Donna asks:

Could you summarize the logic of the Ontological proof?

Answer by Craig Skinner

The ontological argument has been flogged to death but just wont lie down. Anselm’s original was dismissed by Aquinas because it confuses a true semantic claim “God (necessarily) exists” (true by definition of the word “God”) with a possibly false existential claim “(Necessarily) God exists”, a simple logical fallacy (changing the scope of the modal operator from de re to de dicto, to be technical about it). Then Kant dismissed the argument on the grounds that “existence” is not a property which an entity may or may not possess, but a prerequisite for an entity to have any properties at all.

I shall deal with the modern version of the argument.
As ever we define God as a necessarily existing being, then proceed:

P1. If God exists his existence is necessary.
P2. If God doesnt exist his existence is impossible.
P3. Hence God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
P4. God’s existence is possible (not impossible).
P5. Hence God’s existence is necessary.
Conclusion: God exists.

But note, the argument just as readily “proves” God’s nonexistence:

P1. If God is nonexistent his nonexistence is necessary.
P2. If God isnt nonexistent his nonexistence is impossible.
P3. Hence God’s nonexistence is either necessary or impossible.
P4. God’s nonexistence is possible (not impossible).
P5. Hence God’s nonexistence is necessary.
Conclusion: God is nonexistent.

The problem is P4. It begs the question. Clearly God’s existence (nonexistence) is only possible if he exists (doesnt exist). All we can really conclude is that if God exists his existence is necessary, if he doesnt his existence is impossible, but we dont know whether God exists or not.

Katherine asked:

For my senior thesis we are asked to answer a variety of questions, I chose “what is the purpose of human existence?” My thesis is basically: from a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence however, in order for one to feel that their life has purpose the must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way. I know that there is a lot there that I have to define but I need people to destroy my thesis so that I’m ready when the time comes… what’s the problems with my statement? Any suggestions on how to make it stronger?

Answer from Hubertus Fremerey

I put the question here again for clarity:

“From a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence. However, in order for one to feel that their life has purpose they must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way.”

Thus you make the important difference of “having a purpose of life” and “feeling a purpose of life”.

I share your view that there is no given purpose of life — at least I do not know of any.

I do not share your assumption that to feel a purpose of life people “must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way.”

People see life as a given, and by this can see it as a chance to fulfill some task or dream. Think of it like a bank account full of money. What to do with that money?

While there are many options, to use this money “to affect others in a positive way” can be on one’s mind but is not in any way necessary. You can go for a world-tour or you can buy a house or you can start a charity or you can give your money away as Wittgenstein did. You can set up a lab to do research, but that does not include that the well-being of others in on your mind. You just like to find out some things and enjoy the life as a researcher. Or you prefer the life of a painter or of a general.

You are right that many people try to do “something useful”. But it is not in any way necessary. When the famous long-distance runner Paavo Nurmi was asked “Did you run for Finland?” he answered “No, I run for Paavo Nurmi!” And what is the purpose of running for a gold-medal?

Think of humans as of a special sort of machines. They are delivered to a strange world and then try to orient themselves in this world and make some sense of what there is. But we are making the sense, it is not provided. We are writing our own script for our own movie. To “affect others in a positive way” is not a condition.

Katherine asked:

For my senior thesis we are asked to answer a variety of questions, I chose “what is the purpose of human existence?” My thesis is basically: from a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence however, in order for one to feel that their life has purpose the must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way. I know that there is a lot there that I have to define but I need people to destroy my thesis so that I’m ready when the time comes… what’s the problems with my statement? Any suggestions on how to make it stronger?

Answer by Geoffrey Klempner

Peter and Jurgen have both given very reasonable replies to this question, but I am going to have a go anyway. ‘Why am I here?’ is a question I ask every day, and sometimes more than once. I don’t distinguish between ’cause and effect’ and ‘purpose’, because ultimately if some entity other than myself purposed that I should exist, that would be the cause of my existing rather than not.

And every time I ask that question, the same alternative presents itself: Either there is something, an entity or explanation or principle X that accounts for my being here. Or not.

One plausible account of X would be the Big Bang hypothesized by cosmology. I am here because the Big Bang banged in precisely the manner necessary and sufficient for the coming together. of the particular sperm and egg that made the embryo that eventually became me. Each of us is here for a similar reason.

On the cosmological view, I am not here for the ‘purpose’ of any entity other than my own self. The secular view, which is widely held. Fine. You probably haven’t heard the quip by W.H. Auden (who got it off an old music hall joke) ‘We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for, I don’t know.’ (Maybe this is all my personal video game, and you are just sprites or monsters. If I do well, show altruism, etc., I will ascend to the next level. And if not, etc. etc.)

