I was walking home the other day, ambling through the streets of Mylapore. It was dusk, pleasant, and slightly gusty, with an idyllic charm, one of those days when the mind wandered tangentially on any subject at the drop of a hat, rendering the thinker philosophically inclined. The greater questions bothered the mind on days like those. Why does the universe exist? Handiwork of a god, pure science, or shades of grey? There was an inherent thrill to it, ruminating on the questions of life. It seems to be a natural human tendency. The road was mostly silent, with a but a few voices abound, and the rare engine that motored by. I continued walking, flanked by silhouettes of buildings on either sides, and arrived at a crossroads. Simultaneously, the street lamp came alive, spluttering in protest against its workload, and moulded from me a shadow in the puddle of yellow light behind that lay below me. I flipped out my phone and surfed through facebook.
It struck yours truly then.Inspired by the post of a friend of mine*, I realized that there was a third, and much more convincing theory that could be used to answer the conundrum. It was a eureka moment, but I kept my clothes on, turned into the park, and with a look of idiotic happiness pasted across my face (I think), I continued my musings in those verdant surroundings. 'Are you OK?' a passer by gestured. 'Its nothing' I nodded back.
You see, countless creeds, mythologies, ideas, and religions rose to answer questions regarding the ultimate purpose. All of these can be classified into two distinct schools of thought, religion and science. Before I get to the third, lets consider the aforementioned lines of thought.
Religions have answered the questions comprehensively, albeit with philosophies, gospel and myths that are accepted more because they cannot be proven wrong, than otherwise. In some sense therefore, religion doesn't really solve the problem. Instead, to me, it seemed more like the only answer the leader/philosopher of an primordial society could come up with when questioned on the same (not having an answer would result in anarchy, or at least loss of power, think of it from his point of view). It also enforced discipline, and pushed society in the right direction, so it was win-win for the person in question. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hurt anybody's sentiments here. Religion is a way of creating a peaceful, coexisting society, it is good for us human beings. It just doesn't explain the universe.
Science tries hard, but in an attempt to stay honest, repeatedly disproves itself, and hasn't yet come up with a comprehensive answer. That is not to say that science is entirely logical either. For instance, one of the basic ideas of the string theory says that the entire universe is but a hologram. The holographic principle suggests that what we all experience daily, may just be information on a surface located at the farthest reaches of our cosmos (whatever that means) and goes on to say that free will is but an illusion. Something along the lines of "All world is but a stage, and we are merely the players"? Very Shakespearean, thank you, but it still leaves one asking; "Whereforth art thou, universe?" Moreover, at a much more basic level, science can be considered to be a poor explanation of the universe. This is because, we assume that it is acceptable to consider certain things as axiomatic. Our whole scientific system is highly arbitrary, and it is suited to explain our observations. What we observe, not what the universe necessarily is. Its like the case of the goldfish in the bowl (from A Brief History of time, Stephen Hawking) In a certain city, people were not allowed to keep their goldfish in a curved bowl, as it apparently impaired the fish's sense of the world around it. The goldfish would have never realized this impairment. To date, there is no evidence that there is no such circumstance that is impairing our observation (while it is not acceptable to say that something is right because it can't be proven wrong, in this situation I think we can safely assume it on the basis of Murphy's law). So, it can be argued that we are simply explaining our observations with all these extravagant theories. Still, science is an excellent tool for our us to improve our lifestyles with, because our lifestyles are dependent only on what we observe, and not what actually exists in said object's place. It just doesn't explain the universe.
Should these schools of thought really be blamed for not answering a question that need not even have an answer? What if, the answer was NOTHING? Just nothing, nada, nihility?
Reason and Purpose are human constructs, unlike the universe, which may not exist for a reason or purpose. Simply because our wretched intelligence would refuse to grasp a concept like ultimate randomness, it doesn't mean that the universe, at a basal level can't be random and causeless. Right?
Koheleth, the obscure author of Ecclesiastes had suggested something along these lines, sometime between 450 BC and 180 BC. He proclaimed that everything was meaningless, and that everything we did was inherently hevel, or futile. While his thought process seems unnecessarily pessimistic, there seems to be some truth in it. After all, what does anything mean? We ascribe meanings based on a protocol, again developed by us, even if variable. So what if everything is, after all, meaningless? Is meaningless synonymous with bad?
Again, as with science, the meanings we ascribe to objects and biochemical reactions that cause emotions, are not useless. They influence lifestyle, and shape society almost completely. Its just that, in the big picture, in an attempt to 'explain' the universe, they are of little or no value.
All that bloodshed, wars and heated arguments, simply because for millennia now our species has been so preoccupied with the answer, that we have subconsciously refused to pause and ask if the question might have been silly. True, the question was intoxicating, and for many a human being, it was a distraction from his own painful world, a distant thought to marvel at. Not knowing the answer was the beauty of it, for once he knew the answer, he would have to return to his arduous reality. It was, and is an understandable personal pass-time, but never an acceptable reason for feuds and wars. It is remarkably silly, don't you think, to bicker over something so arbitrary and random, and then kill one another over theories? The causality, when traced backwards, results in this: Our lack of personal satisfaction triggered wars. Obviously, that is an extreme exaggeration, but even the implication that it was a contributing factor is sobering. Like Bertrand Russell once suggested in his book, The Conquest of Happiness; 'To discover a system for the avoidance of war is a vital need; but no such system has a chance whilst men are so unhappy that mutual extermination seems less dreadful than the endurance of light of the day'.
As I approached my abode, it seemed to make more and more sense, much like the stars that were coming out of hiding in the soon-to-be night sky. Humans have been known to do things like this since time immemorial. Again, Mr. Russell came to mind; 'Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat. Human beings, one feels, ought to be, but..... are not.'
