Freedom, our desire, our yearning, for it, its irresistible allure, its captivating charm, leads us all, if not in actuality then at least in our imagination, down a long, sometimes painful, sometimes exhilarating, road and where that road ends is, you might've already guessed it, omnipotence - the power/ability to do anything one wants. It's part of what I suppose is the god-complex - to desire to be, or feel like, or act like, a god. I'm sure the two other conditions to becoming a god, viz. omniscience and omnibenevolence, will make their own contributions with regard to the rationality and the morality of having that much power. Everyone wants freedom but...are we fit to be gods? Without wisdom and the sense of right and wrong, freedom is just power in disguise and rarely anyone ever says, "I want power" and if there are those who say that, they're usually viewed with great suspicion - they're looked upon, whether true/false, as tyrants in the making. :chin:

The author of the quote in question was from a time when there were just over a billion people in the world. Point being, due to the nature of finite resources, the quote may have lost some relevance over time. In short, we have a social contract that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so, by sticking to this social construct, we ensure few are left behind. Compared to before said social construct was in place. Long story short even so, people would rather work together than work alone even if both paths produced identical fruits (which they don't).

"The only paradise is Paradise Lost."
- Marcel Proust

"[be aware of the possibility] ... the utopia you seek is actually a dystopia of the worst kind."
- Unknown

"Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, from The Grand Inquisitor chapter.

Are we condemned to be free? Are The Human's choice and freedom in life the source of much tragedy in The Human's life? Do you believe in the Tragedy of Human Freedom? Do you agree or disagree with the quote above? Why or Why not?

I believe that there is truth to man's existence in this quote. Man often appears to be yearning for order, submission, and subscription. Man does not seem to handle freedom well, especially for long durations of time. Yet I find the quote troublesome to ponder on due to man's hope to be free from restraint and order even if it is short-lived...What are your thoughts? Let us discuss this. — The Questioning Bookworm

I do find the Inquisitor's quote to be true, and I also want to mention that I love Dostoyevsky as a writer. It's been years since I read that book but I still remember that chapter.

In regards to the quote, yeah -- whether it's society and its institutions or organized religion, man is quick to surrender his natural freedom. Freedom -- the unknown -- is scary. What if something goes wrong? Who do we fall back on? Why risk keeping my own money when I can just store it away in a safe, insured bank? We delegate so much of our lives to institutions whether religious or secular because these things are deemed safe and they keep our anxiety at bay.

This is a great question.

I think by nature, man is group oriented. We're born in a group setting that has authority figures. Then, we're placed in various systems (like education, work) that are also group oriented and have authority figures.

Each of these systems limit what we can do within them.

However, we can also take on leadership roles or seek other systems to join - but doing so exposes us to tremendous risk and responsibility, that's why not many want to change systems or take on leadership roles.

So, for the most part, we're content to stay within systems that have set authority figures that dictate the extent of our freedoms (except in our own households where we may be the leaders - or at least where we pretend to be leaders and really just say yes to our wives :).

I think that people want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, not as a disenfranchised slave but as an agent of righteousness. People do not relish in slaving away at large corporations prioritising profit, doing a job devoid of meaning, considered exposable, unappreciated and unimportant. People do like the idea of being a crusader for values, ideologies and such they believe in, where they can see themselves as part of the greater good, fighting for something important. How can we become heroes if we only care for ourselves? How can we be appreciated if we keep to ourselves? Or view ourselves as doing more than merely living.

On a more practical note, when society is filled with hope and opportunity then we see people care more about their freedom. People can set goals for themselves and thus won't surrender those goals easily. In periods where it seems like there is no future, no opportunity and no hope, that's when people actively hand away their freedom, the hopeless are easy to control but it's not because they want to give away their freedom it's because they want something better for themselves.

