About the meaning of life and its absence

About the meaning of life and its absence
Yuri Shestopaloff

A note: This article was automatically translated from the earlier published Russian version at proza.ru/2023/11/16/190. The translation is not perfect, but it conveys ideas of the paper reasonably well, while distorting some language subtleties or providing incorrect wording, especially when the same Russian word has several distinct meanings (like when the same word "образование" denotes both education, formation and something evolving).

The question of the meaning of life is asked by not as few people as it might seem at a first glance. Many find the answer very quickly, grounding it in specific achievements in comparison with other people. If in the eyes of such people the bar is reached or exceeded, life is good. For example, one rose to the rank of major or became an assistant professor, received a medal, raised many normal children, and the like. Some try to dig deeper, looking for the answer in the works of scientists - usually philosophers, psychologists (although psychology is such a science I doubt it can provide the answer), in the reasoning of famous people - scientists, politicians, entrepreneurs (that is, those who are well-known and visible) , as well as in religious and occult teachings. There are also those who believe that popular singers and artists can also shed light on this interesting question. It's their right to think so. That is, basically people, consciously or subconsciously, somehow solve for themselves (and partly for their loved ones) the problem of the meaning of life, and with that they continue or end it. By and large, there are as many opinions as there are people.
       Before moving on, we need to define the very concept of “meaning” in the context of the question posed. Meaning, on the one hand, presupposes intention. On the other hand, this word presupposes the certainty of the final result and its expediency in accordance with some pre-established criteria. So, overall we have:
       (1) intention;
       (2) certainty of the expected result;
       (3) feasibility;
       (4) availability of a priori criteria.
      
       These conditions are necessary. In other words, if there is meaning in something, then this “something” contains these characteristics. We will not raise the question of the sufficiency of these criteria for the presence of meaning; we will not need it.
      
       Is there a universal answer to the question about the meaning of life? I think there is no such answer. And in principle it cannot be. Life is a multidimensional, multifactor phenomenon and - what may be most important in this matter - exists at different levels of generality. The answer to a specific person’s question about his meaning of life may correlate with the concept of the meaning of life of the ethnic community, but it may also have nothing in common with it, and may even be the opposite of it. The meaning of life of state formation, as it is presented by public sentiment, may well be in conflict with the goals and meaning of existence of the earthly civilization, if such is present in some form. (There are simply a lot of examples of any freshness, from prehistoric to future decades, when today we can already say what will happen in the darkness of the coming years.)
       It should also be noted that there is a high degree of subjectivity in the answers to this question, since many people, as they say, dance from the stove, that is, they proceed from their needs and desires, often subconscious. So if we survey the original landscape of the problem as described above, then the prospects of illuminating it entirely with the radiance of truth seem very doubtful. Nevertheless, people manage to travel without a compass even in difficult conditions (I did this myself), and you can try to see something even in such a situation.
      
       Methodology
       In this case, you can use an inductive approach, rising from the particular to the general, a deductive approach, when knowledge about the particular is derived from general knowledge, or a combination of both. Given the confusion at the lower level, there is a proposal to start from the top. (Generally speaking, questions of methodology are important, but their importance is relative to the extent that “all roads lead to Rome,” that is, to a more or less objective understanding of the questions posed.)
      
