
death. Leaders need God as the absolute authority in the name of which they can command and
rule; common people need Saviour that will liberate them from the miseries of this world, and
they love wondrous stories. Religion provides all that and more than that: it serves for economic
and military purposes; it brings holidays and big festivities which people love.
3.100 - Those who defend "the truths of religion" from the critical discourse based on scien-
tific evidence use two basic arguments. First, they argue that the scientific view of the world is a
narrative like other narratives and that this narrative does not have the right to call into question
the validity of other narratives. The scientific narrative can compete with other narratives for the
"hearts and minds" of people, but it does not have the right to call into question other narratives.
The second argument in defence of religion from scientific criticism says that religion speaks of
the reality that transcends the scope of scientific research and discourse. This means that scien-
tific discourse cannot reach the truths of religion, and hence it cannot call them into question.
Both these arguments are wrong.
3.101 - Science can be called a narrative, but science is a method of exploring and explaining
phenomena rather than a narrative that tells the truth, in the way religious and other dogmatic
narratives do. Science aims to understand and describe phenomena of the physical world in the
way that facilitates control and creation of physical phenomena. By using scientific methods,
people have attained great operative power and achieved great material effects.
Religions speak of transcendent realities which science does not reach, but those realities are
abstract entities created by the human imagination, not objective realities; they are products of the
human mind. A discourse about transcendent reality cannot be proved either correct or wrong by
definition, because it is said that this reality transcends human experience and understanding.
Such a discourse can be poetic and appealing, but such a discourse is matter of imagination, not
of knowledge. Such a discourse may sound nice and serve various purposes, but it does not
contain knowledge.
3.102 - Many have expected that science would displace religion, but this has not happened.
A large majority of the most outstanding contemporary scientists are not religious, but it has been
said that almost a half of scientists declare themselves religious. This looks strange, because the
core claims of religions do not look plausible, and they cannot be tested in the way scientific
hypotheses are tested. Religions are dogmatic; they do not allow and do not accept critical anal-
yses of their discourse and behaviour. But religion has its psychological appeal and social power,
73
so that many scientists accept it, in spite of the fact that its discourse is not compatible with
scientific way of thinking. Scientific rationality may not be sufficient for displacing religion,
because religion speaks to emotions rather than to reason. Finally, society exerts a pressure on
people to accept religion, so that the data about what percentage of scientists is religious may not
be reliable.
3.103 - If people need and love deities, they will continue to worship them, regardless of
what science says. If people are under a social pressure to accept religion, they will do so, regard-
less of what science says. Science can inform people, but people's discourse and behaviour are
shaped by their needs and desires, and by the social environment in which they live, rather than
by scientific discoveries. Science and technology have done many wondrous things; they may
one day make people immortal. But gods could survive this awesome people's achievement,
because people need a company and somebody whom they can talk to. Immortality does not
solve all human problems. Only a new ethical and poetic sensibility could change the way people
feel life and death, and weaken the power of traditional deities and religions.
3.104 - In some countries, religion opposes the teaching of some scientific theories in
schools. It is said that the teaching of evolutionary biology has been a controversial issue in the
USA and in some other countries of mature democracy. This puts science and education into a
difficult position. Religion does not need to oppose science; it can avoid such harmful confronta-
tions by interpreting some contents of its holy scriptures in a figurative way rather than taking
them literally. But it seems that some people use religion as the means and justification for
confrontations. This is a matter of character and interests rather than a matter of knowledge. The
struggle of religion against science is not a struggle for knowledge and truth, but a struggle for
power in society.
The secular view
3.105 - The scientific view of the world and life encourages people to accept the reality
which they cannot change, and to live in the best way they can in this and such world. We can
produce all sorts of fantasies and play with them; but we ought to learn to live without relying on
nonexistent gods and transcendent realities. Critics say that science has not managed to teach
people to come to terms with the reality it has shown them. This is understandable, and this is not
a fault of science. I accept the scientific image of reality, but this does not mean that I an happy
with that reality. In fact, science only confirms what people have known since their beginnings:
that they are "dust" and that to dust they return, as Yahweh informed them long ago.
3.106 - It is not easy to reconcile with something we do not want it to be such as it is. It is
not easy for me to reconcile to the fact that my life is an ephemeral phenomenon and that I will
vanish forever. I do not seek or expect a religious salvation, and I feel human life as a depressing
phenomenon. I have tried to live in a meaningful way, but I do not think that it exists a complete-
ly satisfactory life for ephemeral creatures that inherently desire to be forever. Science is not
religion and it makes no sense to ask it to do what religions tries to do. We ought to accept
reality, because there is nothing better we can do. But finite beings with infinite aspirations
cannot not feel alienated in such reality and consider their lives absurd. It makes no sense to
require from people not to feel alienated and unhappy, because this is how many (most, all)
people feel, and with good reason.
74
3.107 - The secular view of life and existence accepts the scientific image of physical reality.
It assumes that deities and transcendent realities are abstract entities created by the human mind,
and that the inanimate universe does not contain any will or aim. Only conscious living beings,
such as people, can have a will and aims, and assign values and purpose to various phenomena.
We ought to learn to live and die in this and such world, because there are no other worlds,
except in human stories and imagination. Human species is an accidental product of a tiny part of
the cosmic process; people and humanity do not have any purpose or aim beyond the ones they
assign to themselves. Science stimulates people to accept the secular view of life, but there have
always been (many) people who have not believed in deities and transcendent worlds.
3.108 - Our bodies, our feelings and our thoughts are products of certain physical processes
which produce physical structures that have certain features. To be, means to be an ephemeral
feature of an ephemeral physical structure; because those processes destroy what they create. It is
reasonable to accept what seems obvious and what we are not able to change. We ought to accept
the reality of life and death, and to live in a benevolent and poetic way, and with a dose of irony
perhaps. We must die, but we ought to try to live; we ought to live freely and courageously, in a
creative and benevolence way. We ought to aim to create a constructive, just and compassionate
society by the means of this world and by people's abilities and efforts. We ought to give a
meaning to our ephemeral lives by doing what is good and beautiful.
75
4. Death and immortality
4.1 In the shadow of death
4.1 - Death is the greatest challenge that the human mind and emotions have had to face;
death has shaped people's thoughts and discourse since their beginnings. People have always
sought ways to transcend death; they have used imagination in the struggle with this monster
which is hard to look at and from which it is not possible to run away. Death has been declared a
step on the way to eternal life and bliss. It is hard to say how successful such solutions have been,
because a public victory often hides a sense of impotence and defeat. We preach what we are not
able to believe; we do that out of despair and because we love to listen to wondrous and encour-
aging stories. People try to charm death by their stories, or to charm themselves in front of this
monster. Some people have tried to accept death as an unavoidable fact of life and get used to it;
it is hard to know successful they have been in that.
The awareness of death
4.2 - Pundits say that most people are aware of the fact that they will die, more often and
more intensely than they are aware of that. This awareness depresses people; to escape such bad
state, people try to make death acceptable or to displace it from their awareness. Most people
embrace a religion which says that death is only a step on the way toward the eternal existence in
a transcendent reality. Many try to displace or repress the awareness of death by intense activities
which absorb their attention and make them forget on death. The question is whether people can
believe in religious narratives they adopt, and how much do intense activities help. It has been
said that most people live in a silent despair, but it is hard to know such things. Religion and
activities may displace the awareness of death, but people die and we know that we shall all die.
4.3 - People have always lived in the shadow of death. "We must all die; we are like water
spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up", says a wise woman in the Old Testament,
who lived before soul was discovered. Socrates was a magician of words, but his discourse about
death does not look sincere. He says that those who fear death and consider it the greatest evil
pretend to know what they do not know. Because nobody knows whether death is the greatest
evil for people, or it brings people the greatest good. But people know that life bring old age, a
decline of power and health, and a painful dying; they know that death has taken away those
whom they have loved; they hate the fact that they will vanish. The awareness that we will vanish
forever, as if we never existed, is utterly depressing. Socrates knows all this, but he does speak of
that. Instead of it, he staged his last performance and left this world in the way that brought him
fame and the admiration of many people.
4.4 - Confucius was interested in practical issues of how to organize life and society in opti-
mal way; he did not speak of the meaning of life and of the fear of death. When he was asked
76
about death, Confucius said that people do not understand life and have not learned to live in a
proper way, so that they could hardly know much about death. This may be correct, but people's
behaviour and lives are strongly determined by their awareness of death and by their feelings
toward it. It is not possible to understand life without understanding death; finiteness is the most
essential feature of human life. The awareness of our ephemerality shapes our emotions, thoughts
and behaviour, and makes us what we are, more than anything else does. The awareness of their
finiteness has always shaped people's emotions, thoughts and activities, and it will do so as long
as people remain finite beings with infinite aspirations, or simply mortal beings that do not want
to die.
4.5 - Scholastic minds say that death is considered bad because it terminates life. But if death
is bad because it terminates life, then life must be something good. "If x were not good, the
termination of x would not be bad. One cannot consistently have it both ways" - they say. Such
discourse is wrong. The assumption that x without y would be good does not mean that x with y is
good. Our inherent desire to live does not mean that the ephemeral (finite) life is good. Life may
be bad because it is ephemeral: life may be bad because death makes it such. Death is something
we do not like (bad), and life leads to death; hence, life can be considered bad. The assumption
that life is bad does not mean that death, which brings life to an end, is good. One evil (death)
may bring to en end other evil (life). Such games can be played in many ways, but there is not
much wisdom in them.
4.6 - Life could be something good if it were not leading to its decline and disappearance;
but the fact that life leads to its decline and death makes life a depressing phenomenon. Death
spoils life and makes it a sad phenomenon. But it is wrong to separate life and death and to speak
as if death were an independent entity that acts on life from the outside. Death is inherent to life;
death is not an outer force, but a manifestation of what life inherently is. Death can be called the
worse feature of life, which makes life itself an unfortunate phenomenon. Dubious arguments by
which people try to negate the depressing fact that we are ephemeral creatures and that we must
die and vanish forever do not help much. In spite of all this, we can love life, but death throws a
dark shadow over it.
The process and the state
4.7 - We ought to distinguish three concepts and entities: the process of dying, the moment
of death, and the state of being dead. Dying is the process that leads to death. The entire life can
be considered a process of dying, but we usually call by this name the final stage of life, in which
the movement toward death becomes obvious. It is difficult to say how long this stage is or may
be, but this is not essential here. Regardless of whether life is good and of whether death is bad,
the process of dying is usually painful and depressing. People can observe and experience the
dying of others; they can also observe and experience their own dying, and they are usually
compelled to do so.
4.8 - The moment of death is the moment in which a living being ceases to live and becomes
dead. How long may this moment last is not essential here. Medical devices can make the process
of dying long, and the exact moment of death problematic. Figuratively speaking, the moment of
death is the door that leads from the realm of the living to the realm of the dead. Death can
happen only to living beings, and it makes them dead. Living beings can experience their process
of dying, but it is hard to say whether they can experience the moment of their death, because this
moment is the border between the state of being alive (and possibly aware) and the state of being
77
dead or of not being. Scholastic debates about this issue are not important here; the experience of
dying is important; the mental state at the very border between life and death is not.
4.9 - The state of being dead is the state of not being; to be dead means not to be anymore.
The claim that death is bad does not mean that to be dead is bad for the one who died, because
when a person died she is no more, so that nothing can be bad for her. The claim that death is bad
means that the movement toward death is often painful, and that the awareness that we will die is
depressing. The getting old is accompanied by health problems and a decline of physical strength
and often of mental power, which is bad. The moment of death is not necessarily bad by itself; it
often liberates a person from a painful and sad process of dying; in that sense, death can be
considered good. What is bad is the process of decline and dying, and the fact and awareness that
we must experience this process, and that we will die and vanish forever.
4.10 - If death is something evil, who is the subject that suffers this evil and when does the
subject suffer it - ask shallow thinkers. They call this a "difficult question" to which people have
not managed to find a proper answer. But the answer is obvious. I suffer my death; I have been
suffering my death since long ago and it will suffer it until I die. The awareness that I will be
dead in several years (if not earlier) makes me feel unhappy now, because I do not want to
vanish. The awareness that my death is approaching is depressing for me now and this will be
until the end of my life. This is enough for me to consider my death a bad thing for me. Death
may happen suddenly, but the awareness that life is a walk toward death accompanies people
during their mature age. People often suffer because of the death of those whom they have loved,
even more than for the fact that they have been moving toward their own death.
4.11 - It has been said that death is at best a "disquieting annoyance" and at its worst a "terri-
fying mystery". Death is more than annoyance, and it does not look mysterious. Death is an
obvious fact by which every life ends; it is a depressing fact, but it is not mysterious. When I die,
I will be no more; my "I", together with all its thoughts and emotions, joys and sorrows will cease
to be. Many things may make us suffer; many things may ruin our life, but only death annihilates
life totally and forever. This makes death the most depressing phenomenon, but there is nothing
mysterious in all this. I am not terrified by death, because I have gotten used to the fact that death
is unavoidable; we were sentenced to death at the moment of our conception. I am not terrified by
death, but I consider the fact that I shall die and vanish forever utterly depressing.
4.12 - The expression "the fear of death" have been used routinely in discourse about life and
death, but this expression is imprecise and inappropriate. I do not fear being death, but I regret
for the fact that this is what awaits me. I fear dying, which is often a painful and humiliating
process, but I do not fear being dead: there is nothing to fear about the state in which you do not
exist anymore. But I regret the fact that I must die and that the moment of my death is approach-
ing. I am not frightened by this fact, but I do regret it. Discourse about the fear of death misses
the essence of the problem. I regret the fact that I am getting old, that my physical shape and
health are worse than thirty years ago, and that I will vanish forever, as if I never existed. But I do
not consider this a matter of fear, but rather of regret: of my most profound regret.
More than a deprivation
4.13 - "I suppose that being alive is generally good", says a dubious thinker at the beginning
of his discourse about death. He holds this assumption essential for the discourse about life and
death. I hold that a discourse about life and death in terms of good and bad misses the point. First,
78
it is hard to say whether a specific life has been more good than bad, and it is even harder to say
whether human life in general is something good or bad. Second, such evaluations are not essen-
tial. My life is not very good, but I wish to live and never to die. This is because living beings
inherently aim (desire) to live, and they struggle for life as long as they can. I am a conscious
being, and such beings inherently desire to be. The fact that we wish to live and to be does not
mean that life is good; this inherent desire does not depend on the fact of whether life is good or
not.