I view the problem of human freedom as one of contradictory human desires. One the one hand, we want to be free, because we like the idea of being in control of our destiny. On the other hand, however, we do not want to be free, because then we must take responsibility for our actions. Then the question of handing over the gift of freedom becomes more a question of handing over responsibility.

Lots of very thoughtful responses above.

I've been reading an article on Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, whose book Suicide explored the relationship between advanced industrial cultures and suicide. There's a good essay-length presentation on it here. Another very good source is Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom.

My basic view is that the modern conception of freedom is spiritually barren and so incapable of nourishing any real sense of purpose. Of course, many individuals will discover or invent purposeful lives, but it can often be a very precarious accomplishment; even very successful individuals may be haunted by a sense of futility. This is related to our sense of the place of humans in the Universe. The modern, scientific worldview is very much that life itself, in the absence of any sense of design or intentional creation, is something like a chemical reaction, albeit on a very large scale. At any rate, it's widely assumed that our existence is fortuitous, a fluke, the 'outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms' as Bertrand Russell once put it. I think that underlies a lot of the sense of barreness or pointlessness that pervades modern existence. It's too easy to equate 'freedom' with 'freedom of choice' which in effect means 'having enough money to do what I want'. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question as to what is worth wanting.

My basic view is that the modern conception of freedom is spiritually barren and so incapable of nourishing any real sense of purpose — Wayfarer

:clap: :up:

This is related to our sense of the place of humans in the Universe. — Wayfarer

A vague suspicion of mine. I like where this is going. :up:

At any rate, it's widely assumed that our existence is fortuitous, a fluke, the 'outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms' as Bertrand Russell once put it. — Wayfarer

You always have the right quote for the right occasion! :up:

It's too easy to equate 'freedom' with 'freedom of choice' which in effect means 'having enough money to do what I want'. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question as to what is worth wanting. — Wayfarer

We see eye to eye on this issue.

Just thought I might bounce this off of you. The notion of purpose as implicit in the question of the meaning of life seems to be above and beyond, greater in significance, so to speak, than, the meaning of life that's available a dime a dozen, meanings such as one's role as part of a family, as part of a community, of a nation, and as a world citizen, etc.and this kind of meaning of life I'll refer to as earthly meaning. In other words the kind of meaning of life that's available fail to satisfy the hunger/thirst for meaning that's in all of us. In essence, when people speak of the meaning of life, their aims are high, they're looking beyond this world and seeking some kind of cosmic significance to their existence and I refer to this kind of meaning as cosmic meaning

Most people who commit suicide aren't killing themselves because they haven't found cosmic meaning (that's everyone and there's no report of mass suicide) but because they feel/believe that their lives are devoid of the kind of meaning I described are available a dime a dozen - earthly meaning.

Here's what puzzles me...

Earthly meaning is self-determined in the sense we choose what we want to make of our lives. In short, earthly meaning implies that we're free, ceteris paribus, to take our lives in any direction we wish.

Cosmic meaning, on the other hand, involves a purpose/meaning that, to my reckoning, doesn't necessarily involve freedom (of choice). Just to be part of the grand design of the cosmos will do - it'll do the trick, so to speak, of satisfying the hunger/thirst for meaning. Freedom isn't a priority and that's what the following quote is all about:

"Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, from The Grand Inquisitor chapter. — The Questioning Bookworm

In essence, when people speak of the meaning of life, their aims are high, they're looking beyond this world and seeking some kind of cosmic significance to their existence and I refer to this kind of meaning as cosmic meaning — TheMadFool

If you asked a pre-modern human 'what is the meaning of it all', they wouldn't have the foggiest notion of what you were on about. If you tried to explain it, they would excuse themselves and go on their way, because time didn't permit such nonsense. 'The meaning of it all' was, for them (or us, back then) to do what had to be done, for all kinds of compelling reasons to do with staying alive and providing, and about which we didn't have the luxury of philosophizing.

