Dear Theophilus, 

If we take a look at all living things around us, I think that we will see that we have a lot in common. The main point where we differ is that man seeks for meaning whereas the animal world is essentially content to take things as they come without any questioning attitude. Man searches for meaning in his existence and in the universe around him, but is there any meaning at all?

Many people have thought the following thoughts. Look at the universe we live in. By far the greatest part of it consists of empty space, dark and unimaginably cold. The bodies which move in this space are few compared to the total volume and most likely most of these bodies have no inhabitants. But even on earth itself, there was no life for millions of years and the time may come again that the earth will be lifeless for more millions of years. And what is it like while it lasts? It is so arranged that forms of life can live only by preying upon one another. In the lower forms this process entails only death but in the higher, there appears a new quantity called consciousness which allows death to be attended with pain. The creatures cause pain by being born, live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. In the most complex creatures, man, yet another quality appears, which we call reason, whereby man is enabled to foresee his own pain which henceforth is preceded with acute mental suffering and to foresee his own death while keenly desiring permanence. It also enables men, by a hundred ingenious contrivances, to inflict a great deal more pain than they otherwise could have done on one another and on the irrational creatures. This power they have exercised to the full.

Their history is largely a record of crime, war, disease, and terror, with just sufficient happiness interposed to give them, while it lasts, an agonized apprehension of losing it, and when it is lost, the poignant misery of remembering. Every now and then they improve their condition a little and what we call a civilization appears. But, all civilizations pass away and we know that even in the long run, according to the second law of thermodynamics which says that everything eventually runs down, even the universe itself will be no more. All stories come to an end; all life in the end will turn out to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of matter. Surely this is the way things are - meaningless.

That people feel this way we can show by turning to consider different aspects of culture in our civilization. Becket, an English playwright who writes in French, and is acknowledged by many as a powerful and gifted author in this century, has written the following play. The curtain is raised to reveal a stage which, aside from being littered with garbage, is empty. The stage remains in view for approximately half a minute, the curtain is lowered, and the play is over. Another example is from the world of poetry. There exists a school of writers which goes by the name of da-da. The poems consist of meaningless strings of words attached to each other for no reason whatsoever. An example could be given from music as well. There was an American composer called John Cage. He began to compose his music through the tossing of coins. This is pure chance, but apparently, not random enough for him. Sometimes he employs two conductors who do not see each other, conducting at the same time producing a garbled, meaningless cacophony.

I am sure you are asking yourself, Theophilus: how can this be going on in the twentieth century? Surely science tells us that there is order, that there is a point in existence. The situation is not quite as simple as that.

Everything that we receive through our sense, in fact every sensation, including thought, originates in the brain. But the brain is composed of atoms and molecules which by their random arrangements cause us to think and feel. What causes these molecules and atoms to arrange in a specific way? There is no other response given in science than to say by chance. You see this as a constant message of the artists referred to above - everything is meaningless, everything happens by chance. This kind of thinking, however, leads to a paradox - how can you know anything? On what basis do you trust what your brain tells you? The though that everything happens by chance is itself subject to the same law and maybe it holds no truth. We therefore come to a dead end not able to say anything about anything. It is interesting that supporters of this philosophy cannot live by their own rules. John Cage, who dies recently, was an avid mushroom fancier but when it came to collecting mushrooms, he did not leave things to chance. Instead, he studied them so as to pick mushrooms which are not poisonous. It is obvious that it is impossible to live adhering to a philosophy of meaninglessness in life.

This is a pretty grim picture that we have seen above but there are glimmerings of hope and islands of meaning in our existence and one of these is in the moral codes that exist in various societies. These codes give the lie to the proposal that everything is meaningless.

We have all heard people arguing and sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds unpleasant but there is a noticeable undercurrent often in these quarrels. They say things along the lines of : I was here first, get behind me; or, how would you like it if others did the same to you? People say things such as these every day.

What is interesting about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about and to accept. And what is interesting is that both parties accept some standard of measuring behavior and standard of morality. I know that you will probably say that different civilizations and different ages have had different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike you will be how very similar they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where they feel proud for betraying those kindest to them. This does not exist. It seems then that we are forced to believe in a real right and wrong, an expected code of behavior. The next question then is: where did this code come from?

There are attempts to explain morality on the basis of nature, that this so-called moral behavior is merely instinctual, giving expression to our need for survival. I"m afraid this will not do because nature is amoral, that is has no comment to make on what is right or what is wrong. Nature brings disasters such as earthquakes, famines and so on to all.

Other people say that the moral law is just a social convention, the result of our education. I fully agree that we learn our moral behavior from our parents and teachers but this really begs the question. We know that over recorded history, and especially during the last century, a great many things have changed - transportation, communication, medical care. In other words, we have made progress in many facets of our lives. But, when it comes to morals, the situation is very different. Could you list even one moral law that has been invented within the last, say, hundred years? I"m sure you can't. Any changes that you would refer to are simply variations of existing moral laws. What I am saying is that there is something permanent about the moral code that goes beyond the sphere of man's inventions.

The view, by the way, that the moral code is merely man's invention leads into dangerous territory. It opens up the greatest possibilities for cruelty in man's history. Eventually, what it boils down to, is that what is right is simply determined by might. We have seen glaring examples of this in this century. Aside from acceptance of the view that morality comes from someone outside humanity, we stand no hope of seeing man's lot improved.

The support for the existence of an objective moral code comes even from psychological studies. There is an interesting case of a woman who kept having a recurring dream. She went to see a famous psychologist about this and the analysis of the dream showed that death was immanent. But there was an underlying fear in the woman, not of death, but of something else. On further exploration, it was revealed that this woman had a daughter with whom she was on very difficult terms. It was this that was bothering her, the fact that she was committing a moral wrong by not mending her relationship with her daughter. And, she was experiencing this on a subconscious level. Realizing this, the doctor enabled the woman to be reconciled to her daughter, the dream disappeared and in two months the woman passed away. It seems indeed, that there is a moral law written on the hearts of men.

We started out by looking at the world and seeing a pretty bleak picture which seemed meaningless. However, we have found that by digging a little deeper, by noticing certain things, we see clues which suggest glimmerings of meaning. There are other things that could be said in support of meaning in life, but, I have said enough for now and I leave you till we meet again in our letters,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index