4.14 - Scholastic souls often speak of life and death in terms of benefits and losses. Life
brings goods and pleasures; death deprives us from the goods and pleasures that life would have
brought us, if death had not annihilated us. Death annihilates a person, they say, so that death is
not something that the person can experience as an evil. Hence, if death is an evil, then it must be
an evil of deprivation, not an evil that can be experienced by the person. If death is bad, it is bad
because it deprives us of the goods that we would have enjoyed if we had not died. Such dis-
course misses the point. I do not care for goods and pleasures, but for myself: my death deprives
me of myself. This is what really matters about death. I do not care for goods; I want to be, and
my death annihilates me, not only my possible pleasures.
4.15 - What makes death bad is not the fact that it prevents a person from experiencing those
good things the person would have experienced if death had not appeared and prevented this from
happening. Death is bad because it annihilates the person. I do not care much for the loss of
goods which I will not experience because of my death; what depresses me is the fact that I will
lose myself: my "I" will vanish and it will be no more. My death is not a matter of lost goods,
pleasures and opportunities: my death is a matter of the definitive loss of me. This loss regards
me now, because I know that it will happen, and there is nothing I can do to prevent this from
happening.
4.16 - Death is the annihilation of a person, which is infinitely more than a deprivation of
specific goods and experiences. To be is a unique experience and the supreme value for the one
who is; each death eliminates one such unique experience and destroys a supreme value. The one
who is experiences pleasures and pains, successes and failures, joys and sorrows; but to be is a
unique experience by itself, which is not comparable with specific experiences. I love the sound
of wind in my forest in winter nights. It reminds me of the ephemerality of everything and creates
in me the joy of being. The joy for the fact that I am, while the wind sings in the bare branches of
trees around my hut, and red flames play in the stove. Then I think about the ephemerality of
everything, and this makes me feel sad, because I remember that I will vanish from this place
soon and forever.
4.17 - It has been said that life is worth living also when it is hard and when it brings more
suffering than joy. This may be so, but a discourse about life in terms of suffering and joy misses
what is essential, because it neglect the experience of being itself. My desire to be is not based on
the evaluation of the good and bad things that my life has brought me. My desire to be is inherent
to me; it exists by itself, in spite of the frustrations and suffering that I have experienced in my
life. I would rather not live my past life again, because I have not been quite happy with it, but I
do not want my present and my future to be taken away from me, now or ever. I do not want to
cease to be, because the desire to live and to be is inherent to me.
4.18 - Dubious thinkers have produced a lot of dubious discourse about life and death. My
brief answer to their discourse runs as follows. Death is bad because it annihilates lives of those
79
who wish to live. Death is bad for me when a person dear to me dies. My death is bad for me
now, when I am alive and well, because I know that I will die, and I do not want to die; hence, the
awareness that I am moving toward death is depressing for me now. Living beings aim to live, so
that death seems an evil to them. But death by itself is neither good nor evil: it is a sad feature of
life. Death is not an autonomous force that destroys life: life is a finite process that moves toward
death and ends with it. Death is the name for the end of the process of life. The moment of death
is often the termination of a painful dying rather than an evil by itself. But death is the most
depressing feature of life. If death were not bad, people would not have sought and created
immortality. If death were not bad, gods would die too.
Discourse, reason and emotions
4.19 - A lot of things have been said about death, but words do not manage to express the
exceptionality of this phenomenon. Poets and sages, prophets and charlatans have produced
countless lamentations and many encouraging fables about death, but death has been more
perplexing and depressing than words can express or hide. People have tried to console and
encourage themselves in many ways in front of the fact that they must die. Death has been called
the reunification with the infinite ocean of existence. Such visions are often poetic and they may
calm many people, but they do not help me. For me, death is not a reunification, but annihilation:
it is the step into nonexistence and nothingness. Words are all we have in front of death, but death
is too big to be covered and hidden by our stories.
4.20 - It seems to me that I am not able to imagine my own nonexistence. This is because my
nonexistence is not something I can observe even in principle. The most I can imagine is the
world which goes on without me in it. But in this case, I still exist as an observer who watches the
world without him. When I die and vanish, I will not be able to observe anything, because my "I"
will be no more: I will be no more. My nonexistence is a so exceptional phenomenon for me that
it transcends my abilities of imagination.
4.21 - It is considered that it is worse to die at the age of 18 than at the age of 81. The former
case is a tragedy; the latter is usually not. Such a view is normal in the context of the features of
human life. But death is a sad phenomenon at any age. There is no age - of thousand or million
years - when it becomes normal to die and vanish forever, and when people would accept death
without regret. No amount of years is large enough for death to cease to be a terrifying and
depressing phenomenon. On the other hand, it is not sure that the elimination of death, and the
introduction of eternal life would make people happy. What we know is that most people feel
death and mortality as something utterly depressing.
4.22 - Death casts a dark shadow over all endeavours, tribulations and joys of ephemeral
lives. I was not particularly aware of death until I reached fifty. Then I realized that half of my
life had surely gone, or perhaps two-thirds and maybe much more. All I can say is that while I am
writing this sentence I am still alive, which looks like the good news to me. I do not think that life
is "great", but I have gotten used to it and I wish that it lasts. This desire to last does not need to
come from the pleasure of existence; this desire is an inherent feature of living beings, which
makes them struggle for life, not because life is pleasant, but in spite of all sufferings that life
brings them.
4.23 - People try to do important and remarkable things, and to leave a lasting trace of their
existence in the world in which they live. People hope that their deeds will make them present in
80
the world after their death. But the achievements of most people are not so important for their
community to remember them permanently or for a long time. And even if a person is remem-
bered forever, this is a poor substitution for the personal existence, which people yearn for. I
would be pleased if I could know that future people will appreciate what I have done during my
life; but I wish to be as persons, not to last in the form of my deeds and in discourses of future
people.
4.24 - In some historical periods some cultures were obsessed with death and with the fact
that time devours everything. People of all ages and cultures have been perplexed and depressed
by the destructive aspects of existence; they have felt stronger the destructive effects of existence
than its creative effects. People have been saddened by the fact that they must die, more than they
have been delighted by the fact that they were born. Formally speaking, there is no basis for such
an asymmetric attitude, because the process of existence does not destroy more than it has creat-
ed; it destroys everything, but it has created everything that it destroys. We should not belittle the
wondrous gift of the experience of existence, which has been bestowed on us. Reason under-
stands this, but emotions are not calmed by such rational arguments. People feel much stronger
the fact that they must vanish than the fact that they were given the opportunity to see the wonder
of existence.
4.25 - Existence is a process; every human life is a tiny sub-process in this process, and this
sub-process has its beginning and its end. The beginning is slow and often frustrating; the end
looks sad and is often painful and humiliating, but it is not a mysterious, as some call it. If there is
anything mysterious about conscious life, it is its beginning rather than its end. The beginning of
every life looks like a wonder; the emergence of a new life and reflective mind is a much greater
wonder than the fact that this wonder does not last forever. Nothing lasts forever, probably not
even the cosmic process of becoming and vanishing, of creation and destruction. The fact that
even the universe is dying could be a sufficient reason for people to reconcile with their ephemer-
ality; but this fact actually makes existence look even more sad.
4.26 - Death used to dwell among people, showing them its ugliness. It was showing the
misery and suffering of those who were dying and the impotence of those who were trying to
help them. In the technological age, dying has become a technological process, as everything
else, which takes place in special hospital departments. People push dying and death as far away
from them as they can. This is understandable; but the awareness of death has made people what
they are; this awareness manifests itself in people's constructive and destructive behaviour. If
people manage to make death irrelevant, life may become irrelevant too.
4.2 Does death matter?
4.27 - People have not found a way to eliminate death; hence, they have tried to transcend it
by means of narratives which claim that death is a migration of the immortal soul or self. There
were also those who accepted that death was a definitive end of a person, but they claimed that
this is not important. Epicurus (fourth and third century BC) says that my death is irrelevant for
me, because as long as I am, my death does not exist; and when my death will exist, I will be no
more, so that nothing will matter to me. Lucretius (first century BC) says that death is irrelevant
because when we die we become what we were before we were born. We do not lament our
nonexistence before we were born; hence, we have no reason to lament our nonexistence after we
81
die. We round up this section with Socrates (fifth century BC) and his attitude toward life and
death.
Epicurus' argument
4.28 - In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus says that death is irrelevant, because the death of
those who live does not exist; and for those who are dead nothing matters because they are no
more. Epicurus expressed his view by the following words. "Accustom yourself to the belief that
death is of no concern to us, since all good and evil lie in sensation and sensation ends with death.
So death, the most terrifying of ills, is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with
us; but when death comes, then we do not exist. It does not then concern either the living or the
dead, since for the former it is not, and the latter are no more." Epicurus' argument looks simple,
but it is imprecise and misses the point.
4.29 - "Accustom yourself to the belief ...", says Epicurus. He requires people to believe
what he says, because a belief is needed for the acceptance of his argument rather than reason.
We must learn to believe that reality is not such as we feel and experience it. Death is not a
problem for those who are dead, but death spoils the life of those who live with the awareness
that they will die. I know that my death will come and it will annihilate me. I know this now, and
this depresses me now. The fact that my death does not exist now, does not make it less bad for
me; my knowledge that it will exist - and that it will cause my eternal nonexistence - is enough to
depress me now. Every person suffers her death during her entire mature life.
4.30 - We live with the awareness that we and those who are dear to us will die and vanish
forever. We do not want this to happen, so that the awareness that this will happen is deeply
depressing. Epicurus is wrong, because death is "with us" during our life. The awareness that
something will happen matters to people. It is not bad to be dead, because there is no subject in
that state, for whom things could be good or bad. But it is sad to live with the awareness that your
death is approaching you and that it will annihilate you. My death spoils my life before it comes;
my awareness that my death will annihilate me is depressing for me now. The fact that when I
will be dead this will not be a problem for me anymore, means nothing to me. I know now that
death will annihilate me forever, and I inherently desire to be forever; this spoils my life now.
And that there is nothing I can do about that.
4.31 - Epicurus does not speak of the process of dying, which may be painful nor of the mo-
ment of death. He says that those who are dead cannot suffer any evil, and from that he concludes
that there is nothing bad in being dead. This may be correct, but people do not want to be dead
and to cease to exist. Epicurus says that it makes no sense to be terrified by the state of nonexist-
ence, because when we are in that state we are no more, so that nothing matters to us. This may
be correct, but this does not help much, because people do not want to be in the state in which
nothing matters to them. In sum, we do not want to die, but we must die: this is the problem with
death; Epicurus does not address the problem properly, and he does obviously not solve it.
4.32 - As long as I live, my death does not exist, and when I will be dead, my death will
mean nothing to me, because I will be no more. But this does not solve the problem of death,
because I now know that my death will come and annihilate me, and I do not want this to happen.
My death does not exist now, but I know that it will exist and that it will annihilate me forever.
This depresses me now, and this is why my death matters to me now. This is why death matters to
those who live, and why death makes human life a depressing phenomenon. The fact that my
82
death does not exist now does not help me much; the fact that my death will mean nothing to me
when I will be dead does not help me at all. Epicurus speaks in an imprecise way; our death is
always "with us", and its presence is getting more and more depressing every day.
4.33 - Epicurus accepts that death is a definitive end of the person; this makes his claim that
death is irrelevant additionally problematic. For death to mean nothing to us, life must mean
nothing to us. We must be indifferent to everything and everybody: we must not have feelings,
desires and aims. Such a life would be an empty and tedious duration. We should be emotionally
dead for our physical death to mean nothing to us. To be indifferent to our death, we must be
indifferent to our life and to lives of other people and beings around us. This would be a misera-
ble mental state, and most people would not want to be in such a state. We must accept death
because we cannot escape it; but indifference does not solve the problem, and most people are not
able to be indifferent in front of death. Epicurus' solution of the problem of death looks rather bad
and sad.
Lucretius' argument
4.34 - Other famous argument which claims that people should not care because of death
comes from Lucretius. His argument looks stronger than the one of Epicurus. Lucretius say that
we do normally not complain of the fact that we did not exist during the infinite time that had
passed before we were born. When we die we will be in the same position as we were before we
were born. Why should then we lament the fact that we will not exist during the infinite time after
we die? There are no valid reasons to do so, says Lucretius. Let us see his words: "Look back
again to see how the past ages of everlasting time, before we are born, have been as naught to us.
These then nature holds up to us as a mirror of the time that is to come, when we are dead and
gone. Is there aught that looks terrible in this, aught that seems gloomy?"
4.35 - Lucretius assumes that the nonexistence of a person before she was born is equal (a
mirror image) to her nonexistence after she dies. Since we do not lament our nonexistence before
we were born, we do not have a real reason to lament our nonexistence after we die. The main
element of this argument is the assumption that the time before we were born looks equal to the
time after we die. Formally, this may be correct, but a discourse about the time before me and
after me misses the point; what matters to me is not time, but me, which means my feelings. I do
not have the same feelings toward the world before me and the world after me. I have created
relationships with other people, and done many things during my life, and I am emotionally
bound to those people and things, which I am compelled to lose forever.
4.36 - The fact that I do not miss life in the time that passed before me does not mean that I
should be indifferent to the time that will come after me. The past and the future are not symmet-
ric for me, because I do not feel them equally, and feelings are essential here. The nonexistence
of a person after she dies may look the same as her nonexistence before she was born, but the life
that stands between these two infinities has produced her feelings and they are such as they are.
People do not feel things in a symmetric way, as Lucretius holds they should. His symmetry does
not exist, and it does not help to pretend that it does or to claim that it should exist.
4.37 - Lucretius' argument may be correct at the level of pure reason, but life is a matter of
feeling rather than of reason. The nonexistence before the birth and the nonexistence after the
death may be formally equivalent, but people do not have the same feelings toward these two
eternities. My nonexistence before my birth and my nonexistence after my death may look the
83
same to an outer (third-person) observer, but they do not look the same to me, as the first-person
observer of my life. I have different feelings toward these two eternities. Incidentally, we do
usually not regret for the fact that we did not live in past ages, because we hold that life in those
ages was hard and rude. But it would have been interesting to live in the Athens of Protagoras,
Sophocles and Socrates, as well as in some other places and times.
4.38 - Before I was born, I could not suffer; after I die, I will not suffer. I suffer now for the
fact that I must lose what I love, and vanish forever. This is essential. I was given a life which I
did not miss, because I did not exist. I have gotten used to live and to be, and I do not want to
cease to live and to be. This is enough to explain the asymmetry in our feelings toward the past
and the future. I do not miss the world that passed long ago, with which I have no direct bonds. I
regret the fact that I must cease to be, and vanish forever, now when I have gotten used to be. I
have been shown a tiny fraction of existence, and I have been given the desire to be forever; but I
have been told that this will not be so. How could I not lament about that? There is an inherent
will to be in me, but I know that death will annihilate me, and this makes me feel bad. I hate the
fact that I must return to nothingness from which I came. This is how I feel, and such a feelings is
justified. Clever arguments could hardly extinguish my inherent feelings and desires.
