The question that I'll be asking here a lot is related to being or to who we are. I have been asking that question early on in my childhood. I would gaze at the heavens at night wondering at how little our planet was when compared to the vastness of the universe, the stars and the unknown beyond. And yet, I was here. Was there a reason?
I think these concerns grew stronger as I was painfully aware that this life would someday end. It was not a reassuring to realize, as a boy, that tomorrow may never come. That there will be a day when. When, what exactly? And even if we try to forget, the life we have today may end at any moment and without warning. That is life, or death really.
At the same time, this realization makes life ever more precious and our experience as human beings unique. We often view ourselves as if we were immortal and indestructible. As if we are separate from others. Indeed, we are bold enough to define ourselves as individuals. But, in reality, do we know who we are? Or do we think we know?
Let's face it, most of us do not choose our first names. I was called Gordon. And that name itself has a history and a legacy. I didn't choose my parents and didn't choose to be born. Even if I'm grateful of having my parents and of being alive. I didn't choose to be born in Malta. I could go on forever.
Neither do the ways I define myself can be regarded as purely my own. I am a son to my parents, a brother to my siblings, etc. But what would this mean if a family didn't exist? I am an employee, a student and a disabled person involved in activism. But what about the social, political and cultural leaps essential for these ways to describe ourselves to be possible? And, without the Internet and social media, would being a blogger make any sense?
And consider the millions of factors and conditions that were crucial in making now possible. From the fact that my parents decided to have you and me, that they survived these years to choosing each other. Not to mention their linage back to pre-history - even back to the first forms of life on planet Earth. What about the creation of the Earth itself? With the perfect conditions for life, including the position of our planet to the sun and the fact we have a moon.
And yet, it doesn't end there. The genesis of the universe with its matter and energy - all coming from a point so early in history that it defies our understanding. We may logically discount all these factors to mere luck. We may come up with a theory,or even a law, explaining everything that happened to the last detail.
Yet, these answers would go only so far as explaining How it happened, but not come close in enlightening us on why it happened. Ultimately, scientific enquiry on its own will not answer an essential question we were asking ourselves since we gained self-awareness.
What is the meaning of life?
Very interesting read as usual, Gordon. I think that who we are is not necessarily to be discovered through defining our origin. If we tried to do that we would either end up in an infinite regression or else need a stabilizing ground like God. There's nothing wrong with that but both can ultimately only be theoretical positions. Your title "Being in Time" reminds me of Heidegger. While I am not a fan of his support of Nazism, I think that there is something valid in his understanding of being as a form of perception or being-in-the-world. Being would then be a form of existence that we may be aware of as we encounter the world in time.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I confess that I was influenced by Heidegger's title for naming this post. However, the influence stops there. I get your point that to understand who we are it isn't necessary to know our origins. Indeed, it is impossible to resolve the issue of our origin.
ReplyDeleteMy point in this post is to demonstrate that even if we exist as individuals, our being is intrinsically linked to the other. In a way, our beings are dependent on what came before us and other human beings. It's also one of the first posts I plan to write in my spiritual journey.
In this sense, I find myself disagreeing with Derrida when he claims that 'the other is wholly other' (tout autre est tout autre)which emphasizes the unknowability of the other; by suggesting that the dividing line between me and the other is less real than we believe.
I hope this makes sense to you.