But us moderns, having been delivered from subsistence livelihoods and mortal toil, then find ourselves twiddling our thumbs and asking ourselves what it's all about. ( 'what's it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we're here?')

So we become 'marooned in the present'. Cut off from any sense of our ancestral heritage, from any visceral connection to the world and to our fellows.

This has a lot to do with The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment knew what it wanted to be free from - the Church - but not what it wanted to be free for, except Progress, and more of everything. Unfortunately, the apogee of 'progress' seems to be interstellar travel, and it's impossible. And we simply can't consume more and more. We're already consuming more than one planet-year's worth of resources by half-way through each year.

So - the major civilizations saw a connection between cosmos and culture. It is what 'cosmology' meant, never mind that it was oftentimes (in modern terms) mythological. The Enlightenment, knowingly or otherwise, severed that connection. It seeks answers only in proximate and material causation, which by definition excludes the larger sense of reason, as in, 'the reason for it all'. Reason in that sense was deliberately excluded from the reckoning, and then declared to be universally absent. And here we are.

In regards to the quote, yeah -- whether it's society and its institutions or organized religion, man is quick to surrender his natural freedom. Freedom -- the unknown -- is scary. What if something goes wrong? Who do we fall back on? Why risk keeping my own money when I can just store it away in a safe, insured bank? We delegate so much of our lives to institutions whether religious or secular because these things are deemed safe and they keep our anxiety at bay. — BitconnectCarlos

This is an interesting take on it. Thanks for posting and contributing. I do find the quote true as well. However, in my humble opinion, I think it signifies the tragedy of human freedom and the contradictory nature of man. We want to be free, but we also really do not want to be 'free' as there are consequences with choice and freedom for the individual. Also, I think you bring up a good point on how fear of the unknown goes hand in hand with being 'free.' Man doesn't like not being able to control his surroundings, subjects, environment, and himself. If he concedes his freedom to someone else, now he has less responsibility or worries over 'the way things are' because he is essentially a slave to something and that is all he knows or is willing to know for the sake of comfort sometimes.

Freedom, our desire, our yearning, for it, its irresistible allure, its captivating charm, leads us all, if not in actuality then at least in our imagination, down a long, sometimes painful, sometimes exhilarating, road and where that road ends is, you might've already guessed it, omnipotence - the power/ability to do anything one wants. It's part of what I suppose is the god-complex - to desire to be, or feel like, or act like, a god. — TheMadFool

The man seems to yearn for this, correct. However, the man appears to wallow in anguish and despair sometimes as a result of having freedom - or choice as some people put it.

Everyone wants freedom but...are we fit to be gods? — TheMadFool

This question is very relevant and interesting. I always ponder on this one as well, especially in relation to the text. Ivan's Rebellion - the chapter before the Grand Inquisitor and where he rejects the world in which God has given man as well as his 'ticket' to heaven - touches on this theme in addition to the Grand Inquisitor chapter. Are we fit to be god or gods? What constitutes this? Are we using God's morality to judge the world and him, but by doing so does this make us presume that we are gods already? I have always been puzzled by these concepts and themes in my own life. That is why The Borthers Karamazov is such a joy to me.

Without wisdom and the sense of right and wrong, freedom is just power in disguise and rarely anyone ever says, "I want power" and if there are those who say that, they're usually viewed with great suspicion - they're looked upon, whether true/false, as tyrants in the making. :chin: — TheMadFool

This is a nice insight as well and I agree. Freedom is in a sense just power for man, but it is also his demise sometimes - and I think that is what Dostoevsky is getting at as well. If you pursue power through choice and freedom, where do you end up? Sometimes you can exert power on others by choosing to manipulate them for gain outside the realm of society's accepted morals, but it may alienate you or produce enemies that you will have to conquer later, otherwise, you will receive negative consequences as well...Sometimes having the freedom to choose things can overwhelm a person and cause them anguish. Where do we define the line of this?

