Life after death - Is Life ultimately absurd?

[Eugene I]

In regard to the question of telos/meaning of life, there seems to exist these two opposite extremes that I sketched below. Apart from the metaphysical side, there is definitely a strong psychological aspect of this problem due to humans deep psychological need of and yearning for the meaning of life.

1. Teleological absolutism: there is an Absolute Telos and Meaning, be it defined by God or be it some intrinsic or ontic property of the Ultimate Reality. It's an easy answer to the humans' psychological need, but at the same time it compromises and limits our other psychological need - a need for freedom. An Absolute telos/meaning is obviously a limitation of cosmic and individual freedom - everything and everyone has to obey the telos, there is no other way. In a way it's the ultimate dictatorship of the Absolute Telos. In traditional Christian terms you ether obey the will of God or end up in hell, and of course it may be over-simplified picture, but ultimately it illustrates the dichotomy of every teleologically absolutistic scheme.

2. Teleological absurdism: there is no absolute telos and meaning, and therefor life is totally meaningless, pointless and absurd. Such views were explored by Camus and Sartre, but they are not common to existentialism in general.

Obviously the question is metaphysical and the therefore the definite answer to it is unknown. Both of the above positions are unfalsifiable. You asked my personal opinion and here it is. I personally highly value freedom and that is why the teleological absolutism does not appeal to me (although I can not disprove it because it is unfalsifiable). However, absurdism is not the only alternative to absolutism. If there is no absolute meaning or purpose, that does not mean that there is no meaning or purpose at all. It simply means that there can be a large variety of meanings or purposes with full freedom to choose between them. Consciousness (including the human's one) has an ability to define meanings for itself. Why do the meanings/purposes necessarily need to be "absolute" in order to be valid or meaningful? If a meaning is not absolute, it does not mean that it is invalid or absurd. It can still be fully valid and can be fully meaningful for me or you if we choose it to be the meaning or purpose in our life. And if over the course of the development of our individual consciousness we find that the older meanings that we previously defined or found for ourselves no longer make sense or serve us, we are free to change them and to find other meanings and goals more appropriate for our current developmental stage. It may sound like "teleological relativism", and in a way it is relativistic in a sense of being opposite to absolutistic. But of course realistically it is never fully relativistic because there are still certain selection criteria and mechanisms that differentiate between "good" and "bad" meanings and purposes and naturally guide us. We conscious beings suffer and harm others when we choose bad and selfish meanings or purposes, but we learn from that suffering and adapt to chooses better meanings that and more adaptive and efficient for our individual and collective development. This adaptive mechanism guides us in our development without restricting the freedom, and in a way, as a guiding principle and guiding mechanism, it can be called a "developmental telos".

[AshvinP]

In regard to the question of telos/meaning of life, there seems to exist these two opposite extremes that I sketched below. Apart from the metaphysical side, there is definitely a strong psychological aspect of this problem due to humans deep psychological need of and yearning for the meaning of life.

1. Teleological absolutism: there is an Absolute Telos and Meaning, be it defined by God or be it some intrinsic or ontic property of the Ultimate Reality. It's an easy answer to the humans' psychological need, but at the same time it compromises and limits our other psychological need - a need for freedom. An Absolute telos/meaning is obviously a limitation of cosmic and individual freedom - everything and everyone has to obey the telos, there is no other way. In a way it's the ultimate dictatorship of the Absolute Telos. In traditional Christian terms you ether obey the will of God or end up in hell, and of course it may be over-simplified picture, but ultimately it illustrates the dichotomy of every teleologically absolutistic scheme.

There is no point examining whether it fulfills a 'psychological need', because, as you point out, everything can be said to fulfill some psychological need or another. And, under idealism, I would suggest that psychological needs are generally pointing towards something true.

You also need to examine your axioms here. They are rationalist axioms - 'freedom' and 'fate' are mutually exclusive in your view above. Many idealist thinkers have reached the conclusion that they are polar forces, i.e. the Absolute Telos is what actualizes (spiritual) Freedom and vice versa. That will clearly require more discussion if you disagree that they are polarities rather than mutually exclusive opposites.

[Eugene I]

That will clearly require more discussion if you disagree that they are polarities rather than mutually exclusive opposites.

They can be pointers to ontic realities, or pointers to relative realities (such as archetypes) or pointers simply pointing to some collectively shared mind-created meanings. Whether the Absolute Telos (where those pointers point to) is actual ontic reality or a relative reality or an archetype or a collective meaning - we do not know. The difference between the ontic reality and relative/phenomenal one (that includes archetypal) is that the ontic one has no alternative, while the relative one has alternatives. For example, the Beingness or Awareness of Consciousness has no alternative, because Consciousness can't not "be" or not be aware, it onticly exist and can't not exist and not be aware. There is no polarity to beingness and awareness. But any relative forms may and typically do have alternatives - they can exist or be realized in different ways, or may not exist at all, and they can be realized in forms of polarities . So the question is: to which category the telos belongs? If the telos can be realized in multiple alternative ways or in polarities, then it is not absolute/ontic and belongs to the realm of relative of forms.