       Life as a form of matter
       At a general level, the situation looks like this. There is matter, the most important property of which is movement. (Moreover, this is such an important property that if there is no movement, then there is no matter. In one of the books I attached movement to the definition of matter, gave a justification, and still do not abandon this view. However, for this article there is no need to delve into such innovative thoughts.) Matter moves in accordance with the laws of nature. Living beings (what they are is also a question, but there is no need for us to go into this jungle here), this is one of the forms of matter, and therefore cannot be controlled by anything other than the laws of nature. These laws are not all known, and even moreover, all of them will never be known. Here we involuntarily and out of necessity intrude into the field of epistemology, the theory of knowledge. My premise here is that matter is infinite, at least in some aspects - for example, in forms of transformation (remember that matter is always moving), which means there will always be something that we do not yet know about. However, for practical purposes, knowledge adequate to our tasks and needs is sufficient, and this is already feasible in many cases.
       Returning to the laws of nature, it becomes clear that life in a general sense has exactly the same meaning as the laws of nature have meaning. But the laws of nature, in accordance with criteria 1-4, do not make sense. They also don't make sense from a common sense point of view (for further verification.) What sense does Newton's Second Law make? None. This is a law of nature, which mechanical phenomena of nature cannot but obey in a certain range of parameters. Mechanical phenomena have no other options in this case. Another example. What is the point of condensation of water vapor and precipitation? We can answer that in maintaining the water cycle in nature. But it just happened that way, the totality of the laws of nature worked mutually, without any intention, without satisfying any of the four criteria. And it turns out that life as a form of matter in itself has no meaning.
       Life cannot help but change, since movement is an integral property of matter. The life around us is changing in one way. If conditions had changed at some point, it would have changed differently. If a meteorite had not hit the tip of Yucatan (a peninsula in southern Mexico, in the Gulf of Mexico) 66 million years ago, earthly life would have had a different evolutionary path. Happening. On the other hand, under the conditions that existed on the Earth, aggregation of cells into larger formations could not help but occur, which gradually acquired qualitatively new characteristics and became multicellular organisms. In this (and in many other) senses there was certainty. That is, we have randomness and certainty. Or randomness within a certain range of possible outcomes. The balance of both, the measure. Neither one nor the other is important. Complete equality, if anyone likes this terminology. As it goes, so it goes. This is the same case when “eat what you are given”. Nucleotides, RNA, DNA - this happened due to the properties of electronic shells and nuclei in chemical elements, the properties of the molecules formed from them. One went to another, came to a third, and a more or less stable formation emerged. Gradually - both randomly and deterministically. Deterministic, for example, because two strands of DNA will be linked by molecular bonds so that a double helix is formed. And by chance, for example, because conditions on Earth turned out to be such that it became possible for the creation and existence of such a complex chemical compound for quite a long time.
       About intelligence. Matter, constantly interacting with other matter, changes additionally from such interaction. Such interaction cannot help but change it. Only in this way can the fact of interaction itself be registered. This property of matter is called reflection. As matter changes, the forms of reflection change, and to the simple ones (stone on stone, a physical trace remains) other forms of reflection are added, including biological ones, in the form of sensory organs, neurons and their combinations. As long as conditions allow, and as long as there are stimuli, reflecting matter, for example, the human brain, will change towards a more adequate reflection of the environment (in philosophy they use the term “objective reality”). The very fact of such a “reflective” ability of some brains cannot but surprise, but there is no mysticism behind this, only matter and its movement in a direction that at least does not destroy a given organism in a given environment. Many details still remain behind the scenes, and there will always be something unknown, but all the “miracles” of the intellect have a material origin, all within the framework of the ability of matter to reflect objective reality. Will this reflection reach such an extent that it will begin to manipulate its carrier, a biological organism, trying to radically change it for some purpose? To some extent, this is happening now. Take clothes, devices, surgeries, medicines, stimulants. They can already read thoughts. Some. And influence them. It is unknown what specific laws of nature will work in this case, but they will work and will shape these processes. And how this change in matter will end is difficult to say now. Life has shown that when people let gins out of the bottle, they don’t drive them back. For example, they have created nuclear weapons and are only increasing their arsenal. And they could stop for the only reason that the economy will begin to choke, but not for moral reasons. So they will make AI, “cyborgs” and increase their intelligence, while the powers behind will not think about where all this will lead. And the rest can do little, even if they realize the dire consequences of such undertakings and the very real chance of perishing in the flames of WWIII.
      
