"THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO":

The first type of purpose we considered, the kind handed down to us by a designer or other authority, would be the kind of purpose that would give our lives meaning, since it would be imposed on our lives from the outside. Religion, patriotism, family honour, being of use to God, or society, or even to some kind of totalitarian state, could all be seen as purposes 'over and above us'. It would be comforting to know that there is something your whole life achieves; it would also effectively render us the tools for the purpose of the greater thing. Here the analogy with artefacts is clear. But just because it's an attractive idea, that does not mean that it is true. How might it be criticised?

1) If you don't believe in a God, or an omnipotent state or ruler, it's difficult to see how this kind of externally-imposed purpose could work for us. Why should you accept anyone's authority in making such a claim of purpose on your life?

2) Submission to a greater authority to some degree involves deliberately denying ourselves the responsibility to think for ourselves concerning issues of fundamental importance, such as our purpose in life, and the values by which we should live in order to achieve that purpose. Many philosophers (Jean-Paul Sartre particularly comes to mind) would argue that this surrendering of our will is denying the basic humanity of our existence, which is that we are free to choose and are inescapably responsible for our choices.

3) If we complete this purpose - if the purpose is achieved - then by definition we no longer have a purpose. For example, a person who sees that his life's purpose is to attain eternal salvation is rendered purposeless once he has achieved that end. Is heaven full of people who have no sense of purpose? Furthermore, if a person saw the whole meaning of his life in terms of a given purpose and he achieved that purpose, he would cease to be the same person, in that what he regarded as the most basic point of his life would no longer apply to him. He would, it could be argued, have lost his fundamental identity.

We could formulate this syllogism:

-Either our purpose is achievable or it is not.

-If it is achievable then after it is achieved we no longer have a purpose.

-Then our lives would be futile.

-If it is not achievable then attempting it would end in failure, and to continue would be futile.

-Therefore, either way, our lives are ultimately futile.

One way of getting round this argument is to see the achievement of purpose not so much as an event but as an ongoing process. If we claimed that our purpose was to be rather than to do, we can never finish or complete it, and so we will always have that purpose. For example, if we claimed that our purpose was to have children to succeed us, then once we have done that, there'd be no more purpose. By contrast, if we claim that our purpose is to be good, we can always strive for that.

Tweet   @brothersjudd