What is the meaning of life? This perennial question haunts us all at some point in our lives. It is just a little more difficult to answer than the question, "Why do we have to learn math?" As a math teacher, this is one I have to field everyday. Actually, as I have studied mathematics, I have come to realize that the problem people have with math is not that it is too difficult, but that it is too easy. Scientists are discovering more and more that math is the basis for reality, just as the alphabet is the basis for communication. Just as words have meaning, but letters don't; so too reality has meaning but math doesn't.
Or so we would like to believe. Even if we are willing to accept the idea that math is a model of reality in its most basic form, our problem with making math meaningful lies in the fact that we do not really know what reality means.
Now I am not writing this book to talk about math, I am writing this book to talk about reality and our perception of it. That is, I am asking the question, "What is the meaning of life?", or more precisely, "How do we make our life seem meaningful?" This is where the parallel with math comes in. The problem people have with math is not that it is too difficult, it is so easy anyone can learn it. The problem is that math is not meaningful to them. Similarly, the problem people have with life and reality in general is that life is not meaningful to them.
There is a horrible paradox here, life has no meaning really. The meaning of life is to give life meaning. This leads to what psychologists and philosophers call the existential angst: the realization that life has no meaning. This realization is very dangerous because we humans are incapable of living a meaningless life. We all know we have to die sometime, and if life is meaningless, so is death. When my students decide that math is totally meaningless, they drop out of my class. When people decide that life is totally meaningless, suicide seems to be the only option.
There is another problem with the meaning of life. If life has no real meaning then can we make life mean anything we want? No, as I will discuss later on, the attempt to make life meaningful in some artificial context also leads to disaster. Giving life artificial meaning is like trying to stop a brain tumor with aspirin. It relieves the pain but not the disease. Also, more often than not, artificial ideas generated to make life meaningful are contrary to social stability. Take street gangs for instance. Gangs are an artificial context to generate meaning in the lives of its members. For many inner city youths, life is meaningless outside of the gang. Yet, those of us on the outside, see the gang as a dangerous threat to society. The gang scheme is artificial, society is natural. The upshot is that history proves that artificial schemes always die quickly.
On the other hand, the family is a natural context to generate meaning. The unconditional support and acceptance we receive from family members is probably the most meaningful thing we get out of life. Permanent separations from family members, by death, divorce, or unpardonable action, are by far the most stressful events in our lives. No network of friends or uncommitted lovers can replace the role of family in our lives.
Immortality
The inevitable question arises at this point, "Why do we so desperately need meaning in our lives?" The answer is simple, our natural fear of death causes us to seek out immortality. In trying to achieve immortality, what we want is best described by Woody Allen, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." As we all know the former method is easier to achieve than the latter. What we seek is to achieve success or fame in some context where it will be remembered forever. So even if we fade from existence, our accomplishments will never fade.
The problem is picking a proper context. We cannot be recognized for our achievements unless our actions are actually recognized as achievements by others. For example, have you ever heard of Eliza R. Snow or Heber J. Grant? Unless you are Mormon, you probably have not. Similarly, sainthood in the Catholic Church assures immortality by having a church or parish or shrine named after you. It is unlikely that even the Pope can name all of the saints, but as long as there is a shrine somewhere, that saint is being remembered by the people that worship there. But, what if you are a hero in a church that no longer exists? How many great Druids can you name? For every church that exists today, there are at least a hundred that no longer exist. Many of them so lost in obscurity, there is no written record of their existence. How many blessed and sainted people in these churches, thinking that their accomplishments will live on forever, have sacrificed their lives in vain.
Schemes
Here is the main object of our discussion. A scheme is a context which can give our lives meaning. By definition a scheme is a set of beliefs that are accepted as truth by a group of people. Each person has many schemes in their lives: family, friends, culture, political affiliation, religion, career, hobby, etc. Each scheme presents itself as an opportunity for immortality. If we can achieve something great in one of these schemes, then as long as the scheme exists, our achievements will be recognized. On the other hand, if we do something bad in a scheme, our infamy will also live on as long as the scheme exists. What all this means is that it is our schemes that determine our actions and behavior more than anything else.
This is a very bold statement, and not widely accepted by sociologists and psychologists. They believe that behavior is determined by either nature or nurture (depending on who you talk to). I do not disagree that nature and nurture have an effect on our lives, in fact what schemes we become members of is largely determined by nature and nurture. What I am trying to say is that the reduction of behavior to only nature and nurture is like reducing communication to a series of letters. Words have meaning, but letters do not. Schemes have meaning in our lives. Our genetic makeup or the environment in which we were raised does not, except in the sense that it determines what schemes to which we are most likely to become members.
Some people object to the term scheme as having a negative connotation. People do not like to have their sacred religious beliefs or political views called schemes. It sounds too artificial. As I will discuss later, there are good schemes and bad schemes. Generally, good schemes are natural and bad schemes are artificial, and what is required to convert people to a scheme is the determining factor in deciding artificiality. If a person has to be duped into believing, then that scheme is artificial, and most likely bad for both the person and society in general. Natural schemes fit in nicely with the evolution of society, therefore people will readily accept such schemes without the need for deception or chicanery.
Society, of course, changes and evolves over time. So, the schemes that are acceptable to society also changes. Natural schemes that people readily accepted just a decade ago, like the viability of a communist economy replacing a capitalist economy, can be looked on today as being silly. Even natural schemes can fade by the wayside, so achieving 'immortal fame' by doing something widely recognized as great, does not necessarily mean people in the future will look back on the action with the same kind of awe it has today. How many once critically acclaimed pop-music acts get hysterical laughs when their name is mentioned today? Remember Donovan, The Bee Gees, Duran Duran, or New Kids on the Block?
The Ideal Scheme
So, if we want to really assure our immortality, we need to find a scheme that will last forever. Such a scheme will be accepted by everyone, and it will apply to everything. It will be our culture, our religion, our science, and our politics. Unfortunately, no such scheme exists. Worse yet, it may never exist. But, if it can exist, such an ideal scheme would essentially be accepted as absolute truth. If everyone believed the same thing, had the same morals, accepted the same form of justice, and valued the same social norms, we would essentially have a heaven on earth, a utopia.
If we could be remembered in some small way within an ideal scheme, our immortality will be assured. This is our real goal in life; deep down this is what we want. As silly as it may seem, just think about it a minute. Everyone seems to think that their own religion is the only true religion, that their own political views are the only correct views, and that what they think is true, is in fact true; and would it not be a perfect world if every one believed as we do? No sensible person will admit to thinking this way, but deep down we all do. In fact, if every one would accept how we think as true, we would be remembered forever as being the first to be right.
The ultimate question is: can such a scheme exist, and if so would it sustain itself forever? What I will demonstrate later, is that such a scheme could exist, but only if society can evolve to the point of accepting it, can it sustain itself. We cannot artificially create an ideal scheme. This is the reason why no utopia has ever succeeded. Every attempt at establishing some ideal scheme in the past has involved either massive force or massive deception by the people making the attempt. This results, inevitably, in a counter revolution of people who are not willing to give up their freedom or who see through the deception.
An ideal scheme will be established as logical and obvious to every rational human so that no deception is necessary. Further, it will not contradict peoples natural desires, so that they can feel free to choose to be a member of the scheme. In short, no ideal scheme can exist as long as humans continue to possess irrational fears and hatreds.