4.39 - Being dead will be no different from being unborn, explains a shallow thinker; when I
die, I will be just as I was in the time of dinosaurs, he says. Correct, but this does not solve the
problem. Because I do not want to be as I "was" in the time of dinosaurs, when I was not. This is
the essence of the problem with death, and a discourse that misses this essence does not help.
Death is the most essential feature of life, and the greatest problem that people must face. People
invented all sorts of stories and arguments by means of which they have tried to transcend death,
or to console themselves for the fact that they were born and that they must die. The invention of
encouraging stories and dubious arguments has been the most that people have been able to do in
their perennial struggle with death, but many stories and arguments look rather weak.
4.40 - Scholastic souls impress me with the uselessness of their discourse over and over
again. A large anthology of texts about the meaning of life contains a part that carries the title
"Death"; that part consists of several essays and has nearly two hundred pages. All those essays
speak of Epicurus and Lucretius, and they do that in a logically dubious way. I ask myself wheth-
er those scholastic souls know anything about life and death, except to play with dubious argu-
ments from ancient times. Have they heard anything about death, besides those arguments? Have
they known anybody who died? Has a person closed to some of them ever died? Do they have
anything to say about the fact that they will die? Discourse of scholastic philosophers is a game
which has little in common with life and death of real people.
Socrates' magic spell
4.41 - Socrates said and did many remarkable things, but he became famous because of the
unique calmness with which he accepted his execution and death. Socrates accepted death with-
out rancour, but he retained the great hope that death was not the end of a person, but the migra-
tion of her soul into the other world. He says he hopes that after he dies his soul will migrate into
the realm in which all souls gather, and that his discourses there will be much more exciting than
the ones in this world. He will have the possibility to speak there with sages, poets and heroes
who lived and died in places and times distant from the ones in which he lived, and this will bring
him a great delight. Socrates desires to meet other minds and to explore human and divine
thoughts and imagination forever. He says that if death brings him the possibility to speak with
84
Orpheus, Prometheus, Odysseus and other people and deities, as he hopes it does, then he is
happy to die.
4.42 - Socrates acts without hesitation, but he speaks of hope rather than of belief or
knowledge. The awareness of their imminent death may make people believe what they desire to
be true, but I do not believe that Socrates believed what he was saying about death and the other
world. I do not think he believed that the other world really existed, but he desired that it existed.
He renounced bounties of this world without much regret, but he was not ready or able to re-
nounce discourse. He was not afraid of the physical death but he was not able to accept eternal
silence. Hence, he tried to make his way toward that terrifying silence bearable by the help of the
great hope that his discourse will continue forever, in the other world. He played his personal and
our common tragedy superbly: with his discourse he charmed others and himself, and walked
calmly into death.
4.43 - Socrates is a passionate explorer of people's discourse and behaviour, but in his dis-
course about death he behaves like a charmer rather than a seeker of truth. He says this himself at
the last day of his life, at the end of which he was executed. After he was sentenced to death,
Socrates had to wait for the execution in prison for several weeks; his friends were coming to
prison and spending days with him in discussions, as they used to do before. At the last day, they
were doing their best to prove that human soul is immortal and that death is the migration of the
soul to a better world, so that people have no reason to fear death. But the company was not quite
happy with the argument they produced in support of such conclusion. You are afraid - said
Socrates - that when the soul emerges from the body the wind may puff it away and scatter it,
especially if a person dies on a windy day. His friends laughed but they were perplexed. It seems
that there is a little child in each of us, who still fears - said one of them - tell us how to persuade
him not to be afraid of death as if it were a bogy? You must say a magic spell over him every day
- said Socrates - until you have charmed his fear away. Therefore, not logical arguments but the
voice of charmer has the power to calm down the terror of death.
4.44 - Socrates was a magician of words and his friends knew that it will be very hard to find
such a charmer after Socrates lived them. They asked Socrates about that; he told them that they
must seek in the entire Greece and beyond, without sparing efforts and money, because there was
no better aim on which efforts and money could be spent than on the finding of a good charmer
who could protect them from the terror of death. You must search among yourselves - he added -
because you will not easily find anyone better fitted for the task than you yourselves are. This
discourse, which Plato describes in the Phaedo, is the most beautiful and the most touching
discourse of Socrates'. This is the last thing he told his friends and to the rest of us, at the last day
of his life, before his execution. This discourse shows the essence of Socrates' discourse and life.
He was a charmer who dedicated his passion and life to the production of the magic spell which
charms away the fear of life and death.
4.45 - Bertrand Russell says that the courage and peace with which Socrates accepted death
would have been "more remarkable if he had not believed that he was going to enjoy eternal bliss
in the company of the gods". I do not think that Socrates believed in stories about gods. He
considered such stories and discourses the best means by which mortal beings can struggle with
death and with their fear of it. Lucretius had a different approach. Death cannot be shunned, but
meet it we must - he says - because eternal death awaits everybody who has been born. There is
not much charm in his words, but they show a sincerity and courage, which reject charming
stories by means of which people try to cover up and hide their reality and calm their fear. Socra-
85
tes knew what Lucretius said, but he loved discourse and a play with visions, and he responded to
the challenge of death in his way. He accepted death, but he adorned the way toward it with a
charming story.
4.46 - The most we can do in our hopeless struggle with death is to accept it, and to over-
come our fear of it. People have tried to do that in various ways. Epicurus and Lucretius try to
calm us with their argument. Socrates discourse indicates that arguments are not enough; only the
voice of charmer has the power to calm down the fear of death. People love charming stories,
without which life has often looked too hard to be endured. But Stoics advocated a life without
such stories. We cannot change the basic facts of human life nor the external events that affect
our lives - they say - so that we must accept them. But our response to these facts and events is
and must be in our control. We cannot eliminate the limitations, hardships and losses that life and
death bring about, but we can and must master our response to events that affects us. We cannot
avoid death, but we can and must avoid spoiling our lives with despair for the fact that we must
die. We must accept death as part of the process of existence, which is a process of creation and
destruction, of becoming and vanishing.
4.47 - People nowadays displace death from their daily lives and from their awareness.
Death is depressing and people have no way to eliminate it; hence, they aim to minimize its
presence in their lives as much as they can. In what way people do that, depends on a social
practice and on individual feelings. The tendency of displacing death from the sphere of everyday
life is understandable; but people still know and feel the greatness of death. Although they avoid
death, people love spectacular funerals of big celebrities, such as princesses, popes and pop stars.
But this may be part of the celebrity culture (and mentality) rather than a matter of the attitude
toward death; funerals of great celebrities are great spectacles.
4.3 Finiteness and the meaning
4.48 - People desire to live and to last forever, but they know that they will cease to exist,
and vanish forever. This has always depressed people and they have called human life miserable
and tragic. Modern poets and sages have called human life absurd. Many things make life a
frustrating experience, and death ruins it completely. Death is eternal; we do not die for a year or
a century, but forever. It has been said that this destroys every meaning that human life could
have; this makes human life a sad phenomenon that should have better not existed. On the other
hand, life looks exciting and it seems that many people find many pleasures in life. But it may be
that people mostly try to repress their anxieties by various activities and noise. Anyway, some of
us are curious enough to be ready to endure the suffering of living and dying, in order to see and
experience the wonder of existence.
Ephemerality and values
4.49 - Every life lasts an infinitely small part of the infinity in which it did not exist and in
which it will not exist. I am nothing - cries a passionate soul. My brief appearance at the stage of
existence is not sufficient to distinguish me from the nothingness into which I go. I am a nothing.
This is correct and this is sad; people have always complained about the brevity of life. But it has
been said that every person should be grateful for the fact that she was born and given the oppor-
86
tunity to be and to experience the wonder of existence. Life can be interpreted in this way; but a
brief existence which includes the awareness of the forthcoming eternal disappearance look like a
bad joke rather than a gift. Some have called life an awful deception, and they have done this
with good reason.
4.50 - People complain of the shortness of human life; but if life were ten or thousand times
longer, it would be equally short in comparison with the unlimited duration. All finite values are
equally short in comparison with infinity. The problem with life is not its shortness, but its
finiteness. The human mind desires infinite duration; everything less than that is too short for it.
No life is long enough if it is not infinite. But an infinite life could be an even bigger problem
than the finite life is. I wish to do many things, and I would like to have more time, so that I can
do all I wish to do. But eternity could bring too much time to everybody. If I were given the
possibility to choose to live a hundred years or two hundred years, I would choose two hundreds,
provided that I am in good health and shape. I would accept eternal life too, but I do not know
what I would do with it.
4.51 - It has been said that the finiteness of human life does not diminish its value. If human
life is good, then life is good, regardless of its finiteness. If human life is not good, then its
finiteness is welcome: endless duration of something that is not good would be very bad indeed.
Such discourse neglects what is essential: the possibility that life can be bad because of its finite-
ness. What makes life a depressing phenomenon is the fact that it leads to its decline and end,
often a painful and humiliating end. If you offer me a delicious meal for dinner, but I know that
this meal contains a substance that will kill me, I will not enjoy the meal, regardless of how
palatable it may be. Life can be considered good if we neglect the fact that it brings old age,
illnesses and eternal death.
4.52 - If it is bad that we must leave this world and life, this means that they are good - say
shallow thinkers. Life does bring happy moments, but it is mostly frustrating, and often cruel and
disgusting. We hate the fact that we must leave the world and lose life, not because they are
beautiful, but because we have become used to be and we do not want to cease to be and vanish
forever. Our desire to exist does not mean that life and the world are good. We are inherently
addicted to life; this addiction is a matter of biology, not of the quality of life and the world.
Human life leads to its decline and annihilation; this makes it an ugly and depressing phenome-
non. People have always sought ways of salvation and liberation from the frustrations and
sufferings that pervade human lives in this world. If life and the world were "good and beautiful",
people would have not sought salvation and liberation from this life and world.
4.53 - My awareness that something I consider beautiful is ephemeral does not diminish its
beauty, but it adds a sense of melancholy and regret to my feeling toward it. "Happiness is none
the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value
because they are not everlasting" - says Russell. This is correct, but this is not all. Thoughts and
feelings are not less valuable because they must come to an end, but the fact that they must come
to an end makes people sad. Finiteness is an essential dimension of our experience and existence,
and it shapes our feelings and our lives much stronger than we are aware of. Finiteness does not
eliminate happiness and beauty, but it has a great impact on the way we feel and experience all
things and our lives.
4.54 - Life is felt differently by different people, but sensitive and reflective people have al-
ways felt the sting of the tragic quality of human life. The fact that a person must get old, lose her
87
abilities and vanish forever is depressing. The ephemerality of human life and the eternity of
death have shaped people's discourse and behaviour more than anything else has done. It is hard
to say whether human life in general is something good or bad, but its decline and finiteness
make it look depressing and meaningless. However, immortality and infinite existence by them-
selves do not make life meaningful. Sisyphus is immortal, but his everlasting life and activity are
meaningless. The same question "why" and "what for", that hangs over the finite life, hangs over
the infinite life too. People must assign a meaning to their existence if they want their existence
to have a meaning; this holds for the finite and for the infinite existence equally.
4.55 - Everything that is desires to be, but I have also known a desire not to be. The desire to
vanish immediately, leaving no trace behind, appears sometimes in me. Such a desire may be
known to other people too. In fact, such a radical disappearance is what awaits each of us, if not
immediately then a little later. It has been said that suicide is a consequence of a complete failure
in communication. This is probably correct, but suicide is also the most radical act of communi-
cation; it is the last desperate cry by which an exhausted individual tries to break the wall around
her and to make her voice heard. My desire not to be comes from the sense that existence and
non-existence transcend the possibility of understanding and communication. Existence as well as
non-existence are incomprehensible and inexpressible; they sometimes seem so terrible and so
meaningless to me that I wish to flee from them. But there is nowhere to flee from them.
Death moves life
4.56 - It has been said that nothing in life has a real value, because everything is transitory
and ephemeral, and everything vanishes. The same holds for human life. Such claims have a
strong emotional effect, but the ephemerality of all things and beings can be interpreted also in a
positive way. Fragility and ephemerality of everything that people create and experience, as well
as of human lives, give a unique value and charm to every thing and experience, and to every life.
If people and other phenomena were lasting forever, life would be boring. Infinite duration would
make everything infinitely boring and worthless; to be eternal looks like to be dead.
4.57 - Life is a process and it brings changes; it must be so, because a life without change
would not be life; it would look like death and it would be a form of death. Transitoriness and
ephemerality of everything bring losses and sorrow and make life look a sad phenomenon. But
the world and life cannot be static, frozen; and their dynamism inevitably brings losses which
makes us feel sad. People tried to solve this problem by assigning the immortal soul (self) to
themselves, and leaving everything else to pass and vanish. This solution looks wise to people,
but it is selfish. Anyway, the transitoriness of all phenomena, experiences and lives make them
unique and valuable in every moment of their duration.
4.58 - Our ephemerality and the awareness that everything we do and feel will vanish create
in us a sense that life is a futile endeavour which has no meaning. But change is necessary for
life: what does not change does not live; a static world would be a dead world. Change facilitates
life and makes it interesting; but change means that what exists must vanish, so that new entities
can become. The process of existence evolves in the way that looks normal; but the ephemerality
of everything is depressing, because what we love passes away and vanishes, and we pass away
too. We can try to console ourselves by the fact that existence and life create new entities. The
emergence of a new consciousness is a wondrous event, even more impressive than the disap-
pearance of a consciousness is. But people do not feel the fact that they were born a sufficient
88
compensation for the fact that they must die. We got used to the fact that we were born; we have
much more difficulties with getting used to the fact that we must die.
4.59 - The awareness of death toward which they move has shaped people's thoughts, dis-
course and behaviour since their beginnings. People do not think constantly about their mortality,
but their finiteness has been the main force that has moved people's thoughts and activities. The
awareness of their ephemerality has made people what they have been: it has shaped their con-
structive and their destructive behaviours. The awareness of ephemerality awakens anxiety and
yearning, which have moved people to explore many ways in this world and beyond it, seeking a
liberation and salvation from suffering and ephemerality.
4.60 - People yearn for eternity, but they do often not know how to spend the time of their
finite lives. They spend time and energy on useless activities, only to escape boredom. We act to
satisfy our existential needs; we act because we are restless creatures who love to act; we act to
run away from boredom and to displace the awareness of our ephemerality and insignificance.