So, for the most part, we're content to stay within systems that have set authority figures that dictate the extent of our freedoms — 8livesleft

But what is the source of this contentment? Dostoevsky's observation of the problem of freedom for the human or not? I think what I am driving at is the fact that, for most of the man, we give up our freedom explicitly and more subtle. A better example would be someone seeking advice on a life decision. Even this small hypothetical dilemma with freedom, for most humans, presents itself in the way Dostoevsky is saying. Most people yearn for advice from another person whom they love or look up to. Or this person takes advice from their therapist, doctor, lawyer, you name it. Instead of deciding on their own or even exercising their freedom/choice over their own life, they 'choose' to seek advice or follow the orders from someone else. Even though these people are still exercising 'choice' by seeking others' advice or a societal convention, they are afraid to make the decision on their own and follow their own gut at the moment. This is a very specific and small example, but I see it all the time.

Freedom scares most humans. It also can cause a lot of problems down the road psychologically. It can make people reflect, contemplate, and lament over past choices, mistakes, and freedom. Some children or teenagers that don't have the proper attention or rules growing up yearning for some kind of order. The fact that they are close to being alone in the world figuring it out for themselves scares them and can breed anxiety pretty easily. I think this may also come from man's tendency to have anxiety over freedom.

On a more practical note, when society is filled with hope and opportunity then we see people care more about their freedom. People can set goals for themselves and thus won't surrender those goals easily. In periods where it seems like there is no future, no opportunity and no hope, that's when people actively hand away their freedom, the hopeless are easy to control but it's not because they want to give away their freedom it's because they want something better for themselves. — Judaka

I agree with this statement/insight on the matter. However, I think what Dostoevsky is getting at as well is a more subtle hypothetical of the human being afraid of freedom in their own life. More specifically, if an individual has the freedom to do something they are often overwhelmed, regretful, and anxious at some point over the fact that they have that freedom themselves at that moment. The circumstance initially causing anxiety or anxious feelings in general due to the nature of the circumstance of the human having control and freedom over something or some path for their lives. Next, an overwhelming feeling may pervade the person's thoughts on the matter because they don't know which option or decision is the 'right' one for their life and situation. So they basically have to make the decision on a whim or intuition - which also may cause anxiousness. Later, regret may come in merely from the curiosity of the other choice in which they didn't pick. We see this all the time with people: "What if I had chosen the other option? What if that was more prudent of a choice? Ah, shucks..." So, I think it is contradictory but that's the point. Man loves freedom but also hates it. It can bring contentment but it also brings suffering.

I view the problem of human freedom as one of contradictory human desires. One the one hand, we want to be free, because we like the idea of being in control of our destiny. On the other hand, however, we do not want to be free, because then we must take responsibility for our actions. Then the question of handing over the gift of freedom becomes more a question of handing over responsibility. — Alvin Capello

Hello, we are really getting some great posts here. Thank you for replying to the thread. I agree with this 100%. Man loves the idea of freedom but then has issues with the consequences. If I choose to skateboard today instead of applying to more jobs, and I am exercising my complete freedom over the situation - where no one else is involved in the decision, I probably will regret it either way. In other words, if I choose to skate, it will bring me joy, contentment, and fun in the short and long-term. If I choose to apply to more jobs instead of skating, I may be content in knowing that I tried my best today and may land a job sooner so I have more money for my girlfriend, myself, and my cat. See what I am saying here? Either way, I will most likely look back and say: "Wow, I probably should've chosen the opposite. Oh, well." There is still some sort of anxiety involved here, especially with larger, more serious dilemmas and choices.

But what is the source of this contentment? — The Questioning Bookworm

Its security. The feeling of safety.

The group provides us with most of our needs and the authority figures are there to ensure that these services continue.

We share an aversion to unnecessary pain and suffering. We share an aversion to unnecessary risk.

Leaving the group exposes us to all of that.