       Thus, if we talk about the meaning of life at a general level, considering living matter as a whole, then there is no meaning (in the usual sense, as well as by criteria 1-4) in the existence of living matter. I understand that many would like this meaning to exist. But it does not exist, and even more than that - from what has been said it follows that in principle it cannot exist.
       Similar conclusions can be drawn to confirm this. Let us limit ourselves to two (related, however, not to all living matter, but to human life, but allowing for generalization). E. Wilson in his book “The Meaning of Human Existence” spoke out cautiously, but nevertheless: “Perhaps human life is much simpler than we think. There is no purpose, an incomprehensible mystery. Demons and gods do not want us to swear allegiance to them loyalty. And we are self-created, independent, lonely and fragile biological beings, adapted to life in this world." Here is an opinion of a very mature mind (and that is why underestimated one). Santayana in the book "The Life of Reason" writes: "That life is worth living is the most necessary assumption. If it is not made, then it is the most impossible of conclusions.")
       And now a short but very important thesis. The basis of life is the reproduction of living beings. Generation after generation. There will be no reproduction, there will be no life. The thesis is important because it is the starting point for answering many questions about life, including its meaning.
      
       The meaning of human life
       The above statements of Santayana and Wilson have already prepared us for the fact that we should not look for some higher meaning of human life. But this does not mean that there can be no meaning at all. As living matter, we exist in order to exist. This is our main goal and meaning as individual and group biological beings - the continuation of our kind. This is inherent in us evolutionarily, otherwise we would not be here now. The existence of a normal human civilization also helps solve this problem, so that part of the efforts aimed at developing and maintaining civilization is also, to some extent, perhaps justified. The same can be said for other levels of organization of human communities. But here there is also the issue of limited resources that everyone needs. This means that competition and the struggle for resources are inevitable. In different forms.
       Next point. Man is a fundamentally social being. He became a man solely for this reason. This leads to the conclusion about the need to maintain and preserve (a) an optimal social environment; (b) the environment in which this living matter could exist. In social terms, these can be groups of various levels of organization, such as a family, a tribe, an ethnic group, a people, a city, a nation, and in general all of humanity. The environment, unfortunately, is less local, and plastic waste washed up off the coast of France in the Atlantic could easily end up in the southern hemisphere, on a Pacific island. Not to mention atmospheric gases and particles.
       Until people are finally squeezed, the environment will not be a priority area. People are primarily concerned with the well-being of themselves and their loved ones, and the well-being of the most important social group (or groups) for them, on which the survival of themselves and their family primarily depends. These goals are pursued subconsciously, at the level of unconditional instincts. Instincts, of course, to some extent can be hammered, blocked by propaganda, agitation, authoritative statements, promises or actual pleasures, a hopeless life, exhausting work, unsettled life, etc. From here the conclusion follows that, no matter how brainwashed we are, we should not sacrifice the original instinct of procreation, we cannot replace it with something else. You are always welcome to supplement, but to replace and ignore it already going against nature. (The author feels very tempted to develop the theme of the reproduction of the human race, but in the interests of balance, he will have to step on the throat of a failed song.) What is important to note, and what follows from what has been said, is the element of necessary determinism in the actions of living matter associated with the continuation of the race. The necessity follows from the fact that if this element does not exist, there will be no living matter.
       Continuation of the family depends on the solution of many more specific problems. For example, it is necessary to acquire resources of various kinds (monetary, material, food, have a roof over your head), establish social connections that help in this matter and strengthen family ties, increase your social status, take care of your immediate environment, take care of children, grandchildren, and so on. Further. It is clear that in each specific case there is an optimal set of such problems (taken with appropriate weighting coefficients, of course) and their solutions for procreation. But people, under the influence of various factors, of which social stereotypes are one of the main ones, usually determine for themselves a suboptimal set of tasks. Often tasks are completely divorced from the main goal and are accepted by people as self-sufficient, becoming an end in themselves. In a capitalist society, for example, money and wealth often acquire such a self-sufficient, hypertrophied and divorced status from reality. The acquisition of money becomes an end in itself, which is strongly encouraged by the ruling capitalist elite. As a result, people live their lives caring only about their profits and the profits of their corporations, pursuing, by and large, false goals, mirages, and at the same time harming others and the environment. If such tasks were in optimal proportion with other goals that ensure procreation (in the broad sense), everything would be fine. But when one such goal is taken out of the general context, then, by and large, it loses its meaning.
       Gaining public recognition, becoming famous by making a worthy contribution to the development of some society is a good goal if it is considered in optimal combination with other tasks. However, when a person sacrifices everything else for this, the answer is no longer so obvious. Nobody has canceled such a rarely used characteristic as harmony of life, and this is a very, very valuable quality, applicable to characterize any affairs, and to evaluate life in the first place. (I grew up and lived most of my life in the Soviet Union - there was such a country. There, extremism, even in the name of a society, was part of the state ideology, which extended to all aspects of life, both for the good and bad. By and large, it was not a dictatorship regime in my time, as it is often pictured, but neither I can deny that the government gravitated towards some form of idealistic ideological extremism. But that was a detachment from reality. I think, this detachment of powers from reality, their inability to see it, was one of the reasons of destruction of that country, which objectively had all the prerequisites to be a very prosperous socialistic country. However, extremist Marxist ideology, as well as any other extremist ideology, is a way too weak and unreliable foundation of any sustainable society.)
       People who, by virtue of their nature, strive for power for the sake of power, usually do not forget about reproduction, since they have the means and opportunities for this. Not so successful in this regard are creative people who are completely devoted to the implementation of their creative ideas. This behavior is extreme, extremism, the antipode of harmony.
       That is, we see that among the many tasks associated with reproduction, people choose a certain set. At the same time, tasks are often absolutized and taken out of the general context of the unifying goal - the reproduction of one’s living matter (of a kind, one’s children). Such distortions occur across a variety of “watersheds.” For example, a person may be so obsessed with the idea of dominance of his ethnic group that he lacks the resources and time to start a family himself.
       The question of how to set priorities is also decided based on the main task of continuing and ensuring the conditions for the existence of a kind. If there are not enough resources for reproduction and a normal life for you and your children, is it necessary to flood your habitat with aliens from other countries that are very different from you, who will parasitize on the resources you extract, and are not going to work themselves? Is it more important to devote your life to increasing the population of some whales, or still leave some resources for an ABC book for your offspring? (Remember Papa Carlo and Pinocchio.)
      