We always do something and "lose ourselves" in something, to shield ourselves from the painful
sense of boredom. Life consists of running after the elusive sense of happiness, and of running
away from boredom and anxiety. These two moving forces power and shape people's behaviour
and their lives.
4.61 - Science and technology may one day make people immortal, but this may not make
people happy. The victory over death may not bring people such an infinite joy as it has been
infinite their yearning for infinity. Immortality would be an immense challenge, and it could
disappoint people. Eternity could be terribly boring, and it would be very hard to produce enough
machines, activities, games and noise to fill it. Immortality could make people and their existence
worse than they have been.
Accepting the inevitable
4.62 - Death annihilates us; we pass away and vanish as if we never existed. Poets, sages and
common people have asked whether life has any lasting meaning and whether it is worth living.
Why and what for should people live - they have asked - but they have not found satisfactory and
convincing answers to such questions. We live because we are living beings, which inherently
aim to live, regardless of whether this makes sense or not. Another answer to the question "why
to live" may run as follows: "why not?" You will be dead for the entire eternity; hence, live now,
while your death has not annihilated you. Sing and lament: sing songs of sorrow and songs of joy.
Your death shall come by itself, and you do not need to care about it now. You ought to live now;
you will rest in peace later.
4.63 - We should better cease describing reality in ways which negate obvious facts; we
ought to describe reality in the way it is, and face the sad dimension of human life. Existence is a
process that creates and annihilates all phenomena; this process produces the human mind,
feelings and thinking, and it annihilates all it produces. We are part of that process, but we do not
have the power to change it essentially; the best we can do is to support and enjoy what is good
and beautiful in it, and resist what is bad and ugly, until this process annihilates us. By supporting
what is good, and resisting what is bad, we make life and the world better, or less bad.
4.64 - It has been said that we must "get over" our cosmic insignificance, and live our
ephemeral lives in their fullness. I do not have problems with my cosmic insignificance. I am a
89
modest person; I wish to be the best author in the universe, but I do not care much if this is not so.
What makes me sad is the awareness that I am an ephemeral phenomenon and that I will vanish
soon and forever, as if I never existed. I do not care for my cosmic insignificance; even as an
infinitely insignificant phenomenon, I wish to be, and to be forever. Regardless of how infinitely
irrelevant I am for the universe and from the viewpoint of eternity, I am infinitely relevant for
myself.
4.65 - Existence is a process of creation and destruction, and death is part of that process.
Death has been called the supreme evil, but death has often been a saviour. Death is the saviour
of those whom life has brought into a helpless and hopeless condition which cannot be changed
for better. When illness and old age make life painful and humiliating, death becomes the libera-
tor from the sufferings of the body and the mind. It is not death which kills us; life does this with
its intrinsic dynamics of growth and fall. Tragic events bring death prematurely, but in such
cases, we must blame those events, not death itself. Death is the effect caused by other factors;
life is an imperfect phenomenon that leads to death and often needs it.
4.66 - Death has been described in many ways; some descriptions show how terrible death
has been, others interpret it in a consoling way or as a happy event. Death has been called the
liberator from the tribulations and sufferings of this world. Religions describe death as a step on
the way to eternal bliss. Some have described death as a return to home, which fills a person with
a sense of relief and happiness. Let me put forward several verses from a poem written by an
anonymous Egyptian author some four thousand years ago. Death is before me today / like the
end of the rain / like a man's home-coming after the wars abroad. / Death is before me today /
like the sky when it clears / like a man's wish to see home after numberless years of captivity.
Reading these superb verses, I ask myself whether people have made any progress in terms of
emotions and poetic attitude and discourse during the last four thousand years. Do we progress at
all in terms of poetics of existence? It does not seem so.
4.67 - It has been said that many people "die in peace", and that this shows that all is well
with life and death. I am not sure that this is so. Those who die in peace and those who do not,
cease to exist forever. This "forever" is what terrifies me and what has deeply depressed countless
others since the beginnings of reflective thinking. I do not want not to be, but this is exactly what
will happen to me. This is what makes death a unique phenomenon, radically different from
everything else: the most terrible fact that people must face, mentally and physically. Most people
try to escape this cruel reality by embracing consoling visions or illusions, but I am not able to do
so. I accept death in all its ugliness, because I have no way to escape it.
4.68 - In spite of death, it seems that most people consider that it is better to be born than not
to experience life and existence. Some people have spoken in very enthusiastic way about life.
One author concludes his essay with a long and complex sentence in which he says that he has
always aimed to live in a constructive and compassionate way, so that at the end of his life he will
"go down without hope or appeal yet passionately triumphant and with joy". Other secular people
have expressed their desire and will to die with smile and joy. Let it be written and let it be
known that I do not expect myself to die with joy. I will die because I must, but I will do that
without much joy, I am afraid. I will go down without hope and with a sense of regret for the fact
that life and death look as they do. I accept death because I cannot avoid it, but I do this with
regret rather than with joy.
90
4.69 - The universe kills us, but we are more noble than the universe that kills us, because
we know that we die, while the universe knows nothing, says Pascal. This proud claim neglects
the fact that the universe that crushes human beings also creates them. People are part of the
universe, so that it can be said that the universe knows and feels all that people know and feel.
There is more self-pitying than courage in Pascal's claim. People's nobility ought to consist in
their courage and strength to embrace the awesome play of becoming and vanishing, called
existence. We must rise above self-pitying and above the stories about transcendent salvation,
and embrace our reality. We can do this with anger and scorn, with irony or joy, but we must do
this. We ought to become poets of ephemerality, who fill existence with their creations. This is
the best response that people can give to the mystery and misery of human life and existence.
What we leave behind
4.70 - People wish to leave a trace behind, which will last much longer than their lives. Such
a trace are deeds which keep a person present in the world after she passed away. By their deeds,
people remain present in the world after their lives ended; they continue to be, as names and
abstract entities. Artists, thinkers, politicians, warriors and other people hope that their deeds and
achievements will make them last forever or for a very long time, but this seldom happens. The
world remembers some names, but a huge majority of people from past ages vanished complete-
ly, as if they never existed. Nowadays, names and images of all people may remain recorded, but
after a certain time, most names and records cease to signify anything to anybody.
4.71 - Pyramids made some names present in the world for a long time. Those who cannot
afford to build a pyramid for themselves, hope that their heirs will put a tombstone with their
name on their graves. A tombstone is the means of communication which conveys the message
that a certain person lived, and keeps her present in the world. As long as your tombstone stands,
you are present in the world, at least as an abstract entity. Names and messages in various data-
bases can have the same effect, if people read them. Anyway, it is not so bad to be an abstract
entity: numbers, languages and theories, symphonies and poems are abstract entities. When you
become an abstract entity, you will be in a good company. But if all records about you are lost,
then you are lost; you vanished even as an abstract entity, and you are definitively no more.
4.72 - By means of tombstones and records of various kinds, people struggle against a de-
finitive disappearance; they struggle to be, at least as abstract entities. Many people vanished
without having a grave, and their names have not been recorded anywhere. Many people van-
ished for whom there are no material or symbolic evidence that they existed. This is sad. But also
luxury tombstones crumble with time. One day all tombstones will crumble and the universe will
become an endless graveyard without tombstones, without memories and without records.
4.73 - "What shall I leave?" - asks Ryokan, a Japanese poet on his deathbed. "Flowers in the
spring, cuckoos in the summer and maple leaves in the autumn" - he answers. These are touching
words for someone like me who has spent most of his life in the forest. The poet did not mention
people; he mentioned those things that were dear to him and which will exist also when nobody
will remember him. What shall I leave? Nearly the same what Ryokan left. I love to walk in the
forest in autumn and look for my favourite mushrooms; I love to find them in grass covered by
fallen leaves of beautiful colours, more than to eat them. An autumn will come when the mush-
rooms will grow in the forest around my hut, but I will be no more there to find and pick them.
Such thoughts used to sadden me, but I have become used to this reality.
91
4.74 - Death is a sad topic, but it is healthy to speak about this topic from time to time; by
such a discourse, we are getting used to death and we prepare ourselves for the encounter with it,
which has been approaching. It is not easy to reconcile with the fact that we are ephemeral
phenomena; but when we accept this obvious fact, our life can become more pleasant than a
negation of obvious reality usually makes it. Existence is a process of becoming and vanishing, of
creation and annihilation, which destroys all it creates; we ought to accept this fact ant to get used
to it.
4.4 The challenge of immortality
4.75 - The value of human experiences is essentially determined by the fact that we are finite
beings and we do not have the possibility to repeat those experiences many times. Our finiteness
makes our experiences more intense and valuable, but it brings lasting losses and regrets. Old age
takes away strength and possibilities; death separates us forever from those whom we have loved
and who loved us, and it annihilates us. The infinite life would weaken some great experiences
and emotions that mortal people know, but it would liberate people from many sufferings and
losses. It is normally assumed that the gains that eternal life would bring people is larger than the
losses in pleasures that such a life would cause, but it is hard to estimate such things. We want to
live and to be, so that an everlasting life (in good health and shape) looks absolutely appealing to
us; but we do actually not know how such a life would look like.
The wish to exist
4.76 - "I do not want to die" - says Miguel de Unamuno; - "I want to live for ever and ever
and ever". He says that even in the time of his childhood he was not terrified by descriptions of
the tortures of hell, regardless of how terrible they looked, as he was terrified by the thought of
his disappearance and eternal nonexistence. I understand Unamuno and I share his feelings. I was
not aware of the gravity of situation at the time of my childhood. When I was twenty or so, in a
discourse with an elderly man a person was mentioned who died ten years earlier. The man said,
incidentally, that when a person dies, it is not only that she is no more: it is as if she never existed.
Then I realized the gravity of the situation and I felt the terror of nonexistence for the first time.
When you die, you are reduced to nothing; some people may remember you for some time, but
this does not change the fact that you are no more.
4.77 - Unamuno's unconditional desire to exist expresses what I call the inherent will to live
and to be. These two wills may be two manifestation of a single will; at the biological level, it
manifests itself as the will to live, and at the mental level as the will to be. This will is strong
enough to prevail over the sufferings that the tribulations in this world and tortures in hell may
bring about. The awareness that I shall cease to be forever is utterly depressing, not because life
is good, but because I inherently desire to be, and to be forever. But in spite of this desire, some
extremely destructive events and cruel behaviours create in me a desire not to be: to vanish and to
leave no trace behind. Destructive and cruel behaviour make me think that it would have been
better if nothing ever existed. The desire to be, the aversion to evil, and the pity for those who
suffer shape my moods and the way I feel my life and life in general.
92
4.78 - People desire what they do not have and what they do often not know. Such may be
the perennial people's desire to last forever. If I were given such a possibility, I would maybe get
tired of life in a couple of centuries or so. But it would have been good if people were given the
possibility to live as long as they want, possibly forever, and to renounce life when they have had
enough of it. Death would then be a matter of personal choice, and it would not be a big problem.
This system can be upgraded: every person could be given the possibility to cease to exist (die)
for a hundred, a thousand or a million years when she decides, and then to reassume with life
again. People should also be given the possibility to cease to exist forever and to return no more.
Such a system would bring technical, psychological and social difficulties, but we speak here of
ideas, not of problems related to their realization.
4.79 - The will to exist must be distinguished from the pleasure of existence. I wish to last
forever simply because I wish to be; I have gotten used to be and I do not want to cease to be. I
wish to be again with the people who have been dear to me and who passed away; I wish to meet
many people whom I did not have the opportunity to meet during my life. But above all, I want to
be, and to be forever. I do not want to vanish. I do not feel a desire to go to paradise; the atmos-
phere would probably not be suitable for me there. I would prefer to spend most of eternity on my
hill, and to visit some other places from time to time. I want to be because to cease to be and to
vanish forever looks terrible to me. But we shall all vanish forever. Immortal soul is an abstract
entity created by the human yearning and imagination; there is no evidence that the soul exists
anywhere else except in the realm of abstract entities.
Eternity and boredom
4.80 - Endless life could be unbearably boring and meaningless. People yearn for immortali-
ty because they do not want to grow old and die; but they do not think of the fact that infinite
duration can make life infinitely boring. In the endless life, a person could do and experience all
she has been able of doing and experiencing, and everything she has considered worthy of being
done and experienced. She would then not have a desire to do anything any more; she would not
have any motivation to live any more, especially not forever. Eternity is endless; human interests
and abilities may not be endless. After she repeated the same activities and experienced the same
emotions numberless times, a person could become indifferent to everything and not find any
pleasure in anything any more.
4.81 - Life is often boring for people who do not have much emotions, thoughts and interests
for some activities. How would such people endure eternity? It is hard to say whether eternal life
would be the greatest blessing or the greatest damnation for people. It is hard to imagine how an
eternal life could look like; we can only try to imagine what we would gain by eternal life and
what we would lose by becoming eternal. The finiteness of human life motivates people to spend
their limited time and power in a meaningful way. Finiteness may be necessary for people to live
their lives in a meaningful way. In the infinite life, nothing looks particularly meaningful now,
because everything can be done later, numberless times and in numberless ways. Immortality
could ruin the life as we know it; but in spite of this, people have always yearned for immortality
and infinity.
4.82 - Human thinking and emotions, imagination and creativity may be limitless, so that an
active person would not need ever to become bored. Such a person may enjoy a lasting commu-
nication and interactions with people with whom she shares emotions, thoughts and interests; she
may enjoy observing the lasting advance of human creative imagination and of humanity. An
93
enthusiast said that he would be glad to live several million years in the company of right people,
and see how it looks like. But the problem could be the company of right people; most people do
not consider most other people an interesting company for them. Anyway, it would have been
good if every person were given the possibility to taste eternal life, and the possibility to abandon
it if she get tired of it. I wish I were given a chance to live forever, and I would accept the risk to
have to endure endless boredom or to terminate my life by myself.
4.83 - It seems that endless life would bring endless repetition of the same activities and ex-
periences, which would make such a life boring and meaningless. Endless life would allow a
person to do all she has wished and all she has been able to imagine and do, and to do all that
numberless times. But eternity would always stand in front of her, and she could not find enough
valuable contents to feel it with. Sooner or later, every person would get tired of this endless and
increasingly boring game. Eternity is larger than people can imagine: it is too large to be filled
with anything, so that eternal life leads to a painful state of boredom and meaningless existence.
Such discourse looks convincing, but it is hard to say to what extent it is correct. The problem is
that finiteness and mortality are not appealing either. The desire to be is not determined by the
quality of life; people wish to exist also when they are bored and frustrated with various things.