[AshvinP]

That will clearly require more discussion if you disagree that they are polarities rather than mutually exclusive opposites.

They can be pointers to ontic realities, or pointers to relative realities (such as archetypes) or pointers simply pointing to some collectively shared mind-created meanings. Whether the Absolute Telos (where those pointers point to) is actual ontic reality or a relative reality or an archetype or a collective meaning - we do not know. The difference between the ontic reality and relative/phenomenal one (that includes archetypal) is that the ontic one has no alternative, while the relative one has alternatives. For example, the Beingness or Awareness of Consciousness has no alternative, because Consciousness can't not "be" or not be aware, it onticly exist and can't not exist and not be aware. There is no polarity to beingness and awareness. But any relative forms may and typically do have alternatives - they can exist or be realized in different ways, or may not exist at all, and they can be realized in forms of polarities . So the question is: to which category the telos belongs? If the telos can be realized in multiple alternative ways or in polarities, then it is not absolute/ontic and belongs to the realm of relative of forms.

Before we get too far sidetracked here, let me rephrase my earlier point as a simple question - do you believe "fate" excludes the reality of "freedom", i.e. more fate means less freedom and vice versa? That is what I got from your earlier post.

[DavidSchuy]

"Many existential philosophers were arguably idealists, such as Kierkegaard, {maybe) Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Jaspers, W. James, H. Arendt, Colin Wilson, Paul Tillich."

Do or did these existential philosophers really entertain objective/subjective idealism, meaning that all is consciousness?

Yes, most of them did to my knowledge. Some of them less explicitly than others. I would also add some depth psychologists to that list, such as Carl Rogers, Jean Piaget and Carl Jung. From what I can tell based on his writings, Jung was an objective idealist. His writings also speak the best to the question of meaning in the world which every individual can access, since he was a clinical psychologist.

"There is nothing incompatible between the two. Objective idealism does not necessarily conclude there is transcendent meaning in life or in the world, but I believe it comes very close to that conclusion. And obviously there have been a whole lot of religious idealists who would agree."

I sometimes think or rather hope that there is a reason or better saying meaning and purpose for our existence. But I often doubt it. Can you help me in this regard? Is there a meaning; what do you personally think? I am very interested.

Or can you perhaps not deal with the absurdity of life and existence? I mean, as you've said. Idealism does not necessarily imply that there is meaning and purpose.

Maybe the consciousness is all there is and ever was and ever will be... Only that it appears physical with absolute absurdity.

I personally believe that there is ultimate meaning and purpose. The best source I can recommend is the Bible. When the Biblical stories are viewed through the lens of objective idealism, it becomes inescapable that there is a telos to all of this, i.e. ultimate meaning and purpose. And the best source I have found for an 'idealist' view of the Biblical stories is Jordan Peterson (a 'psychological' interpretation of the stories is, in essence, an idealist interpretation). You can find all of his lectures on the Biblical stories on YouTube. Countless people have testified to how their faith in a meaningful Universe was restored after listening to these lectures. I am embedding the one I think will be most helpful, but I recommend you check them all out when you can.

Thank you so much for this view and information! I highly appreciate it!

[DavidSchuy]

In regard to the question of telos/meaning of life, there seems to exist these two opposite extremes that I sketched below. Apart from the metaphysical side, there is definitely a strong psychological aspect of this problem due to humans deep psychological need of and yearning for the meaning of life.

1. Teleological absolutism: there is an Absolute Telos and Meaning, be it defined by God or be it some intrinsic or ontic property of the Ultimate Reality. It's an easy answer to the humans' psychological need, but at the same time it compromises and limits our other psychological need - a need for freedom. An Absolute telos/meaning is obviously a limitation of cosmic and individual freedom - everything and everyone has to obey the telos, there is no other way. In a way it's the ultimate dictatorship of the Absolute Telos. In traditional Christian terms you ether obey the will of God or end up in hell, and of course it may be over-simplified picture, but ultimately it illustrates the dichotomy of every teleologically absolutistic scheme.

2. Teleological absurdism: there is no absolute telos and meaning, and therefor life is totally meaningless, pointless and absurd. Such views were explored by Camus and Sartre, but they are not common to existentialism in general.