Well, I think that's too general and I'll say that even though I'm sure you agree, not everyone handles adversity the same. There are difficult situations where it'd be easier to simply be told what to do and sometimes it's practical to seek help, for sure... In the situations where people are "giving away their freedom", isn't it because they have a reason orientated around necessity or practicality? Even if someone is encountering a difficult choice, that doesn't mean they'll listen to anyone's advice or instructions. Even if they do listen to someone else's advice, that doesn't ensure they'll not feel regret, anxiety, stress or whatever.

I think most of what you're talking about would be solved by having more power and that's telling of the nature of the problem. Sure, people feel anxious about making the correct decision when the stakes are high and that circumstance does make a person easier to control but isn't the issue the high stakes? It only shows that sometimes, people will be desperate enough to trade freedom for safety, security and other things of practical benefit. I don't think it shows that people "hate" their freedom at all, disagree strongly.

If you asked a pre-modern human 'what is the meaning of it all', they wouldn't have the foggiest notion of what you were on about. If you tried to explain it, they would excuse themselves and go on their way, because time didn't permit such nonsense. 'The meaning of it all' was, for them (or us, back then) to do what had to be done, for all kinds of compelling reasons to do with staying alive and providing, and about which we didn't have the luxury of philosophizing.

But us moderns, having been delivered from subsistence livelihoods and mortal toil, then find ourselves twiddling our thumbs and asking ourselves what it's all about. ( 'what's it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we're here?')

So we become 'marooned in the present'. Cut off from any sense of our ancestral heritage, from any visceral connection to the world and to our fellows. — Wayfarer

This reminds me of the Buddha...a man struck by an arrow lying in the Buddha's arms and the Buddha desperately trying to focus on treating the wound and dissuading the victim from asking questions regarding the provenance, intent, characteristics, etc of the arrow itself. Nevertheless, I can picture the Buddha, at some point in this pitiful tale, coming to the realization that treating the wound is pointless unless he has a satisfactory answer to the victim's questions. That, in my humble opinion, is the crux of the issue: To the victim the question is simple: Is there a meaning to life that makes it worth living so that the wound needs to be treated in order that he may live?

That pre-modern humans were preoccupied with just getting by - satisfying their so-called basic needs - is precisely what modern humans believe is pointless because there's no real reason why they should bother in the first place. I'm not denying the fact that pre-modern humans weren't like that. They haven't left behind anything in archaeological terms to indicate that they had different priorities; even rock art, and cave paintings, presumably done when they had time to spare, were about game animals - but the crucial fact here is that what the pre-modern humans didn't notice (it didn't dawn on them) was whatever it was that they were doing - hunting, gathering - is meaningful (has a point to it) only if life, the thing they were trying sustain with their activities, has a meaning.

As for being "marooned in the present", I like to think of life, living, every activity we engage in, including the quest for meaning, as a work in progress; far from being finished, it, in my humble opinion, has just begun. Language is just a few thousand years old, philosophy is younger, science is relatively an infant - there's so much we don't know that it would be a grave mistake to accept that life has no meaning. Perhaps a time will come when we'll find that meaning we all desire and the souls of our pre-modern ancestors can rest in peace knowing that their unthinking actions that makes the modern generation possible had a purpose to it after all.

This has a lot to do with The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment knew what it wanted to be free from - the Church - but not what it wanted to be free for, except Progress, and more of everything. Unfortunately, the apogee of 'progress' seems to be interstellar travel, and it's impossible. And we simply can't consume more and more. We're already consuming more than one planet-year's worth of resources by half-way through each year. — Wayfarer

This is just another manifestation of the real problem on our hands - that of purpose or meaning. For better or for worse, like it or not, everything becomes meaningless without a purpose. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Church's heavy-handedness, its oppression of free thought as it were. To break free from this - i.e. reclaim freedom that was curtailed by the way the Church functions, itself a derivative of an ideology that didn't tolerate dissent or difference of opinion - itself became a purpose. It seems odd that this happened because the Church did offer a purpose, a divine one at that which, in my book, is a cosmic meaning. Perhaps skepticism, in no small part due to the way the Church was handling affairs, not to mention how implausible religious beliefs are, slowly creeped in, undermining the entire system and divine purpose lost currency. The aim then was to become "free from" a false purpose (divine purpose as claimed by the Church) in order that we may seek and hopefully find our true purpose.