Then there’s the religious view, which is also held by many millions of human beings, so I don’t need to tell you about that. This is all just one big Family Story with a loving parent, who cares for our welfare, and even sends earthquakes and Hitler to improve our moral well-being, so that we can prove how courageous we are in the face of adversity. You’d have to laugh?

Personally, if we’re going in for this I prefer the theory of my friend J, an accountant, who believes that we were made by aliens. Who made the aliens? I always ask. Well, maybe that’s not such a stupid theory. You have to think of every possible angle. Maybe we are the ‘aliens’ who after inventing time travel went back to create the human race.

Each theory has its answer to the ‘purpose’ of human existence. According to the alien theory, you and I are just someone’s chemistry experiment.

Or, as I said earlier, not. Nothing could have made me, none of the above and not something else either because that would only suffice to make an entity like me, someone with exactly my physical and psychological attributes — who was not I. Nothing that is not I can explain why I am here. I am uncreated. (Maybe I am God, I just haven’t woken up to that fact, yet. Not impossible.)

(Visitors to this page will be getting weary of my going on about this. But, you see, the Question gets into everything.)

It’s good to be positive and affect other people in a positive way, because that is — OK, not a guaranteed — a reliable route to happiness, which has worked for many people. And what’s wrong with that? It has worked for me, because I compartmentalize. I ask the question, I ask lots of questions, but I never allow myself to forget that I am a human being and have human needs.

Just be honest. Talk about what you believe, what you hope for, for yourself and the human race, the questions that trouble you. The point isn’t to come up with some clever new answer that no-one has ever thought before but just to dig a little bit deeper than you have normally been accustomed to do. And then you’ll be fine.

Katherine asked:

For my senior thesis we are asked to answer a variety of questions, I chose “what is the purpose of human existence?” My thesis is basically: from a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence however, in order for one to feel that their life has purpose the must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way. I know that there is a lot there that I have to define but I need people to destroy my thesis so that I’m ready when the time comes… what’s the problems with my statement? Any suggestions on how to make it stronger?

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

I’m sorry that I have to spread a wet blanket over your enthusiasm, but you asked for it, and unfortunately your thesis is all too easily falsified. Therefore your choice was not a good one — it is not a question that a human being can legitimately ask or expect an answer to.

Look at its grammatical form: “purpose” implies a conscious act targeting an end and enacting some performance in that behest. But “existence” is not a conscious entity and cannot have a purpose. Only the creatures who live can have a purpose. But their purpose is not existence, as they already have it. Accordingly their purposes can only be described in terms of matters which affect their well-being or ill-being in the state of existence in which they find themselves. And they found themselves in this state (of existence) without asking for it. It just happened, presumably on account of some purposeful act of their parents.

So you see you picked the wrong subject of the sentence. What presumably you meant to say is, “what is the purpose of humans in their existence?” In this question, the word ‘existence’ is superfluous. For the first answer would be, to have offspring. Thereafter you might wish to add any number of other criteria, such as living a good life, achieving something, fulfilling your potential etc. etc.

However, it happens to be the case that your question, in much the same form, has been asked millions of times by millions of people; and now it is precisely by reason of its inner self-contradiction that it has mostly been answered by sleight of hand — namely by assertions that human existence is of value to certain metaphysical entities for purposes of their own, which are not human purposes. We may be beneficiaries of those purposes, i.e. going to paradise after death; but this is no longer human existence.

If, therefore, we ignore such belief systems (which indeed you did not mention), we are born without knowing anything of ends and purposes, and we die without knowing anything of an end that we lived for, other than reproducing and living for the sake of living. Which leaves us, finally, with an altogether different slant of meaning to the question you asked. Not “what is the purpose of human existence”, but “how can we do something with our consciously aware apprehension of existing in a living state so as to add value to it?” In other words: “How can we humans devise a purpose for life that confers sense and meaning on it?”

But it stands to reason that this cannot be a single purpose, not even for a single person. It is a multitude of purposes, from individuals, to families, clubs and associations, tribes and clans, towns and cities, nations and empires — a veritable criss-crossing of purposes that in fact we all live with relatively comfortably, and mostly without interrogating them, since at bottom we all know that they are human creations.

In sum: The relevant way of approaching this issue is not to ask for the purpose of life, but the purpose of living a life; and likewise for the related meaning of life and the meaning of living a life. Yet the answer in both of the italicised cases is the same: The purpose and the meaning of both are what we put in. They do not inhere in existence per se and they do not fall out of the sky.