4.84 - Those who claim that eternal life does not necessarily lead to the state of indifference,
boredom and world-weariness say that people have many emotions and interests that never cease
to be pleasant and challenging. Life consists of friendships and love, of intellectual, artistic and
physical activities, of curiosity and creativity, and of passions for various things. It is hard to
imagine how people could ever be tired of experiencing and doing such things. Eternity is endless
and it seems impossible to fill it; but human emotions, curiosity and creativity seem endless too
and they may last forever. It is hard to know such things; some people have so much emotions,
thoughts, desires and will that they could fill eternity; others do not know how to fill their brief
lives in this world.
Values and appeal
4.85 - For the eternal life to exist and be attractive, two basic conditions must be fulfilled.
First, a person must preserve her identity forever: she must know herself as the same person. A
person may change her attitudes and behaviour, but she must remain aware of herself as of the
same person; without that, it is not possible to speak of the eternal life of the same person. Sec-
ond, the life of a person must always be appealing or create appealing expectations. The first
condition has been called the identity condition, and the second the attractiveness condition.
These conditions look rather trivial: to be forever, I must remain I; to make sense for me to live
forever, eternal life must be attractive.
4.86 - People desire infinite life regardless of whether such a life would be happy or not, be-
cause their will to live and desire to be compel them to do so. The fulfilment of this will and
desire creates a sense of satisfaction which may make infinite life worthwhile by itself. The
problem is whether there can exist activities and mental states by which an infinite life can be
fulfilled in a pleasant way. The question is whether people can live forever without becoming
tired of life, indifferent to it and bored by it. Endless life could consist of endless series of activi-
ties and experiences like those that people have known in their finite lives, such as friendship and
love, intellectual, artistic and physical activities and experiences. People may invent new activi-
ties and create new mental states which could make human life pleasant forever.
94
4.87 - It is not sure whether the same activities and mental states can maintain their appeal
forever. People lose interest for some things with time during their finite lives, but they do that
mostly because they have found some more appealing things, or because their physical condition
and social environment have changed, which has compelled them to do so. I have not ceased to
love running in nature, but my physical conditions have changed, so that it has become better for
me to walk than to run. I have a feeling that I would be able to spend an eternity in a satisfactory
way and state if I were given the opportunity to share company with people I appreciate and to do
things I love to do. I know that eternity is pretty long, but I would accept it, if I were given the
possibility to do so.
4.88 - Some pleasures are called self-exhausting, because when experienced many times,
they cease to be so pleasant as they were before. We do not feel the same intensity of pleasure
when we achieve similar success many times. Repeatable pleasures are those which do not lose
their appeal and strength by their repeated experience. Such pleasures do not need to be present
constantly, but they can be experienced repeatedly, without that they lose their quality and ap-
peal. Repeatable pleasures include eating and drinking, emotions and erotic activities, intellectu-
al, artistic and physical activities. There are many repeatable pleasures and it seems that they
would never cease to be pleasant and appealing to people; but life compels people to abandon
some of them, and death compels them to abandon everything. People do not abandon repeatable
pleasures because they lost the interest in them, but because life compels them to do so.
4.89 - It seems that by a combination of repeatable pleasures, an infinite life could be filled
with pleasant activities and states. But infinity is too large to be understood by ephemeral crea-
tures like people, and perhaps by gods too. It is hard to speak about eternal life in a proper way,
because eternity transcends human understanding and imagination. Anyway, if I were given the
opportunity to live forever, I would accept it; but I am not sure that I would be able and willing to
walk along that path forever. I have a feeling that an infinite life would not become boring for
people of great enthusiasm and curiosity. But we cannot know how the eternal life looks like
before we experience at least little bit of it.
4.90 - Immortality could take away from people more than it would bring them. Love is the
greatest feeling that a human being can experience; love is greater than death and than the fear of
death. We love each other because we are fragile and ephemeral creatures, pervaded by anxiety
and yearning. We do not know whether love would exist if people were immortal; immortality
could eliminate the source of love, and people could cease to love each other, and to love any-
thing. Immortality could destroy the most beautiful and sublime feelings that mortal people have
known; it could destroy those things that make human life worth living, and not bring people any
real good. We assume that everlasting people would advance in terms of emotions and thought,
but this may not be so. Great passions and creative imagination have been driven by the ephem-
erality of human life. We do not know how the immortal people would feel. They might not be
unhappy, but they could be shallow and empty.
4.91 - An infinite life may look absurd, because in such a life a person can do every thing
(she is able to do) numberless times, but she does not need to do anything now. She can postpone
indefinitely doing anything. It has been said that in the finite life nothing really matters, because
everything is ephemeral and we will all die. But if our lives were to last forever, nothing would
matter either, because we would have enough time to do and undo all we have been able to do,
and we could do that numberless times. Such arguments may be formally valid; but I have a
feeling that if I were given an infinite life, I would know to live it in a satisfactory way. I would
95
do those things I love to do, without much postponements. Give me an eternal life, in good health
and shape, and I will see what to do with it.
4.92 - We will not know how being immortal looks like until we make ourselves immortal
and experience this feeling and state. But different people could experience this radically new
situation in different ways. Some could become terribly bored, and they would need a lot of
opiates to alleviate their painful feeling of boredom; others would enjoy living and exploring the
endless space of existence and of human emotions and thoughts forever. I would be confused if I
were to receive a message that I do not need to die ever, or that I will not be allowed to die ever.
The latter possibility looks frightening. The fact that we must die looks cruel; to deprive people
of the possibility to die could be even more cruel: eternal life could become eternal torture. An
infinite life would probably not be so great as some people imagine, but Unamuno was ready to
live in hell rather than to vanish forever.
Some practical issues
4.93 - Let us mention some practical issues that immortality would bring about. Immortality
should be equally available to all people and it should be voluntarily chosen by every person for
herself. Children should be born immortal; when they reach the age of maturity, they could
decide whether they would remain immortal or would become mortal. A person who has chosen
immortality should be always of the age she has chosen, and live in a good health and shape.
People should have the possibility to abandon immortality when they want and to die, immediate-
ly or when they grow old.
4.94 - Nothing should have the power to kill a person that is immortal; without that, those
who have chosen immortality would be in a bad position. Death caused by any force would be an
infinite loss for the immortal person (who was killed) and for those immortal people who lost her.
Mortal people fear accidents, but they know that they will die and that no accident can take away
from them eternal existence. Without a complete protection from death, the immortals would live
with the fear that an accident could deprive them of eternal life. This would be a very bad feeling,
and it would limit their activities; hence, immortality must be immortality, without exceptions.
4.95 - It has been said that society should have the power to take away immortality from
those who do evil. But the problem is who decides what is god and what is evil. Those whom
their communities celebrate as great heroes have often done big evils to other communities.
History has been shaped by aggressive and ruthless people, much more than by reasonable and
good people. The aggressive have always had much more power than the good. Socrates, Jesus
and Galileo would have not been granted immortality by the power-holders of their time. Hence,
it is better to give the possibility of immortality to all people, because otherwise the aggressive
will eliminate those that are good and brave, and oppose the behaviour of the aggressive.
4.96 - Immortality would bring the problem of overpopulation. In this regard, it is proposed
that those who choose immortality should lose the ability of reproduction. But this would not be
enough to solve this problem; additional restriction would be needed, because the mortal could
have many children, and the immortal would not die. We will not deal with this issue, because
there is no indication that people could become immortal in the foreseeable future. But we cannot
be sure, because by means of science and technology, people have done many wondrous things,
and they could find a way to stop the biological aging of human body at some chosen age.
96
Eternity and meaning
4.97 - Eternal life does neither answer nor avoid the problem of the meaning of life. The per-
ennial questions "why" and "what for" regard the finite and the infinite life equally, and they do
not have a definitive answer. Immortality liberates us from the depressing fact that we must die
and vanish forever, but it does not tell us why we exist and why we should live. Immortality does
not solve the problem of the meaning of life: it does not bring the answer to the questions "why"
and "what for", because these questions cannot be answered. An infinite life does not have an
inherent meaning: the infinite duration does not give a meaning to life. Noting can give meaning
to life, except the person that lives it.
4.98 - I wish to live and to be forever; hence, my ephemerality creates a sense of absurdity in
mi. If eternal existence were given to me, this cause of the sense of absurdity of life would be
removed; but I would then ask why should I exist forever. The impossibility to give a definitive
answer to this question would create the sense of absurdity of eternal existence in me. My
ephemerality creates a sense of absurdity in me, but if this cause were removed, other causes
could and would create the sense of absurdity. We yearn for immortality because death is some-
thing we know and do not like. Immortality frees us from death, but it does not free us from the
tedium of existence; only death does that.
4.99 - An everlasting reflective mind would be even greater problem to itself than the
ephemeral mind has been. A reflective mind is a lasting seeker and explorer, which asks more
than can be answered. Its eternal duration would not change anything essential in this regard. If I
were told now that I will last forever, this would be a great news for me, and I would be happy
for a while. But then the question of the meaning of my existence would appear in me again, and
it could be radically heavier than the one that torment ephemeral people. Ephemeral mind is a
problem to itself; eternal mind could be an infinitely larger problem to itself. It is naive to believe
that immortality would make people happy by itself. People are restless creatures; nothing they
attain, and none of their state, can bring them a lasting peace and joy.
4.100 - Human consciousness is an asking separation which asks more than can be an-
swered. A reflective mind cannot answer to its questions and cannot run away from them; it must
learn to live and die with them. The mind is not happy with its limitations and finiteness; hence, it
yearns for infinity. But the mind cannot imagine infinity and does not know what to do in it and
with it. Human mind is inherently a problem to itself, and it does not know how the solution to
this problem could look like. Existence is an unsolvable mystery, and human mind is an unsolva-
ble problem to itself, regardless of whether it is finite or infinite.
97
5. Absurdity and irony
5.1 Futility and defiance
5.1 - The Olympian gods compelled Sisyphus to roll a stone uphill, and ever to succeed to
push it to the top of the hill. The stone always slips from Sisyphus' hands and roles back to the
foot of the mountain; he must then repeat this futile effort over and over again, without achieving
anything. The story of Sisyphus is a paradigmatic example and a metaphor of the futile labour
and absurd existence. This story has become the symbol of the futility of human life, because
people's activities and achievements are ephemeral and irrelevant when observed from a distant
point of view, in the same way as Sisyphus' labour and existence are. We push our stones until
we can, and then leave them to new generations to make the same futile efforts.
5.2 - Scholastic souls and dubious thinkers have sought ways how to liberate Sisyphus from
the futility of his labour and existence. They have done that with the aim to liberate people from
the same absurd situation. Various attempts have been made to free Sisyphus from his cruel fate
and to bestow a value and meaning on his labour and life. Some have tried to eliminate futility
from Sisyphus' efforts by allowing him to create something valuable by his labour. Another way
to save Sisyphus is to make him love his futile labour. If Sisyphus loved doing what he has been
compelled to do, he would be happy with his absurd life. Camus claims that Sisyphus can "sur-
mount" his tragic fate by scorn for it and by defiance toward it.
A temple on the mount
5.3 - When Sisyphus died and arrived to Hades, he asked Pluto to allow him to return to the
earth for a short time, to sort out some things with his wife. He was allowed to do so, but he then
refused to return to Hades. Olympian gods had to bring him back by force; they then punished
him severely because of his attempt to trick them. Sisyphus was condemned to push a stone up
the slope of a hill, and never to manage to push it to the top of the hill. The slope gets steeper and
steeper, so that the stone slips from his hands and rolls back down the slope of the hill. Sisyphus
must then return to the foot of the hill and push the stone up the slope again, as high as he can,
until the stone slips from his hands and roles back to the plain; and so over and over again. Gods
condemned Sisyphus to perform this futile and pointless labour forever. This is one of the most
awful punishments that gods managed to invent, and the most absurd way of existence for a
reasonable being.
5.4 - Sisyphus' work is hard, repetitive and boring; but what makes it absurd is the fact that it
does not have any valuable effect: it does not produce anything. People normally assume that a
hard labour makes a sense and has a meaning when it produces some valuable effects. If Sisyphus
were allowed to push many stones to the top of the hill and to construct a beautiful temple there,
his rolling of the stones would have had a purpose and would not have been considered meaning-
98
less and absurd, as the rolling of the same stone has been. Such a construction enterprise would
have been considered meaningful, because its product would have served some needs of some
people. People have constructed numberless temples on hills and they have been proud of that;
they have considered such enterprises meaningful, and hoped that this would bring them a place
in paradise.
5.5 - If Sisyphus were building a temple, a lighthouse or a brothel on the hill, people would
not have said that his efforts were futile and his existence meaningless, as his activity and exist-
ence look like in the original story. But such a solution of the problem of meaning is a matter of
choice and of a consensus about what is meaningful and what is not, which makes it subjective
and relative. The construction of a temple on hill does not by itself give a meaning to human life.
Many people consider meaningless many things to which other people have dedicated their lives
and have been proud of that. The building of temples on hills could be one of such useless activi-
ties, but most people love temples on hills; I love hills more than temples.
5.6 - We dedicate our lives to the rolling of various stones to various hills and to the con-
struction of various temples and other edifices. We spend our lives in this way because we hold
that this is the best we can do with the energy and time we have at disposal. By dedicating our
efforts and lives to the realization of some aims, we try to give a meaning to our lives and to
spend them in the way we consider meaningful. This is the most we can do regarding the mean-
ing of life and the meaningful life. Nothing is meaningful by itself, but people considered some
activities and behaviours more meaningful than others, and they have lived in accordance with
that. But in a wider perspective, everything looks irrelevant and worthless, because everything is
ephemeral. No creation and achievement lasts forever, and nothing gives an everlasting value and
meaning to people's endeavours and lives. From the viewpoint of eternity, everything is irrelevant
and futile.
5.7 - Let us take that Sisyphus managed to construct an impressive temple at the top of the
hill, which will last forever. This temple will serve people forever and it will make the world a
more beautiful place. We can assume that such an achievement would make Sisyphus happy and
proud of what he has done. He would have reason to believe and feel that his life has had a
meaning. What he has done has been useful, beautiful and everlasting; it is hard to imagine
anything better than that. But also such an excellent achievement does not give the meaning to
life and existence, if we do not assume that it does that. The creation of what is useful, beautiful
and eternal does not, by itself, give the meaning to human life. The meaning is subjective; the
question "why" do not have any objective (definitive, absolute) answer. The creation of what is
useful, beautiful and everlasting makes life meaningful if we assume that this is so.
5.8 - If he had constructed a temple of everlasting beauty, Sisyphus would have faced the
question what to do now. He could not only watch his magnificent deed and do nothing else; such
life would soon become boring and meaningless. When people achieve something they struggled
for, they begin to be bored. To run away from this very unpleasant state, people are compelled to
chose some new goal and begin to work on its realization. Life consists of struggles and of states
of boredom, which follow each other. People have always yearned for a state of lasting satisfac-
tion (bliss), but they have not been able to imagine such a state, and they could probably not last
in such a state. Sisyphus' existence looks absurd; but it is hard to say how a blissful existence
would look like.