Obviously the question is metaphysical and the therefore the definite answer to it is unknown. Both of the above positions are unfalsifiable. You asked my personal opinion and here it is. I personally highly value freedom and that is why the teleological absolutism does not appeal to me (although I can not disprove it because it is unfalsifiable). However, absurdism is not the only alternative to absolutism. If there is no absolute meaning or purpose, that does not mean that there is no meaning or purpose at all. It simply means that there can be a large variety of meanings or purposes with full freedom to choose between them. Consciousness (including the human's one) has an ability to define meanings for itself. Why do the meanings/purposes necessarily need to be "absolute" in order to be valid or meaningful? If a meaning is not absolute, it does not mean that it is invalid or absurd. It can still be fully valid and can be fully meaningful for me or you if we choose it to be the meaning or purpose in our life. And if over the course of the development of our individual consciousness we find that the older meanings that we previously defined or found for ourselves no longer make sense or serve us, we are free to change them and to find other meanings and goals more appropriate for our current developmental stage. It may sound like "teleological relativism", and in a way it is relativistic in a sense of being opposite to absolutistic. But of course realistically it is never fully relativistic because there are still certain selection criteria and mechanisms that differentiate between "good" and "bad" meanings and purposes and naturally guide us. We conscious beings suffer and harm others when we choose bad and selfish meanings or purposes, but we learn from that suffering and adapt to chooses better meanings that and more adaptive and efficient for our individual and collective development. This adaptive mechanism guides us in our development without restricting the freedom, and in a way, as a guiding principle and guiding mechanism, it can be called a "developmental telos".

Also, a huge thanks to you, Eugene! Since I highly appreciate your reply and can also identify myself very very strong with your view! Please, if you have more information regarding Sartre and Camus and that there is no need for an ultimate purpose or meaning, let's hear!
I am very interested in the personal opinions from all here because everyone has a deep knowledge who is interested in this topics...

Thanks!

[Eugene I]

Before we get too far sidetracked here, let me rephrase my earlier point as a simple question - do you believe "fate" excludes the reality of "freedom", i.e. more fate means less freedom and vice versa? That is what I got from your earlier post.

Of course unlimited freedom is impossible and it is always limited, and fate is one of its limitations. However, fate is different from absolute telos and absolute meaning, especially within the framework of idealism. Fate is circumstantial, natural and non-mental, absolute telos is non-circumstantial and non-natural and mental, at least in idealism. In idealism telos is the law, the goal and the meaning established by some higher intelligence, but there can be different scenarios of it depending if the participation of individuated conscious beings in complying with such telos is voluntary or not. If it is voluntary then it does not limit the freedom, and vice versa.

[AshvinP]

Before we get too far sidetracked here, let me rephrase my earlier point as a simple question - do you believe "fate" excludes the reality of "freedom", i.e. more fate means less freedom and vice versa? That is what I got from your earlier post.

Of course unlimited freedom is impossible and it is always limited, and fate is one of its limitations. However, fate is different from absolute telos and absolute meaning, especially within the framework of idealism. Fate is circumstantial, natural and non-mental, absolute telos is non-circumstantial and non-natural and mental, at least in idealism. In idealism telos is the law, the goal and the meaning established by some higher intelligence, but there can be different scenarios of it depending if the participation of individuated conscious beings in complying with such telos is voluntary or not. If it is voluntary then it does not limit the freedom, and vice versa.

Alright then forget the word "fate" and let's go with "Absolute Telos". I agree the latter is 'non-circumstantial' (but I don't know what non-natural and non-mental means in this context, so I'm dropping that). The most simple translation would be an "eternal purpose". My overall point is that the eternal purpose is what imbues our actions with freedom, and our free actions are what constellate eternal purpose. They are inseparable forces. We could restate it this way - if there is no goal you are acting towards, then your actions become meaningless. They are simply necessitated by some amorphous 'impulse' to act, which I would say is anathema to freedom.

[Simon Adams]

1. Teleological absolutism: there is an Absolute Telos and Meaning, be it defined by God or be it some intrinsic or ontic property of the Ultimate Reality. It's an easy answer to the humans' psychological need, but at the same time it compromises and limits our other psychological need - a need for freedom. An Absolute telos/meaning is obviously a limitation of cosmic and individual freedom - everything and everyone has to obey the telos, there is no other way. In a way it's the ultimate dictatorship of the Absolute Telos. In traditional Christian terms you ether obey the will of God or end up in hell, and of course it may be over-simplified picture, but ultimately it illustrates the dichotomy of every teleologically absolutistic scheme.

I think that’s a strange understanding of both teleos and of free will (although I know it’s not uncommon). From Plato’s perspective this seems to be confusing material causes with final causes. The final cause is to be a ‘true’ human (Plato would have used the word ‘good’, but from a modern sense I think ‘true’ is maybe a closer translation?). From a Christian perspective you could say this would be to love god and love all creatures, or as Augustine put it;

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

But this says nothing about whether we have free will. It just says that we have a purpose, and we will only really be the full embodiment of our true nature when we are aligned with that purpose.

Of course you can say that this means we are not free to be spiteful and hateful, but of course we are. It’s just that it would not be true to our purpose, and so would cause us problems (as any psychologist would agree, even if they wouldn’t frame it as our teleos).

[SanteriSatama]

Telos. In traditional Christian terms you ether obey the will of God or end up in hell

O Lord, our heart is restless until it rests in resistance to you and all the hells you create.