Philosophical Justifications for the Meaning of Life: St. Paul, MacIntyre, and Kurtz
The religious (and, to an extent, political) believers seek to return to some simplicity of values. Whether it is the Christian God of St. Paul or the heroic tales extolled as virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, there is a craving for cut and dry values intended to give meaning for life. St. Paul, like many other Christian writers, sought to spread his word to all that could hear. In his “Letter to the Corinthians,” he chastises those in Corinth who have sought alternate paths to salvation. Paul strikes against idolatry and polygamy, preaching for a return to God. Paul is an example of the religious want of simple, divine plans for humanity.
Similar to Paul’s “Letters,” Alasdair MacIntyre seeks a return to unified virtue. MacIntyre is very dramatic in describing the modern world as besieged by barbarians, representative of the moral confusion of freedom and liberty. MacIntyre praises the virtue of Homer’s heroic tales because social order and morality were united. Distinctions of religion, political affiliation, or nationality did not necessarily exist because Homeric society was isolated. MacIntyre proves to be a worthy advocate for this return to a heroic society of courage, kinship, and valor.
In the humanity camp, Paul Kurtz shatters the fragile image of religious meaning by praising secular meaning. Loving life for the sake of living is Kurtz’ maxim. Achieving the potential of humanity’s altruism and tolerance is what gives Kurtz his exuberance for living. Kurtz deconstructs religious and political foundations of meaning to be too uncertain a ground for living. This is because mankind is made to be subservient to these ideas (to God and to country). Kurtz stands tall as the iconoclastic fighter for secular humanism.
The common thread of any argument for the meaning of life is a return to simplicity. Kurtz wants us to look to ourselves for some degree of meaning. Paul and MacIntyre want a return to the simplicities of God and Homer, respectively. But, to truly achieve simplicity, we must return to a more natural state. Life only has meaning if we realize where we are born from and that we will die. Conceptions of these ideas are difficult when many of us have rarely, if at all, been amongst nature. Our artificial bodies of meaning, such as God and “living for the love of living,” are merely illusions. If we are to truly appreciate our lives, we must embrace our true nature.
I believe that if we could leave behind the created wealth and “well being” that is now part of us, our lives would be full of meaning. Surviving the natural habitat would be part of defining ourselves as humans. Surviving the natural habitat of the forest, desert, and tundra cultivates our innate sense of survival and kinship. Returning to nature is our only hope of creating meaning in our lives. The arguments against my point are obvious. First, our society is very reliant on technology, to the point that it is tied intimately with our survival. Second, we are human beings, capable of advanced reasoning and more intelligent than the animals around us. Finally, that merely returning to nature is not conducive to value and meaning.
To the first point, I would say that is true. We are now weaker and more dependant on our creation. But isn’t it possible that as creators we can subdue the machine’s capabilities? If not, technology has mastered mankind and we do not have meaning anyway as slaves of our own invention. We are masters of machines and if we choose to return to nature by some popular will, then it will be done. To the second point, it is true enough that we are capable of higher reasoning than most animals. Does that require our total dominance and destruction of nature? I would say no. We are born to a planet capable of supporting us yet we seek to disable it for our beneit. That seems destructive and regressive.
To the final point, meaning and value come from our natural tendencies. Animals (including humans) seek to save families and those in their group. Animals use resources available to build a better life. Both of these values, family and living well, are drawn from natural tendencies. I believe that my contention has been adequately resolved in light of differing opinions. As the 21st century progresses, more and more people will flock to religious and political groups for meaning. In doing so, they will move away from simplicity and into the dangerous consequences of social disorder.