The words in your post "free for" is telling in its meaning for it bespeaks that our aim, our goal, isn't freedom per se but meaning/purpose and it's quite possible that the entirety of human history is nothing more than a documentation of how we've been trying so hard to get "free from" false purpose so that we may be "free for" our true purpose.

'the reason for it all' — Wayfarer

My personal opinion on the matter is that things, all things, have qualities and these qualities maybe shared with other things and some of them may be unique. It's quite obvious that if one is seeking a unique purpose for a thing, it must be based on the qualities that are unique to that thing. For instance, horses have the unique quality of being able to run fast, for long stretches, and they are tamable - their purpose, recognizing these unique qualities, is for riding. Something similar can be said of a cup. A cup is solid, durable enough, has a hollow inside it, a handle to hold on to, and it's impervious to liquids - it's purpose is to hold water and beverages.

What is unique about humans? The only exclusively-human quality I can think of is thinking itself - humans, if not think well, think better than all other animals combined. Surely then, our purpose is to think and think well. Imagine if aliens from another planet were to come over and take over the earth. To what use would these aliens put us? No prizes for guessing that - it's just too obvious to miss. Of course humans have many other talents like music and art missing in the animal world and these too form firm foundations to define our purpose - our alien overlords would enjoy our musical performances, sculptors, paintings, books, poems, etc. - but the takeaway here is that these activities to - music and art - are essentially thinking, thinking at a different level as it were.

The question then is what's the purpose of all this thinking, thinking of so many shapes and sizes?

The answer to the above question is, "to understand the universe itself." We're the brain of the universe and our job (purpose) , like the brain in our body, is to comprehend/understand the universe - work out its laws; explore the possibilities it offers; discover its origins, predict its future; make necessary alterations for a better future; and so on. This is our cosmic meaning. It turns out that life isn't meaningless after all. :chin:

The man seems to yearn for this, correct. However, the man appears to wallow in anguish and despair sometimes as a result of having freedom - or choice as some people put it. — The Questioning Bookworm

I discovered, a day ago, that meaning or purpose (seen as a role of cosmic proportions i.e. you [want to] matter to the very existence/functioning/even destruction of the universe itself), is what we're actually aiming for. Freedom (the ability to do anything one wants) is, if anything, a precondition to fulfilling our purpose - we must be free from other fish to fry, so to speak, in order that we're free for our main duty. @Wayfarer.

Give it some thought.

1. What if you can do anything you want (free) but had absolutely no clue about what you should do (no purpose)?

On the flip side,

2. What if you know what you're supposed to do (purpose) but you can't do it (not free)?

This is an unsolvable riddle it seems. We want freedom because we want to do anything we wants i.e. we're completely uncomfortable being restricted in any way but we also want purpose (meaning) which is just another way of saying that we want to be restricted, restricted by a purpose that goes towards giving our lives meaning.

To have purpose is to lose freedom but to have freedom is to lose purpose. It boils down to a choice, a choice between freedom and purpose, freedom in the sense the ability to do anything we want (no purpose) and purpose in the sense there's something we must do (no freedom).