99
Love solves everything
5.9 - Another way to save and liberate Sisyphus from his frustrating and meaningless exist-
ence is to make him love doing what he is compelled to do. This can be done by means of a
chemical substance (drug) or by mental conditioning and indoctrination; nowadays, this could
probably be done by a genetic modification. If we make Sisyphus love to push stones uphill, we
will make him a happy man. Many people love to do things which seem no less useless and
meaningless than Sisyphus' futile rolling the stone uphill. People build ships in bottles and play
all sorts of peculiar games. My writing of this text could be considered a Sisyphean activity. But
those who love to do what they do, and find a pleasure in doing that, do not ask the question of
the meaning of doing that.
5.10 - Sisyphus would have been happy with the rolling of his stone if he had loved to role a
stone uphill, which we assume he did not. This assumption seems reasonable, but it may not be
correct. People love to make love over and over again; it is possible that Sisyphus loves to push
his stone over and over again; there is a certain similarity between these two activities. Maybe
Sisyphus finds pleasure in his trying to push the stone ever higher, hoping that one day he will
manage to push it to the top of the hill. In any case, the best way to give meaning to our activities,
lives and the entire existence is by loving them. It is not always easy to love, but there is no better
way of bestowing the meaning on life and existence than by loving them.
5.11 - Life must be given a meaning if we want it to have a meaning, and the most direct
way to do that is by loving it. The meaning of life and the love for life are closely connected. We
can hardly consider life meaningful if we do not love it in some way and for some reason. On the
other hand, if a person loves her life, then her life has a meaning for her. If we manage to make
Sisyphus love rolling his stone uphill, he will love and enjoy his endless life. This will make his
life worth living and give is meaning. Sisyphus' life may continue to look meaningless and absurd
to others, but it will not be absurd for him. Love solves everything, but there has never been
enough love in the world.
5.12 - People have been better in doing than in loving; people have acted to produce what
they needed for survival; they have also rolled stones to endure existence mentally. Many activi-
ties have been driven by the sense of anxiety and by the aim to displace the awareness of ephem-
erality and futility of human life. It is unbearable for people to do nothing, because they then
become aware of their ephemerality and irrelevance. People have always tried to flee from such
awareness and feelings into intense activities, stupefying noise, and appealing illusions. Contem-
porary age has produces all sorts of gadgets that engage and entertain people and help them to
displace their anxieties and calm their yearnings; by the intense consumption of commodities,
people try to achieve the same effect. Technology allows people to roll their stones ever faster,
and socioeconomic system compels them to do so; people try to calm their anxieties and to shield
themselves from boredom by rolling various stones as intensely as they can.
Defiance and rebellion
5.13 - We are not able to change the universe and its laws of life and death; we cannot
change objective reality nor our objective situation in it. But we can fight the sense of absurdity
by means of our mental abilities that have brought us this monster and made it visible. Our mind
shows us objective reality, but it gives us the power to rise above it. We must accept our objective
reality and rise above it by means of use knowledge and courage. We can do that by responding
100
to it with scorn and defiance, says Camus, because "there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by
scorn". Therefore, the proper response to the absurdity of human life is not love, but scorn and
rebellion against the objective reality of human life and the indifference of the universe that
produces and destroys it.
5.14 - Scorn is a strong feeling, but it is not a pleasant mental state. I am not sure that scorn
is necessary in this story, but defiance and rebellion are. We must accept the reality which we
cannot change, and learn to live with it. We must preserve the rationality and integrity of our
discourse and behaviour. But we must respond defiantly to the absurdity and cruelty of life and
death, and live our lives in a creative way, without fear and regrets. Defiance and rebellion
against reality do not make our endeavours and lives less absurd, and do not eliminate our aware-
ness of absurdity. But by such attitude, we create a sense of dignity and creative power in our-
selves, and give a beauty to our absurd lives, which is the most that absurd beings can do. We
must learn to live with the sense of absurdity, and to respond to this sense in the proper way.
5.15 - In spite of our inherent absurdity, we can live in a meaningful way and feel happy. Al-
so Sisyphus, the most absurd of all beings, can make himself happy, says Camus. His tribulation
strengthened Sisyphus; he became strong enough to look at gods and his fate with scorn and
defiance. Sisyphus understands his situation, and this creates in him a sense of scorn and dignity,
which transcends the power of gods and the absurdity of his situation. He became "stronger than
his rock" and "superior to his fate", because every fate can be surmounted by scorn and defiance.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart", says Camus, so that "one
must imagine Sisyphus happy". Our victory over our absurdity is an "absurd victory" which
consists in our response to our reality rather than in changing that reality. Our victory consists in
our ability to understand our absurd reality and continue to live our absurd lives with the sense of
scorn, defiance and dignity.
5.16 - Camus does not preach a religion, but his discourse about Sisyphus resembles a reli-
gious narrative which says that all is well and all shall be well. I cannot imagine Sisyphus happy;
if I were Sisyphus, I would probably live with a sense of scorn and resignation. There is nothing
good in Sisyphus' futile labour, and he has no reason for being happy. But people have always
sought ways to displace the awareness of their depressing situation and to rise above it. Maybe
Sisyphus transformed his futile labour into a game: maybe he struggles to set new records of how
high he managed to push the stone, before it slipped from his hands and rolled back down the
slope. Maybe he has been trying to develop a method of how to push the stone to the top of the
hill and by this humiliate cruel gods. But it is fair to admit that Sisyphus' life looks miserable, and
our learned discourse about that does not change this fact.
5.17 - "Crushing truths perish from being acknowledged", says Camus. I am not sure they
do. With such claims, people have tried to transform their impotence into their strength and a
victory over their depressing reality. Sisyphus knows his fate and this makes his position tragic;
but this knowledge allows him to rise above his fate, because every fate can be surmounted by
scorn and defiance, says Camus. We are absurd and tragic, and we cannot change our objective
reality; but we can make ourselves superior to the universe which knows and feels nothing.
People have always lamented their reality, but they have not been ready to admit the final defeat.
By their pleas, scorn and defiance, people have struggled with gods and fate, and they have
prevailed, at least in their imagination and stories.
101
5.18 - Toward the end of his life, the tragic hero Oedipus - old and blind - says that in spite
of all ordeals that he went through in his life, the nobility of his character and of his aims makes
him conclude that all is well. Oedipus shows that fate can be "surmounted" by acceptance,
instead of by scorn. When we accept a situation, we make it look acceptable or at least endurable.
What we cannot escape, we must accept, in one way or other. People have always lamented life
and death; but at the end, they yielded to necessity and concluded that all is well. Camus makes
Sisyphus happy. Nietzsche, a passionate slayer of gods, preaches a "yes-saying" to everything
that exists and that happens, and declares existence itself "sacred" at the end of his story. People
need positive interpretations of reality to be able to endure the tribulations and sufferings that life
and death bring about.
Elusive solutions
5.19 - The problem that Sisyphus' story shows is clear; but it is not clear how the solution to
this problem should look like. Sisyphus' life would have looked more interesting and meaningful
if he were rolling stones to the top of the hill and built there a temple to his god by those stones.
But the construction of temples does not necessarily give a meaning to people's lives. It is hard to
imagine how human life should look like to have an unquestionable meaning, and not to look
absurd. Why does such a life have an unquestionable meaning, and why is it not absurd? We
cannot give definitive answers to such questions because such questions do not have definitive
answers. We are not able to say how a perfect life should look like, but we have a feeling that
there is something wrong with Sisyphus' life as well as with human life in general.
5.20 - If Sisyphus had constructed a palace at the top of the hill and settled in it, this would
not have solved the problem of the meaning of his life. To build a palace and to dwell in it looks a
more meaningful way of spending a life than the rolling of one stone without producing anything.
But dwelling in a palace - temporarily or forever - does not give absolute meaning to human life
more than the rolling of a stone uphill does. Life does not have an absolute meaning; every
meaning is relative to a subject and can be justified in various relative ways, but not in absolute
way. We consider Sisyphus' life absurd and we have a sense that our lives are absurd, but we
have not been able to imagine how a human life should look like not to look absurd to a reflective
mind which asks more than can be answered and seeks more than can be found.
5.21 - We feel and see the problem, but we are not able to imagine a proper solution to this
problem. The problem of the meaning and absurdity does not have a real solution; the only
solution to this problem would have been that this problem did not appear. If existence (the
universe) had not produced the human mind, the problem of meaning and absurdity would not
have appeared. This problem can now be eliminated only by the elimination of the mind in which
it appeared and in which it resides. We mentioned some less drastic responses to the problem of
absurdity, such as scorn, defiance and acceptance; we speak of irony later. Such responses help
people to live in relatively meaningful ways, but do not eliminate the sense of absurdity. Hence,
we must learn to live with this sense, regardless of how hard this may be.
5.22 - Sisyphus' futile labour and frustrating existence give an image of human life. People's
ephemeral lives consist of efforts and are full of frustrations; and they produce new ephemeral
human lives which consist of efforts and frustrations. Do we live and suffer only to make possible
that new generations do the same? In a sense, yes; but people and other animals find pleasures
and joys in life too. The discrepancy between human limited possibilities and limitless aspirations
makes human life look absurd; but people experience great excitements and joys in their lives
102
too. I do not say that all is well; people's lives contain happy events and moments, but the sense
of absurdity is an indelible ingredient of human life and it pervades people's feelings and
thoughts.
5.2 The origin of absurdity
5.23 - We call absurd something that is obviously false or very unreasonable; absurd can be
a discourse, a behaviour or a situation. The Latin word surdus means dull, deaf, insensible and
stupid; the prefix ab intensifies the meaning of the basic word. Human life has been called absurd
for various reasons. I say that the sense of absurdity arises in us because we are creatures of
limited abilities and limitless aspirations. It has been said that the universe is absurd, because it is
indifferent (insensitive) to the suffering and pleas of sensitive beings. Such claims are vague.
What do we expect from the universe? What should the universe do for us, so that it does not
look absurd? Make us forever happy? Nothing can lastingly calm human anxiety and satisfy
human yearnings.
5.24 - The movement of planets and galaxies is neither reasonable nor absurd, because plan-
ets and galaxies are not conscious beings; they do not have a will and a goal, and do not aim to
anything. Animals are conscious, but they do probably not consider their lives absurd, because
their cognitive abilities are not large enough to allow them to ask the question of the meaning of
their lives. To feel absurd, a conscious being must have a certain level of emotional and cognitive
abilities. The sense of absurdity can arise in the mind that is aware of itself (self-conscious) and
has the ability to observe (contemplate) itself from a distant point of view (self-transcendence).
By such observation, a person realizes the irrelevance of her existence and sees the discrepancy
between her possibilities and desires, which creates the sense of absurdity in her.
The sense of discrepancy
5.25 - It has been said that the sense of absurdity arises in people in the encounter of human
sensibility and the insensibility of the universe. People have feelings, the universe shows no
feelings; the human mind desires to understand, the endless universe cannot be understood in its
entirety. The absurd drama and tragedy of human living and dying can be described in this way,
but I do not like such kind of explanation. I do not care much for the fact that the universe does
not show emotions toward me. I accept the fact that it is not possible to know everything and to
explain the origin of existence. Life is often frustrating, but what depresses me the most and
makes me feel absurd is my limitation in terms of duration. The sense of absurdity arises from the
discrepancy between human limitations and people's endless aspirations. The human mind desires
more than it achieved, and asks more than it can be answered. The human mind is a limited
phenomenon which yearns for infinity, which it can neither understand nor imagine.
5.26 - Their cognitive abilities allow people to transcend their current life by their thoughts
and imagination, and to observe (think of) themselves in a much wider context and from a large
temporal distance. We can reflect on our future life, on our future nonexistence, and on the world
in which we are no more. The sense of absurdity arises from the discrepancy of what we know
and what we desire. The sense of absurdity shows people's exceptional mental abilities, but this
does not make this sense pleasant. This sense shows that a cognitive and emotional advance may
103
bring more sadness than joy, and that it may not be sustainable. It has been said that we should be
proud of the fact that we are smart enough to feel absurd. But the fact that the mentally most
advanced beings feel absurd indicates that mental advance is not necessarily something good.
5.27 - It has been said that the sense of absurdity arises from the discrepancy between the se-
riousness with which we take our lives, and the awareness that in the wider context our lives look
irrelevant. We care a lot about our current activities; but observed from a temporal distance of a
thousand or million years, virtually all the present activities and lives look irrelevant. The more
temporally distant the point of observation is, the less important every activity and life looks;
from the viewpoint of eternity (if such a viewpoint can exist) nothing matters. The discrepancy
between the passions with which we are engaged in our present activities, and the awareness that
everything is ephemeral and moves toward its irrelevance and nonexistence, creates in us the
sense of absurdity of human passions, endeavours and lives. The situation can be described in this
way, but I would rather not explain the sense of absurdity in terms of activities. My activities may
not matter in thousand years' time, but they serve my needs now, so that I do not consider them
absurd because of the fact that they will be irrelevant and forgotten in the future.
5.28 - I argue that the sense of absurdity arises from the discrepancy between our desire to be
forever, and our awareness that we will vanish soon and forever, regardless of whether our deeds
will matter in the future or not. We know this and we are not able to change this fact. What makes
our passions, endeavours and lives absurd is the fact that we will cease to be, and vanish as if we
never existed. All our feelings and aspirations will vanish together with us, as if they never
existed. This is what makes human life absurd or simply a depressing phenomenon. I use the
concept "absurd" because this concept is generally used, but I prefer to call human life a depress-
ing phenomenon, because a lot of efforts are needed for it to grow; and when it develops fully, it
begins to decline and move toward its disappearance. To make the situation worse, this decline
and dying is often painful and humiliating.
5.29 - People are tiny specks in the infinity of space and time, which vanish as soon as they
appear; each life is a feeble flash in the infinite darkness. This is a direct reason for people to feel
their lives as absurd phenomena. Some claim that the limited duration is not what makes human
life absurd, and that if a finite life is absurd, an infinite life would be infinitely absurd. It is true
that infinite life can be meaningless and absurd in the same way as finite life can be. But the
above conclusion is not logically valid. People may consider life absurd precisely because it is
limited. In any case, the ephemerality of life is the most direct reason because of which people
have felt and considered human life absurd. People are finite beings with infinite aspirations, and
this creates a sense of absurdity in them; it is another matter how the infinite duration would
change the way people feel life.