       Thus, within the framework of the determinism of the main task (and the rest are derivatives of it), a person makes a subjective choice of a range of tasks that, as he believes (based on his perception of the situation), have significance for him, and therefore meaning. That is, descending to lower levels, we see a combination of deterministic and random factors that determine the meaning of life for an individual and groups of individuals. This fact is the choice of the meaning of life by the subject, the principal source of subjectivity in determining the meaning of life. This leads to the following practical conclusion: since the choice is still largely subjective, we must try to collect the most objective initial data for decision-making. In particular, it makes sense to remember that “you should ask the fisherman about the sea.” And here we smoothly move on to the issue of reliable sources of information and reasoning that deserves your attention.
      
       Should we listen to philosophers about the meaning of life?
       There is a difference between philosopher and philosopher. In addition, a philosopher may be competent in some issues, but have a very superficial understanding of others. The range of opinions of philosophers about the same problem is usually very wide. The meaning of life in this regard is not an exception, but rather an example of how wide the range of opinions can be. For Hegel, development is predetermined by the Absolute Idea, and this is the meaning of everything that happens. G. Spencer adjusted everything to the idea of evolution as an objective necessity. Aristotle believed that the meaning of life is to achieve happiness (“For we choose happiness for itself, and never with a view to anything further; whereas we choose honor, pleasure, intellect . . . because we believe that through them we shall be made happy” .) And you can achieve happiness by leading a “life of Reason” and following the road determined by the “golden mean”. Although there is a discrepancy here. Happiness according to Aristotle is an extreme, and it turns out that the path of the golden mean should lead to an extreme state. And in general, a person cannot and should not constantly be in an extreme state (if only because adaptation occurs). Aristotle himself, having lost everything and gone into exile, seems to have broken down. Who will throw a stone at him? But maybe this idealistic understanding of the meaning of life contributed to this ending? Who knows.
       In general, many philosophers exaggerate the importance of reason in people's lives. Schopenhauer somewhat besieged his fellow philosophers by remembering instincts, thanks to him for that. It seems to me that we need to look at how close a particular philosopher himself was to real life, how immersed he was in it, how varied his acquaintance with it and participation in it was, and how he himself walked the path of life. Kant, for example, was a recluse, had no family, did not travel, and in terms of life he was a pure theorist. I would not trust him about the meaning of life, especially when it comes to a specific person. The same can be said about Nietzsche, who, as we know, “didn’t smell gunpowder” and shunned real life. Voltaire is another matter. This one has experienced life in many aspects. He traveled, was repeatedly persecuted and was in disgrace, was welcomed by reigning persons, knew how to earn and increase his wealth, knew women (and what kind!), was acquainted with a huge number of people, had many friends and enemies, owned and managed real estate, etc. The man lived a full life, in a word. And besides, he was smart and lived his life like he sang a song. It's probably worth listening to him. Here it would be appropriate to quote his statement, which is very relevant today: “these legislators who rule the world at two cents a sheet; . . . unable to govern their wives or their households they take great pleasure in regulating the universe.” What a - at first glance, seemingly simple - but deep thought. But this is real wisdom - this is who rules us, so draw a conclusion who is worth listening to. (In general, one of my main conclusions in life is that you need to rely on yourself, and at the same time seek and appreciate the advice of wise and smart people.)
      
