The Quest for truth and meaning of life

Too often, the quest for truth - which admittedly can only yield limited success in the best case - is tainted with laxity and capricious, and is therefore doomed to a miserable outcome, if not failure.

Strangely enough, Blaise Pascal, a famous mathematician and philosopher, is also the eccentric author of a bet that belief in God (or more precisely in the sky as a divine reward for virtue) is defensible insofar as it is desirable, even if it can not be proven. In fact, it is supposedly defensible because not only can not be proven, it can also not be refuted. So desirable is considered a valid basis for a belief, provableness absent disprovableness! The door is open to all wild fantasies, as we lack the empirical means of discrediting it.

- Who have you invited to dinner, darling?
- Some wonderful people, my love.
- Great! And who are these people?
- I do not know, but they are fabulous.
- Hum! How can you say they are fabulous if you do not know?
- Our neighbor across the road told me.
- Forgive me, dear, but that neighbor is not a little crazy? The story about angels watching over us sounds like wishful thinking to me.
- Loopy This neighbor, as you say, it's more fun to hear that your teacher friends, with all due respect.
- But do not you think ...
- Forget the thought, I'm in the mood for a dinner with fabulous people.

(If you think it's a bit of sexist humor, note that I made no mention of gender. The prejudices that offend us are sometimes very much ours. Remember also that Blaise Pascal was a man. )

Personally, I am not ready to forget to think. As appealing a claim May be, this attractiveness must be accompanied by credibleness - which is a function of provableness and reliability - before I leave my point of view shape and govern my life. When credibleness missing, I reserve its ruling until further notice and at the same time to accept reality as it seems, judging from facts and solid arguments, even if this is not compatible with this called an ideal world. Call me austere (not ready to pay the luxury of extravagant beliefs), a man of reason who associates his intellectual austerity with intellectual integrity.

However, the reverse attitude is common, especially in matters that are beyond the realm of experience and therefore can be neither proved nor refuted. For example, regarding their future - here below or in the hereafter - many do not reserve its ruling or to keep their minds open to all possibilities, ranging from disastrous to glorious. Instead, they believe a heavenly tale because they seem to believe, and often because the fortune teller or charismatic spiritual leader, allegedly endowed with supernatural powers, is the originator of this tale.

In its most savage and blind optimism coupled with faith is illustrative of this attitude. Is it fanciful and naïve, or stupid? I am tempted to say yes, and yet I will resist that temptation. There is no denying that the inveterate optimists-believers derive significant enjoyment from seeing their future through rose-colored glasses. In view of this enjoyment, a sophisticated better like Blaise Pascal will argue that these spectacles are worth wearing, at the risk of laboring under an illusion. I lack grace or the guile of innocent or calculating souls to whom ignorance is bliss.

I'm even stronger as a committed realist since life itself - without fables and despite the adversities that are part of it - makes sense in my mind. Furthermore, I argue that religion (as a provider of a myth is debatable, but useful way survival blessed the purpose of life) is often a poor substitute for wisdom. It is designed to offset the feeling of dissatisfaction that shadows the foolish if often profound concept of existential absurdity. The most inappropriate in the wisdom, the most avid of religion (as defined above) we are.

Now, what is the content of this wisdom, or what is the meaning of life within the limits of life? I answered that question to the best of my ability in my book a reason to live, and my answer - like any answer to this question - is sure to be both inconsistent and in agreement with yours. But then, unlike statements and disagreements can usefully stimulate the intellect to resolve the oppositions and achieve a new higher synthesis.

Anyway in May, this antithesis betrays the imperfection of individual wisdoms. At best, they are true to some extent, and we continually overpass this point while the complete truth indefinitely recedes like the horizon as we advance toward her. There are many wisdoms as there are individuals, however, their subjectivity leaves room for much intersubjectiveness or deep intellectual kinship.

Let us consider a number of cardinal facts and logical assumptions based on facts.

1) The observable universe is the manifestation of an obvious tendency to order. Ordered things and beings (that show their attraction for a particular inert or living), ordered behaviors and thoughts (that aim to concrete achievements and feelings in preference to others), all this reflects the trend in question, which may be called the principle of universal order. The unity of this principle is not merely symbolic. It is fundamental, as shown by the unitary character if the complex nature of man, which includes all aspects of physical and non physical observable universe.

2) The observation of the universe relates to observers: humans, in this case. It is limited to observable manifestations of this universe, or provides a foundation for knowledge within these events. Anything above these limits - that is all that is not observable manifest - transcends our ability to know. Nevertheless, as Kant pointed out, our inability to know that this does not suppress our curiosity. Whereas some accept the limits of knowledge, many do not. Their efforts to penetrate the mystery of transcendent must yield nothing except fancy.

3) There are, however, various degrees of fantasy. At one extreme, fancy is manifestly unfounded or based on highly suspect claims of inspired visionaries regarding the afterlife. At the other extreme, the fantasy is tempered by reason. This is reminiscent of poetry, which assimilates certain things related to things through metaphors and similes.

Take for example the predictions of learned and intuitive futurists about the distant future of humanity. They have clearly overstepped the limits of knowledge, and yet they are credible to the extent that they are conceivable, given the way this knowledge represents humans and the world they inhabit. Take for example also the conjectures of learned and intuitive philosophers of the intimate nature of nonhuman beings or things beyond their observable characteristics. As the above estimates, they clearly overstepped the limits of knowledge, and yet they are credible to the extent that they are conceivable, given the way this knowledge represents humans and nonhuman beings or things.

Respect 4) As our human nature, observations include insights and reveal both the spiritual and material aspects of this nature. Since we measure the value of life in terms of pleasure (sensual, intellectual or moral), it is safe to say that the spiritual aspect is preeminent.

By emphasizing the pleasure principle in moral matters, I suppose that even the most edifying proof of nobility comprises an element of self-interest. Indeed, nobility is an ideal in the pursuit of the noble soul takes pleasure - not the kind of low pleasure you get from activities such as parties on a tasty dish or having intercourse with a lover seductive but the species is greater. Therefore, the value and nobility are not mutually exclusive. When they meet, the first is excited by it.

5) As we explore human nature, we finally recognize the principle of universal order as the essence of our being, which can normally acquire habits - of thought or behavior - that are conducive to the well-being. And as recognition in addition to recognition, even if the misery may reverse this attitude when she harasses us despite ourselves.

Why such misery? There is no answer to this question. We can confirm the possibility of poverty, we can not explain it. Saying that the principle of universal order is such as to enable the emergence of poverty is like saying that poverty is because it can be, not an explanation. In short, misery is a mystery, and the best we can do is fight and win, or resign themselves to him when he is stranded.

In fact, we can do better. We can consider poverty as a precious opportunity for courage and merit, then an absolutely blissful and effortless, it should not have the courage and thus do not merit.

But what about extreme cases where we are really unhappy and powerless? We can then take comfort in knowing that the principle of universal order is the essence of our being. Each of us is a single human incarnation of this principle among countless other like incarnations, which offer the prospect of a meritorious happiness through considerable effort.