5.30 - People have been aware of their ephemerality since the beginnings of their reflective
thinking, and this awareness has tormented them. They lamented their ephemeral lives and
inevitable death. They saw that life has been a depressing and often cruel phenomenon which
leads toward its decline and disappearance. People have sought ways of salvation and liberation
from this world of limitations, suffering and death. Life contains exciting and happy moments,
but as a whole, it does not look good. You can call it absurd, but I prefer to call it simply depress-
ing.
104
Absurdity is inherent to people
5.31 - People are finite beings with limited abilities and unlimited aspirations in terms of du-
ration, operative power, and knowledge. The discrepancy between human abilities and aspirations
creates in people a sense of frustration and absurdity. This seems rather obvious, but the situation
is actually much more difficult. We feel absurd in the reality we know; but we are not able to
imagine a reality in which a sensitive and reflective being would not feel absurd. Human limita-
tions manifest the problem of meaning and absurdity, but endless duration and limitless power
would not eliminate this problem. The life we know looks absurd to us; but we are not able to
imagine a reality in which a sensitive and reflective being would not feel absurd. The existing
reality is not good enough for us, but we are not able to imagine a reality in which we would live
in a lasting happiness and peace: a reality which would definitely satisfy our infinite yearnings
and our yearning for infinity.
5.32 - Omniscience and omnipotence cannot exist, because they lead to logical inconsisten-
cy. But also if we were given eternal duration and divine knowledge and power, we could not
answer to the question "why" ("what for") should we exist and why there is something instead of
nothing. We cannot imagine a reality in which such questions would be definitively answered or
could not be asked and would cease to exist. If the fact that we are not able to answer to such
questions makes us absurd, then we are inherently absurd beings, because such questions cannot
have definitive answers, and once they appear, they cannot be eliminated. Such questions could
be eliminated only by an essential limitation (crippling) of the mind in which they appeared. The
mind that asked such question cannot run away from them anymore.
5.33 - We say that human life is absurd, but we have not been able to say how life should
look like not to be absurd. It has been said that if we are not able to imagine a life which cannot
be considered absurd, then it makes no sense to call the existing life absurd. The claim that some
thing is yellow has a meaning and conveys an information only if there exists something that is
not yellow. Something can be considered absurd only in comparison with something that is not
absurd. This is correct; it is not possible to prove in an objective way that life is absurd. But the
sense of absurdity is a feeling, and if people have a feeling that human life is absurd, they have
the right to say that human life is absurd, regardless of the fact that this claim may be formally
problematic. Because feelings matter, and absurdity is a matter of feeling.
5.34 - People have tried to solve the problem of meaning and absurdity by means of trans-
cendent realities (paradise, moksa, nirvana) in which a person (soul, self) finds eternal bliss and
peace, and does not lack or ask anything anymore. But such transcendent realms and states are
creations of the human mind, led by yearning and imagination; there are no indications that they
exist, except in the space of abstract human creations. The human mind is a separation which
inherently asks and yearns, so that a realm and state in which a reflective mind would forever
stop asking and seeking cannot exist. The human mind is a unique phenomenon that always
yearns for the unreachable and inconceivable, so that it cannot feel definitively at home in any
space or state. This makes the human mind an inherently absurd phenomenon. The sense of
absurdity is the supreme expression of human cognitive and emotional abilities, which manifests
human greatness and human misery.
5.35 - The human mind feels absurd because reality does not satisfy its endless yearnings;
the human mind is absurd because it cannot imagine a reality in which it would dwell in a lasting
peace. By means of imagination, people created transcendent realms and states in which their
105
anxiety will be lastingly calmed and their yearning satisfied. People will be freed from the sense
of absurdity and enjoy everlasting bliss. But such splendid creations are vague; there is no way to
lastingly liberate a reflective mind from the sense of absurdity. For practical people, things such
as wealth, power, fame and a place in paradise may be enough to consider life good. But for a
reflective mind that inherently seeks and asks more than can be answered there is no lasting
peace.
Justification and creation
5.36 - The finiteness of life does not make human endeavours meaningless and life absurd,
says Thomas Nagel. Death prevents people from enjoying some results of their work, but life
consists mostly of activities which are useful and pleasant regardless of the finiteness of human
life. In spite of the absurdity of human life, it is reasonable to take care of oneself and of others.
"No further justification is needed to make it reasonable to take aspirin for a headache, attend an
exhibition of the work of a painter one admires, or stop a child from putting his hand on a hot
stove", says Nagel. The finiteness of our lives and the ephemerality of everything do not make
such acts meaningless. This is correct, but it misses the point. It is very reasonable to stop a child
from putting her hand on a hot stove, but this says nothing about the meaning and absurdity of
human life. A finite series of meaningful (reasonable) elements does not make the series itself
meaningful (reasonable) - especially not for those who consider this series meaningless for the
reason that it is finite.
5.37 - Nagel points out that every chain of explanations and justifications must end at some
point. He says: "If nothing can justify unless it is justified in terms of something outside itself,
which is also justified, then an infinite regress results, and no chain of justification can be com-
plete." This is correct; complete chains of justification may exist in formal systems; in general
explanations, such chains are incomplete, because for every justification (explanation) it is
possible to ask the question "why". But the fact that all chains of explanation (justification) are
incomplete (unfinished) does not mean that I should not consider or feel absurd the fact that I was
born yesterday and must die tonight. It seems that Nagel wants to say that I do not have the right
to ask for a definitive (complete) justification for my life, because such definitive (complete)
justification cannot exist. But I do have the right to consider my ephemeral appearance on the
stage of existence an absurd and depressing phenomenon. The fact that it is not possible to give a
definitive justification why I should live does not mean that I do not have the right to feel my
ephemeral life absurd.
5.38 - People inherently wish to last, but they know that they will vanish soon, often in a
miserable and painful way. This is a sufficient reason for considering human life an absurd and
depressing phenomenon. Human life is absurd because of the discrepancy between what people
yearn for and how their lives look like. People are not able to imagine a perfect existence (which
cannot be called absurd), but they are not happy with the reality of human life, which they know.
Human life and the reflective mind may simply be bad phenomena; they may be bad for them-
selves because they feel bad. The sense of absurdity is a subjective states: it is a matter of feeling;
there is no objective absurdity. People feel life as something absurd because they are getting old
and ill, and they must die. Life looks like a difficult journey which leads nowhere, and on which
all passengers are killed. The meaning and absurdity of life, as well as a meaningful behaviour,
are matters of feelings rather than of proofs, but they can be presented in a rational and clear way.
106
5.39 - It is not pleasant to feel absurd, but we should not make our situation even worse by
our response to our absurd reality. We should not spend lives in lamentations and in anger with
the reality which we cannot change. We ought to rise above our hopeless yearning for the trans-
cendent and its salvation, and accept the limitations that are inherent to human life. We ought to
consider life a challenge, and respond to this challenge in a constructive and benevolent way. We
ought to learn to enjoy our creative endeavours, in spite of the ephemerality of their results and of
our lives. We ought to take the absurdity of our lives as an invitation to play and create in the
desert of existence. This is how benevolent people have always lived their lives.
5.40 - Poets and sages created wondrous images of reality to conceal by them the frightening
emptiness of existence. Charming images shield people from the infinite emptiness and death, but
they limit their views and creative freedom. We ought to abandoned old illusions and free our
creative imagination, and fill existence by new creations. Those who discard transcendent illu-
sion, and aim to create a better and more poetic reality in this world, promote a heroic attitude
toward life. Such attitude accepts the reality of life and death, and aims to make life and the world
better and more beautiful by human creative endeavours and poetic imagination. By adopting the
heroic attitude toward life, people cease to be helpless victims, haunted by the shadow of death,
and become the players and creators who enjoy the wonder of existence as a play of becoming
and vanishing.
5.41 - A reflective mind is curious and restless, and it cannot stay idle; it always asks and
seeks. For such a mind, there is no final state in which it could stop to ask and seek, desire and
aim. Paradise would be boring for such a mind, and the unconceivable moksa and nirvana look
like a hibernation to such a mind. Eternal dwelling in such places and states looks boring and
even more absurd than the finite life in this world is. There is no lasting peace for the mind that is
inherently an asking separation, as the human mind is. A finite mind with infinite aspirations is
an unsolvable problem to itself. But the mind can use its power in different ways, and the way
matters. Human greatness and human misery are in the way in which people spend their ephem-
eral lives. We are inherently absurd beings, but we ought to learn to live as poets and creators.
Below the threshold of absurdity
5.42 - Lives of animal of many species look even more strange than Sisyphus' activity and
existence. Lives of many animals include enormous efforts and dangerous enterprises. Salmons
reproduce in rivers at rather high altitudes; the new generation then moves downstream, toward
ocean. After they spend a certain time in the ocean and grow up, they return into the river and
swim upstream, struggling to return to the place where their lives began. Those that succeed to
return to the place of their origin, produce offspring (fertilized eggs) there and die there. The
swimming upstream, against the current and obstacles, is hard and full of dangers, so that this
journey to the ocean and back looks very demanding and strange. Salmons do probably not think
much about the absurdity of their lives, but they should do that.
5.43 - Swallows fly over a large sea every autumn, and return back next spring to the place
from which they started their long journey. It is incredible that such small creatures can do such
impressive things - and it looks absurd that they have to do that to survive. This allows them to
produce offspring, which will have to do the same incredible things as their predecessors have
done. It can be said that this is normal life for swallows, and that this is how they live. But it
looks absurd (to me) that birds must fly to very distant places (and back) to survive. Maybe those
birds should have stayed at home from the beginning, and try to adapt to the life in winter condi-
107
tions. But maybe they would have perished if they were not doing what they have been doing. In
any case, I have an impression that evolution has produced all sorts of strange things and behav-
iours, many of which look absurd.
5.44 - The larva of a certain kind of cicada spends seventeen years under the ground, in
darkness, before it becomes a cicada and emerges to the light of day. It then lays eggs into the
ground, which will stay (develop) there next seventeen years in darkness; they will then emerge
as cicadas and lay their eggs into the ground, which will then pass the same incredible cycle. I am
truly impressed by the fact that something must spend seventeen years under the ground to
become a cicada, sing its simple song several times and vanish. I loved the singing of cicadas in
hot summer days at the time of my childhood, but I later ceased to pay attention to them. Since I
learned the incredible story about their life, I listen to their singing again. I am not impressed by
their musical skill, but I have a great respect and compassion for their long years spent in the
ground. I hope that the cicadas that live in my area do not spend so many years in the ground.
5.45 - Observed from the human point of view, efforts and lives of many animals and living
beings look strange and absurd. But this is a homocentric view. The sense of absurdity arises in
people because of the discrepancy between their aspirations and their reality; for animals, such
discrepancy does probably not exist. It seems that animals do not have sufficiently large cognitive
abilities to feel such a discrepancy, so that they do not feel anything as absurd, especially not
their natural behaviour and life. Those who say that animals love their lives such as they are,
speak in homocentric way too. I do not think that animals either love or hate their lives; they live
in the best way they can, without thinking much about the meaning and absurdity of life.
5.46 - We assume that only people know the sense of absurdity, and that other animals do
not consider or feel their strange endeavours and lives absurd. But we do actually not know what
fish, birds, cats, dogs and cicadas think of their lives. They do not seem able to think much, but
they may feel their lives in ways we do not know. It seems that animals are happy with their lives
and do not ask and need anything more than a favourable environment in which they can live. For
animals, a good life seems enough by itself; with people, this has not been so. People have always
complained about life and death; they have asked why do they suffer, live and die, and they have
not found satisfactory answers to such questions. Most people do not feel a desire to be a salmon,
swallow or cicada; if these creatures could know how people feel, it is equally likely that they
would not desire to be people.
5.3 Absurdity and society
5.47 - Why do we live if human life is absurd? It has been said that when people reached the
conclusion that human life was absurd, they should have acted in accordance with their conclu-
sion and eliminated this absurd phenomenon. But the absurdity of life is not a strong reason for
its deliberate elimination, because we all die also without that we deliberate eliminate ourselves.
Every life is a finite process which moves toward its end and disappearance. If the life of a person
becomes unbearably bad, it may be reasonable for that person to bring it to an end in some way;
but it would not make sense to do that for the reason that human life is absurd. People carry out
suicide for personal and social reasons, not because life is absurd. We speak of carrying out
suicide instead of committing suicide, because the claim that something is "committed" suggests
that this something is bad; the expression "to carry out" is neutral in terms of values.
108
Personal and social problems
5.48 - "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" - says Ca-
mus. - "Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental
question of philosophy". Scholastic souls have been impressed by this claim and made it famous.
But this dramatic claim is wrong; this claim is truly seriously wrong and misleading. The main
problems of humanity are violence, destruction and ignorance, and the misery and suffering that
violence, destruction and ignorance cause. Violence and destructive behaviour have shaped
human lives and history, and they have destroyed lives of numberless people who wished to live.
The same has been happening in the present time. Camus' discourse shows the inadequacy of
contemporary philosophical discourse. Dramatic claims bring fame, but they do not contribute to
the understanding and solving of essential problems.
5.49 - Camus says he wants to examine the relationship between the absurdity of human life
and suicide; he wants to discover to what degree is suicide a solution to the problem of absurdity.
I hold that the absurdity of human life, as existentialists describe it, does not have much to do
with suicide. People do not carry out suicide for the reason that life is absurd. People carry out
suicide when their lives become so bad and sad that they are not able to live anymore. A man
whom I knew carried out suicide after he was diagnosed with an incurable illness which brings a
lot of suffering and ends in death. Instead of undergoing painful and useless treatments, he was
courageous enough to quit his story. People do not carry out suicide because of "philosophical"
reasons; a great suffering and a hopeless situation create in people a mental state in which they
undertake this extreme act.
5.50 - The big problems of humanity are violence, destruction and ignorance, poverty and
suffering. The problem is the destruction of countless lives by violence, poverty and ignorance;
sporadic thoughts about suicide of confused scholastic souls and shallow thinkers are not a big
problem. Humanity must make constant efforts to change socioeconomic system and people's
behaviour in the way that minimizes suffering, ignorance, poverty, violence and destruction. On
the other hand, if a suicide is carried out for personal reasons, then this is a personal problem. If I
decide to bring my life to an end because of my health problems or because Yolanda does not
love me, this is a personal problem and a personal decision. Suicide by itself is not a relevant
philosophical issue, and is not the result of rational deliberation about the meaning and absurdity
of human life.