As I see it, we don't want freedom as much as we want a purpose, a meaning to our lives. This follows from the fact that given the current status of our knowledge on the meaning of life - life's meaningless (purposeless) -we're actually free to do anything we want but that doesn't seem to work for us - we remain as sadly dissatisfied as ever. In other words, we'd rather have a purpose (meaning to life) than be free. :chin:

This question is very relevant and interesting. — The Questioning Bookworm

This adds another layer of complexity to the issue of freedom and purpose. As outlined in the paragraph above, freedom and purpose are strange bedfellows, in fact they're incompatible - you can't have them both (or so it seems). If the road named "freedom" ends at omnipotence as a destination then god can have both freedom and purpose; being omnipotent god's not limited by logic and the contradiction therein is utterly insignificant.

As for us, mere humans, the contradiction packs quite a punch.

Where do we define the line of this? — The Questioning Bookworm

From the perspective of Hinduism, specifically Lord Krishna's, at the end of the day, it's all about purpose. We all hope in our hearts that we're good people, that we're not on the wrong side of the line between good and bad, that we've made friends, that we've made people happy, that we've made some contribution, however little, to the betterment of the world. If it so happens that it's exactly the opposite - we're actually bad, we've caused more problems than solve them, we've made matters worse, we've made enemies, we've caused unhappiness - but it turns out that was our purpose - the real reason for our existence - then, Krishna would've probably said something like, "fulfill your purpose". Freedom isn't as important as purpose because we have it and we're yet not happy, not happy at all.

That pre-modern humans were preoccupied with just getting by - satisfying their so-called basic needs - is precisely what modern humans believe is pointless because there's no real reason why they should bother in the first place. — TheMadFool

I agree with nearly all of what you've said above, but in one respect, I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was, even if you asked 'the wise man of ages past' 'what is the meaning of it all?', they would regard it as a pointless question. Not because they think that life is meaningless but because contemplating these kinds of questions in the abstract, is very much a product of 20th century thought. It simply wouldn't occur to a pre-modern person - and I'm not talking about neanderthals or early h. sapiens, I'm talking late 17th century. (I think 'modernity' proper probably begins with the Trial of Galileo). It was simply understood - it was given - that there was a cosmic order, meaning and purpose, and that we had a place in it; it would have been unthinkable to question it. The advent of modernity was in part the realisation that this might not, after all, be true! That perhaps the human was indeed as Russell said, 'the outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms'. That is the deep story behind much of the existential angst of modernity.



The quote was from one of Bertrand Russell's eariy essays, 'A Free Man's Worship', published in 1901, or so. Very impassioned piece of writing, and full of the sturm und drung of one whose sentimental illusions have been stripped away by the austere discoveries of science and the 'death of God'.

So I'm talking in very general terms in saying this. Of course there are many other perspectives and all kinds of sub-narratives. I'm simply talking about the general trend which sociologist Max Weber referred to as the 'disenchantment of the world':

In social science, disenchantment (German: Entzauberung) is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of religion apparent in modern society. The term was borrowed from Friedrich Schiller by Max Weber to describe the character of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society.[1] In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, whereby "the world remains a great enchanted garden."[2] — Wikipedia

a man struck by an arrow lying in the Buddha's arms — TheMadFool

He didn't 'lie in the Buddha's arms'. The story was a parable about a hypothetical person, struck by a poisoned arrow, becoming preoccupied with who shot the arrow, what kind of poison, and so on, instead of seeking treatment. Generally speaking it is an admonishment against 'metaphysical speculation' - entertaining questions like, does the world have a beginning in time, or not; does the Buddha exist after death, or not. And so on. Like a lot of what goes on here. :-)

What is unique about humans? The only exclusively-human quality I can think of is thinking itself - humans, if not think well, think better than all other animals combined. — TheMadFool

I think that is one of the significant things about reason - we're the 'rational animal'. And rationality discloses horizons of being which are not possible to non-rational creatures. Although that's a very non-PC thing to say.

In any case, it's not so much that 'life has A meaning'. It's more a question of, what does it take to live meaningfully. There's no set answer to that, because there are so many different ways. But I think being informed by a sense of purpose, or a feeling that life has an overall meaning, is essential to that.

:ok: :up: Thanks