Smiling idiotically, I approached the gates of my home and it hit me. It hit me like lightning. It was all just an epiphany gone wrong. You see, nothing is the wrong answer. The right answer is 42, as a wise man once said. Don't ask me how. It just is.
It was just one of those days. One of those glum, dark, woefully silent days. Meh.
_________________________________________________________________________________
* Thank you, Vishruth Venkat, if you ever read this.
It struck yours truly then.Inspired by the post of a friend of mine*, I realized that there was a third, and much more convincing theory that could be used to answer the conundrum. It was a eureka moment, but I kept my clothes on, turned into the park, and with a look of idiotic happiness pasted across my face (I think), I continued my musings in those verdant surroundings. 'Are you OK?' a passer by gestured. 'Its nothing' I nodded back.
You see, countless creeds, mythologies, ideas, and religions rose to answer questions regarding the ultimate purpose. All of these can be classified into two distinct schools of thought, religion and science. Before I get to the third, lets consider the aforementioned lines of thought.
Religions have answered the questions comprehensively, albeit with philosophies, gospel and myths that are accepted more because they cannot be proven wrong, than otherwise. In some sense therefore, religion doesn't really solve the problem. Instead, to me, it seemed more like the only answer the leader/philosopher of an primordial society could come up with when questioned on the same (not having an answer would result in anarchy, or at least loss of power, think of it from his point of view). It also enforced discipline, and pushed society in the right direction, so it was win-win for the person in question. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hurt anybody's sentiments here. Religion is a way of creating a peaceful, coexisting society, it is good for us human beings. It just doesn't explain the universe.
Science tries hard, but in an attempt to stay honest, repeatedly disproves itself, and hasn't yet come up with a comprehensive answer. That is not to say that science is entirely logical either. For instance, one of the basic ideas of the string theory says that the entire universe is but a hologram. The holographic principle suggests that what we all experience daily, may just be information on a surface located at the farthest reaches of our cosmos (whatever that means) and goes on to say that free will is but an illusion. Something along the lines of "All world is but a stage, and we are merely the players"? Very Shakespearean, thank you, but it still leaves one asking; "Whereforth art thou, universe?" Moreover, at a much more basic level, science can be considered to be a poor explanation of the universe. This is because, we assume that it is acceptable to consider certain things as axiomatic. Our whole scientific system is highly arbitrary, and it is suited to explain our observations. What we observe, not what the universe necessarily is. Its like the case of the goldfish in the bowl (from A Brief History of time, Stephen Hawking) In a certain city, people were not allowed to keep their goldfish in a curved bowl, as it apparently impaired the fish's sense of the world around it. The goldfish would have never realized this impairment. To date, there is no evidence that there is no such circumstance that is impairing our observation (while it is not acceptable to say that something is right because it can't be proven wrong, in this situation I think we can safely assume it on the basis of Murphy's law). So, it can be argued that we are simply explaining our observations with all these extravagant theories. Still, science is an excellent tool for our us to improve our lifestyles with, because our lifestyles are dependent only on what we observe, and not what actually exists in said object's place. It just doesn't explain the universe.
Should these schools of thought really be blamed for not answering a question that need not even have an answer? What if, the answer was NOTHING? Just nothing, nada, nihility?
Reason and Purpose are human constructs, unlike the universe, which may not exist for a reason or purpose. Simply because our wretched intelligence would refuse to grasp a concept like ultimate randomness, it doesn't mean that the universe, at a basal level can't be random and causeless. Right?
Koheleth, the obscure author of Ecclesiastes had suggested something along these lines, sometime between 450 BC and 180 BC. He proclaimed that everything was meaningless, and that everything we did was inherently hevel, or futile. While his thought process seems unnecessarily pessimistic, there seems to be some truth in it. After all, what does anything mean? We ascribe meanings based on a protocol, again developed by us, even if variable. So what if everything is, after all, meaningless? Is meaningless synonymous with bad?
Again, as with science, the meanings we ascribe to objects and biochemical reactions that cause emotions, are not useless. They influence lifestyle, and shape society almost completely. Its just that, in the big picture, in an attempt to 'explain' the universe, they are of little or no value.
All that bloodshed, wars and heated arguments, simply because for millennia now our species has been so preoccupied with the answer, that we have subconsciously refused to pause and ask if the question might have been silly. True, the question was intoxicating, and for many a human being, it was a distraction from his own painful world, a distant thought to marvel at. Not knowing the answer was the beauty of it, for once he knew the answer, he would have to return to his arduous reality. It was, and is an understandable personal pass-time, but never an acceptable reason for feuds and wars. It is remarkably silly, don't you think, to bicker over something so arbitrary and random, and then kill one another over theories? The causality, when traced backwards, results in this: Our lack of personal satisfaction triggered wars. Obviously, that is an extreme exaggeration, but even the implication that it was a contributing factor is sobering. Like Bertrand Russell once suggested in his book, The Conquest of Happiness; 'To discover a system for the avoidance of war is a vital need; but no such system has a chance whilst men are so unhappy that mutual extermination seems less dreadful than the endurance of light of the day'.
As I approached my abode, it seemed to make more and more sense, much like the stars that were coming out of hiding in the soon-to-be night sky. Humans have been known to do things like this since time immemorial. Again, Mr. Russell came to mind; 'Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat. Human beings, one feels, ought to be, but..... are not.'
Smiling idiotically, I approached the gates of my home and it hit me. It hit me like lightning. It was all just an epiphany gone wrong. You see, nothing is the wrong answer. The right answer is 42, as a wise man once said. Don't ask me how. It just is.
It was just one of those days. One of those glum, dark, woefully silent days. Meh.
_________________________________________________________________________________
* Thank you, Vishruth Venkat, if you ever read this.
No comments:
Post a Comment