5.51 - Suicide may be the most dramatic thing that a person can do in her life and with her
life, but suicide is not a big philosophical issue. Suicide is a socioeconomic issue and the issue of
physical and mental condition of a person. A person carries out suicide when her life has become
unbearably bad and sad. From the philosophical perspective, suicide can be considered irrelevant,
because we all die and remain dead forever, regardless of whether we carry out suicide or not. In
any case, the absurdity of life does not mean that we should carry out suicide. Why should we do
that? What is wrong with living an absurd life (as described by existentialists) if you have the
possibility to keep company with good people, good poetry and good vine? We do not need to
hurry with the elimination of ourselves; we will die anyway. Until this happens, we can live,
since we have been here.
5.52 - In some novels, protagonists carried out suicide when they reached the conclusion that
there is no God and paradise. Some poets allegedly committed suicide for the same reason. They
considered the earthly life an agonizing journey toward the eternal bliss in the other world; when
109
they reached the conclusion that God and the other world do not exist, they considered that it
made no sense for them to continue this frustrating and painful journey toward nothingness. So
spoke and so behaved protagonists of some novels and some authors, but common people do not
carry out suicide for the reason that there is no paradise. The fact that there is no paradise and
eternal bliss is regrettable and depressing, but people do usually not carry out suicide for that
reason. And they do not need to do so.
5.53 - An excellent journalist and reporter, who saw too much evil, carried out suicide. In a
note he left, he wrote that he was haunted by the memories of the horrors he had seen, and that he
could not live with this any more. I sow some pictures he had taken as a journalist, and I can
understand him. It must be utterly depressing to watch monsters and their helpless victims, mad
killers, bodies smashed by bombs, people mutilated by torture, children dying of starvation, and
many other horrors of this world. Violence and destruction have been essential ingredients of the
lives of people and communities throughout history as well as in the present age. A great advance
of science and technology has not eliminated people's greed, vanity and madness. Only the sense
of mutual fear prevents most people and communities from behaving even worse than they have
been doing. These are the main problems of humanity.
Society and suffering
5.54 - People do not kill themselves because they discovered that life is absurd; they do that
because of their personal conditions or because of the extreme pressure of their environment. A
person may carry out suicide when something very bad and sad happened to her, that has caused
her more suffering than she can endure. Working and living conditions may become physically
and mentally extremely harsh and humiliating, and lead a person into suicide. Let me mention
one case that took place in Camus' country ten years ago (written in 2019). More than twenty
employees carried out suicide in one company in the period of a year and half. The media did not
speak of that, because in the "free world" the media do not speak of those things that power-
holders do not want to be spoken about. Finally, when a mother of two small children threw
herself through the window and died, the media mentioned that case; they also mentioned that
this was the twenty-third suicide in that company in recent time.
5.55 - I saw a report on a "free world" television about the suicide of an employee in China.
The report was very long and very touching. Family members were crying and lighting candles;
they spoke about their dear son, who lost his life and whom they lost. In the short report about the
suicide of the young French mother there were neither parents nor children; nobody was crying
and nobody lighted candles. It was mentioned that employees were under a constant stress related
to work and the restructuring of the company, and that they had to move from one city to other
often. A journalist dared to ask whether the boss of the company was considering the possibility
of resigning. "Why would he?" - ran the answer of the spokesperson of the company. Similar
tragic things have been happening constantly, but scholastic souls and the "free media" do not
speak about the suffering of common people.
5.56 - Market democracy produces sublime slogans about freedom, democracy and human
rights; but in reality, it has imposed a ruthless capitalism which destroys democracy, freedom and
human rights. There is a big difference between sublime slogans and ruthless reality. Regarding
the case mentioned above, a couple of weeks later the media reported that one more employee
carried out suicide in that company. I have not heard new reports after that, which does not mean
that there were no more victims. It is ugly and harmful to call such suicides a philosophical
110
problem. If a suicide is caused by ruthless socioeconomic conditions, then the problem are those
conditions, not the effect they have caused. The problem is not a suicide by itself, but the socio-
economic system which compels people to work and live in the way they consider humiliating
and unbearable.
5.57 - Some essential questions of the present age run as follows. Why has a huge advance in
knowledge and technology not been followed by the development of a socially more just and
compassionate society and humanity? In what way can societies and global public discourse
stimulate the development of more constructive relationships between people and communities?
Can people ever stop exploiting and destroying each other, and how can this be achieved? In
what way can people and communities be stimulated to live in a cooperative and constructive
way? Such issues are much more important than the issue of suicide by itself. Countless people
throughout history have not been given the possibility to live; they were born and they yearned
for life, and their will to live was endless; but their lives have been destroyed in various ways.
This is the most serious and the most terrible problem of humanity.
5.58 - Faces of those who are helpless and who suffer show a despair and call for help. Des-
perate children from all sides of the world, whose lives have been ruined by misery and violence,
watch us from screens; their eyes speak of life and of the world much stronger than a discourse of
mediocre thinkers do. Those eyes mirror the misery of the world and of its thinkers and of its
actors. Why have those children been given life if the world is not able or willing to offer them
anything but suffering, despair and death? The absurdity of life is a minor issue in the world in
which there are countless people who desperately desire to live, but have not been given a possi-
bility to live. The most serious question that humanity must face is how to stop the destruction of
lives of those who wish to live. The other big problem is how to keep the production of new
people in certain sustainable limits.
5.59 - Physical and mental violence of various kinds have shaped lives of most people
throughout history, and they destroyed countless lives. Many have preached peace, but they have
attacked others when they felt strong enough to do so. This is the biggest problem of humanity.
Suicide by itself is a relatively small problem; few people carry out suicide, and at the end we all
die. The act of suicide must be terrible, but it does usually not last long; violence and suffering
often kill slowly and last the entire life. Suicide is a very sad thing, but it confirms the individuali-
ty and the will of the person who carries it out. A destruction of life of other person is a radical
negation of the individuality and will of that person. Socioeconomic system must protect people
from exploitation, oppression and violence, but it has never done that to a sufficient extent; it has
usually supported oppression and violent behaviour.
Life and death as duty
5.60 - Suicide used to be considered a grave sin against God and community, and it still is
considered such by religions and other institutions. In spite of the adverse social environment for
such a discourse, David Hume defended the right to suicide. He points out that no person throws
away her life as long as she considers her life worth living. Our natural terror of death is so strong
that no person would discard life and embrace death without a very strong reason. But when
misery, sickness or a big misfortune transform life into an unbearable burden which is worse than
nonexistence, suicide may become not only justified, but also our duty toward ourselves and
others. Hume is right. When the life of a person becomes a painful burden for herself and for
others, her emotions and reason may give the person a courage to bring such a life to an end. It is
111
hard to say farewell to life, even when it would be reasonable to do so, but every person ought to
be given the right to do so.
5.61 - Immanuel Kant wrote good things about the nature and limits of human knowledge,
but his discourse about suicide is dogmatic. If I understand his sophisticated discourse properly,
he claims that it is immoral to carry out suicide, even when the life of a person has become very
painful and humiliating. Suicide is the violation of the highest duty that we have toward our-
selves, which is to protect and preserve our life, says Kant. At the same time, he argues that we
have certain duties toward society, which may require from us to put our lives at great risk; we
must fulfil those duties, regardless of how dangerous for our lives this may be. In other words,
you are not allowed to kill yourself under any circumstances; but you must be ready to go to war
and give your life for your king and kingdom. This is political discourse. People have always
been compelled to kill and to die for kings and kingdoms. But it is unfair and ugly to claim that it
is immoral to carry out suicide in any circumstances, and that it is our duty to give our lives for
the greed, vanity and madness of our rulers.
5.62 - If a person kills her body, and with this destroys her life, she does this by the use of
her free will, which is itself destroyed in that process, says Kant. "But to use the power of a free
will for its own destruction is self-contradictory", he concludes. This claim or conclusion (based
on something) is simply wrong. There is no contradiction in the will of the free will to destroy
itself. Let me mention that the concept "free will" is extremely vague; to me, this concept signi-
fies nothing, but this is not important for this discussion. There is simply no self-contradiction in
the will of the free will to destroy itself: a free will is free to do whatever it wants. Second, the
free will does not aim simply to destroy itself, but to spare itself of further hopeless suffering and
humiliations. A person carries out suicide when she does not have any possibility to live in an
endurable and acceptable way.
5.63 - I consider immoral to call suicide immoral. I consider immoral to condemn those who
carry out suicide, instead of condemning the conditions which led them to do that. Every suicide
is a painful and sad event, but we should deal with its causes rather than condemn it, because
suicide is the consequence of those causes. It is immoral and cruel to compel people to continue
to live in the situation when their life has become a painful burden to themselves and to others,
and when there is no chance that their situation could get better. It is cruel not to allow euthanasia
for those people who accepted it earlier, when they were younger and healthy. On the other hand,
it seems moral and courageous to bring one's own life to an end - with a medical assistance or
without it - when this life is reduced to a hopeless suffering. I do not advocate or recommend
suicide, but I hold that such an act can be considered reasonable in some situations, and should
not be condemned.
5.64 - A very strong argument for the right to suicide runs as follows. We have been brought
into existence without a question and without our consent. It is fair, to say the least, to give each
of us the right and possibility to cease to exist when we consider that we have sufficient reasons
to do so. Without that, life looks like a forced labour and torture. A person who does not want to
endure any more the suffering that her life has inflicted on her, must have the right to withdraw
from the space of existence, with dignity and respect. This right must be considered one of the
basic human rights and moral principles.
112
Reason and feelings
5.65 - There are claims that it is never rational to want to die, and that suicide is always an ir-
rational act, regardless of the state of the person and of the situation in which she finds herself.
This is a dogmatic discourse and it looks irrational. Why should a person continue to live in the
state of lasting suffering and in a hopeless and humiliating situation? It is irrational to call irra-
tional the decision of a person to spare herself and others from further suffering. It is less rational
and more irrational to continue to live when life has been irreversibly reduced to suffering and a
painful burden for everybody. I wish to live and I wish to be forever. But when a life is not a real
life any more, a rational and moral decision would be to carry out that what will happen anyway
rather soon. Most of us may not be able to do that, but it is cruel to compel people to endure
suffering and humiliation longer than they are willing to do that. Suicide is a sad event, but it can
be a rational, moral, unselfish and very courageous act. People hate suicide because it reminds
them of the fact that life is not so nice as we have been told it is and as we wish it to be.
5.66 - Reason by itself does not know values and has no aims; vales and aims are set and
chosen by feelings. Reason may show that life is absurd, but our desire to live and to be makes us
to struggle for life and to live. If feelings becomes very bad (painful and humiliating) they may
require from reason to terminate the life that produces them. And reason will do what the feelings
require it to do. Reason tries to carry out the task that emotions requires it to carry out; such a
task may be the termination of suffering by the termination of life that produces the suffering.
The value of life and the terror of death are a matter of feelings rather than of reason and its
calculations. Reason makes the situation clearer by showing what losses and what benefits each
of the possible choices brings, but feelings decide and choose. People are led by feelings; in some
situations, some feelings can overcome the inherent will to live and to be.
5.67 - Some resolute souls argue that when a person sees that her life has approached its end,
and that a further duration leads only to suffering and humiliation, the person should take the
agonizing decision and carry out suicide. This may be the most difficult moment that a person
can experience, but by such a decision and act she can spare herself of worse things which she
will be compelled to experience if she does not carry out this act. Suicide may be considered the
most resolute defence of human life and dignity. However, it is hard to say when it is the right
time to take this action. It is hard to say this for others, and it is probably even harder to say this
for oneself. As long as a person is mentally and physically able to evaluate her situations and to
carry out demanding operations, she normally wants to live. The time for suicide has not come
yet. When a person loses the mentioned abilities, she is probably not able to carry out suicide
anymore. This is one of the paradoxes or ironies of life: either it is not time yet to give up life, or
it is too late because we are not able to do that anymore.
5.68 - Famous pessimists, such as Solomon, Schopenhauer, Tolstoy and others, have not dis-
carded life and carried out suicide. Tolstoy says that religion (faith) has been the force that has
borne all people on the waves of life. But Salomon and Schopenhauer were not religious (believ-
ers) in the sense Tolstoy tried to be, but I doubt he managed to become. The will to live is not a
matter of faith; it is an inherent feature of life itself. Living beings inherently struggle for life, and
avoid death as long as they can. Tolstoy struggled with suicide for many years; he survived
because he was an animal which wished to live, rather than because he discovered the meaning
and value of life in religion. But the will to live and to be does not mean that life is worth living.
Those who are addicted stick to their addiction, but this does not mean that addiction is good.
Whether life is worthwhile or not is a question to which every person must answer for herself. I
113
have an impression that most of us wish to live for the simple reason that we are living beings,
not because we are happy with our lives.
5.69 - "A hundred times I wished to kill myself, but my love of life persisted" - laments a
woman in Voltaire's Candide. Why do we cling to life and go on carrying this painful burden?
Why do we "cherish the serpent that devours us, until it has eaten our hearts?" - asks the woman.
The answer to such questions may run as follows. What bounds us to life is not love, but the
inherent will to live and to be. Life began much before the human reason was developed, that
revealed to people that life was absurd. The will to live and to be makes us cling to life and go on
carrying this painful burden as long as we can.
5.4 The art of irony
5.70 - Let us try to see what irony actually means. A poetic soul says that "to contemplate a
situation with irony" means to admit that facts are such as they are, and to "respond in an appre-
ciative way to their incongruous aspects as such" with a smile, "but a somewhat tired smile, with
a touch both of gentleness and mischievousness in it, as befitting the expression of a tempered
pleasure". This is a skilled description, but I am not sure that I am skilled enough to apply it in a
proper way in encounters with the reality of life and death. Another description says that the
ironic view of life manifests itself as "an attitude of detached awareness of incongruity" and "a
state of mind halfway between seriousness and playfulness". The tension between these opposed
tendencies which pull in opposite directions "creates at least temporarily a kind of mental equilib-
rium".
5.71 - Speaking in a less poetic terms, advocates of ironic attitude toward life point out that
we cannot change certain depressing features of our reality; but we should respond to this reality
in a moderate way, by our emotions and reason, because this is the best we can do. We must
admit that facts are such as they are, and that we do not like them, but we should not make too
big drama about that. Instead of this, we must take our reality with a "gentle and mischievous"
smile, or simply with a dose of irony. This will not change our objective reality, but it will make
our experience of living more pleasant or less unpleasant. Such view seems reasonable in princi-
ple; the question is what effects it can produce in practice.
Seriousness and futility
5.72 - It has been said that most people feel on occasion that life is absurd, and some people
feel this intensely and constantly. We dedicate big attention to various events and to our activi-
ties; we must do so in order to live and protect our lives. At the same time, we are able to con-
template our activities and lives from a temporally distant point of view, and to see how irrele-
vant they look when observed from su