Katherine Bolin asked:

For my senior thesis we are asked to answer a variety of questions, I chose “what is the purpose of human existence?” My thesis is basically: from a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence however, in order for one to feel that their life has purpose the must do the best they can with what they have under the condition that it affects others in a positive way. I know that there is a lot there that I have to define but I need people to destroy my thesis so that I’m ready when the time comes… what’s the problems with my statement? Any suggestions on how to make it stronger?

Answer By Peter Jones

You chose a tough question. If I had to pick holes in your answer I’d mention various points.

1. You say your thesis is presented ‘from a secular standpoint’. What difference does this make to anything? The truth does not depend on your standpoint. I can see no justification for adopting any standpoint. If the question has an answer it will be same for everybody, regardless of their standpoint.

2. You say ‘from a secular standpoint there is no true purpose of human existence’. In this case human existence has no true purpose. Your standpoint is irrelevant. But how would you go about proving human existence has no purpose? It is not enough just to bluntly state it.

3. You say ‘we should affect others in a positive way’. Why? You’re arguing that there’s no ‘true purpose’ in such behaviour. The question is not asking you to proscribe how we should behave IF our existence has no purpose. This would be a follow up question.

4. By ‘true purpose I imagine you mean ‘metaphysical’ or ‘ultimate’ purpose. For a philosophical essay the word ‘true’ would be redundant.

5. You are addressing a metaphysical question but you mention no metaphysical arguments. You seem to assume existence has no purpose. Do you make an argument somewhere?

6. I would suggest examining the question more closely. If you argue that human existence has no purpose then you may have to argue that nothing has any purpose. But what do you mean by ‘purpose’? I feel this is not an easy thing to define. Whose purpose would it be? How can Reality have a purpose? In metaphysics the whole idea of purpose is fraught with problems but you do not seem to examine this issue.

7. As presented your approach seems to be to assume there is no purpose and move on to prescribing how we should behave under the circumstances. This is not what the question asks. I feel you would need to spend some time exploring the idea of ‘purpose’ and what it could mean. For instance, the idea that God has a purpose makes no sense since he is complete and perfect, and this is not an assumption but an argument.

8. There are only two ways of answering the question. One would be to attempt a metaphysical proof and the other would be to investigate the fundamental knowledge claimed by the mystics. There would be no third option. Yet you do not seem to examine either of these ways forward. Rather, you assume that a secular standpoint must reject the idea of purpose. It is not clear to me you’re right about this and even if you were you’d have to go on to show that a ‘secular standpoint’ is the correct one.

You’ve chosen a very tough question. As usual for philosophical questions half the battle is picking apart the question. I suspect that you’ll find a better argument against cosmic purpose just by analysing what the word ‘purpose’ could mean at the level of the ‘world-as-a-whole’. Then you may be able to debunk the idea of purpose on the grounds that in respect of the Totality the idea of purpose is nonsensical.

You would also need to debunk the idea that the sentient life is for consciousness to revel in its powers and experience ‘lila’, the play of dependent existence, and the idea that exist so God (or consciousness) can be known to Himself. These ideas do not require ‘purpose’ in the sense of intention but they would need to be disposed in an essay arguing for an absence of purpose.

Good luck. I would have chosen a different question.

Olivia asked:

Hello. I see that the natural and constructed world around us offers us meaning. I find myself constructing a grid of meaning that uses abstract nouns e.g. peace, hope, love, excitement, beauty, belonging, freedom, creativity. All things offer up the possibility of ‘meaning’ which will vary according to the situation, the person and the particularities (social, religious, etc) of that person. Is there a philosopher, or philosophical understanding that can articulate this ‘grid of meaning’ that I’m speaking of?

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

There have always been writers of what used to be called “edifying literature”; and there are many still around today. But as you asked for the name of a philosopher, the obvious candidate would be Martin Heidegger.

But now I’m going to say something that I would not normally offer as a suggestion — because a philosopher should be read, not just talked about. Nevertheless, reading Heidegger is not the same as picking up any book, not even a philosophy book.

So here goes: You would probably be much better off reading an account by a sympathetic Heidegger scholar first.

The reason I make this recommendation is, that Heidegger is inordinately difficult to read. He wraps up all his “easy” ideas in a tortuous diction full of endlessly long sentences, recondite terminology and neologisms. He is also up to his eyeballs involved in existentialism and phenomenology, as well as all the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological problems of the German thinkers from Kant to Husserl. None of this is ‘edifying’ in the least, nor easy bedtime reading.

There happens to be a good and readily comprehensible book by Stephen Mulhull, “Heidegger’s Being and Time”, published by Routledge in their series “Routledge Guides to Philosophy”. If you find this appealing, then you can go a little further under your own steam, as Heidegger also wrote several shorter texts on other subjects of interest to your context. You might also find George Steiner’s book on Heidegger useful, which is part biography and part assessment, and perfectly readable.