       Conclusion
       The purpose of writing this article is to organize the thoughts about the meaning of life that I expressed on various occasions. (I previously published an article “The Meaning of Life”, http://www.proza.ru/2016/05/16/1660, but it mainly discussed practical aspects. Here more attention is paid to theory, so to speak.) The main results were (a) outlining the area of the problem; (b) provide, as it seems to me, all the necessary premises for further study, both in terms of the subsequent development of the theory of the issue and practical applications.
       I understand that it sounds somewhat presumptuous, and I normally refrain from making such statements, but this time I really didn’t see any other general stumbling blocks for myself in this matter. And I think it’s possible to figure out the details on the basis of this material, if anyone feels like it.
       I am interested in the general laws of nature that govern the development and degradation of living matter. I brought something to this area myself.  Unfortunately, today the biomolecular approach dominates in biological sciences, that is, it is believed that all life processes are determined at the molecular level. Many have heard the words “controlling genetic code,” but the fact is that no one has ever seen this control code, and the genome itself is a rather chaotic structure, by the way. Amoeba has about 220 times greater DNA, than a human. Does this mean anything?. I found a law that governs the growth of organisms at the macro level, that is, at the level of cells and their components, tissues, organs and body systems. It is clear that such seditious ideas are in conflict with the dominant paradigm in modern biology. (By the way, Francis Crick once said in a pub that DNA cannot be an explanation of the secret of life - literally, his words “DNA is not a secret of Life!”) The law of growth does not at all abolish biomolecular mechanisms. Moreover, they and the law of growth are completely integrated, and the law of growth governs the biomolecular mechanisms (not the mythical genetic code). Of course, everything is not so simple, and control occurs through numerous feedback chains, but in general terms the mechanism of growth and division is exactly like this.
       I understand that many would like to hear more specific, practical advice on how to build their life. Some one-step recommendations follow from the general provisions presented, such as, for example, the need for procreation as the basis of life. Everything is clear here - you need to start a family in order to give birth and raise children. How, that's another question. I think I could say something useful on this issue, but so far no one has asked.  But at least the purpose of creating a family and its “conceptual” core is clear - reproduction. This is what for we need to build a family around. This understanding alone can give a lot to intelligent people. Since people introduce their children, and in general, the next generation, into life, this implies the need for self-development (children to a large extent copy the behavior and level of their parents). And so on. The conclusions are quite obvious.
      
       And the main conclusion: Life, as such, as living matter, has no meaning. But at the level of an individual and groups of people, the subjective meaning of life is given by the objective need for reproduction of the species, and the tasks arising from this. The latter are often taken out of the context of a common goal and become self-sufficient, losing their meaning, and often causing harm to both other people and those who have accepted such goals.
      
       The author expresses gratitude to B.P. Tsvetkov for posing the question and the thoughts he expressed.