Read an essay from a famous agnostic writer.
Death and the Meaning of Life
Different understandings about what happens to us at death embody and
promote different views about what we consider to be the ultimate reality of
life, what it is that we think - at the deepest level of our being -
provides meaning for our existence and makes sense of the world we encounter
while still breathing.
I have given four examples from the ancient world. Each of them portrays a
different sense of ultimate reality, of one thing, in each case, that
establishes, determines, and directs everything that finally matters for
human existence in general - for all people who have ever lived - and for
our specific existence in particular. All four involve trips to the realms
of the dead, in order to see what happens for those who are no longer
living. Each is meant to show what we should live for now, based on what
the ultimate meaning of life is, what the very root and fabric of human
existence consist of. In this post I'll talk about two of them.
When Odysseus travels to the underworld in Homer's Odyssey book 11, he finds
that virtually everyone who has ever lived for all eternity (he sees four,
count them, four exceptions) has exactly the same fate. Death is the great
Equalizer. It comes to everyone and after it happens, all differences are
leveled out. At death there is no more life. Nothing to enjoy. Nothing
to look forward to. The past doesn't matter. The future doesn't happen.
There is no pleasure and no pain, and there never will be. At that point,
it is entirely over. Forever and ever and ever and ever.
Homer imagines that the soul of the person does continue to exist, in some
sense. But it can't be said that they still "live." There is nothing there
for them. They are "shades" or "shadows" of those who once lived.
This is comparable to the view that many people - an increasing number of
people - continue to have in our world today, although the view has been transposed into a modern key thanks to our
understandings of biology and anatomy. People with this modern view (I
number myself among them) believe that the mind does not exist apart from
the body, that there is no soul apart from the physical entities that
comprise the brain. When we die, life is over. Our soul or mind or spirit
doesn't somehow survive. It's over. It's done. There is nothing more,
ever again.
Some people - most people in America - find this view either too terrifying
or depressing or unfair/unjust to accept. And so for them it is
counterintuitive. It's not that they've worked through the scientific
issues of how the brain works or where consciousness comes from. It's that
they simply can't and so won't imagine it. There *must* be something more.
Otherwise life has no meaning.
But I need to stress, that this conclusion is in fact is the opposite of
Homer's. For Homer, life does have meaning. In fact, it has *all* the
meaning. Enjoy it while you can. When it's over it's over.
But even in ancient Greece many thought that death cannot be the final
answer, and that what we actually do, and accomplish, and stand for matter;
that there is a quality of life that is more important than the mere
existence of life, not simply in the present tense but in the future tense.
If everything is equalized at the point of death, then there is no reason to
do anything but grab for as much power, wealth, influence, and pleasure as
possible, of every imaginable kind, while living, regardless of how that
affects other people.
In this view, if there is nothing after death, and if this life is all there
is, then other people are not sources of meaning or important in and of
themselves, in any way. They are either objects for or obstacles to our own
enjoyment. And so - it was thought (and still is) - that if there is no
accounting after death for how we behave in this life, then there can be no
societal norms, and only the rich, the powerful, the hedonistic get
pleasure. The 1% get it all. The rest simply are tools to be used for the
pleasure and enjoyment of others. And so we get despots and tyrants.
Plato is the one we know best for countering this view by arguing that life
is not - is absolutely not - about striving for all the power and pleasure
that can be obtained. At its very deepest root, life involves forsaking
physical pleasure for the sake of deeper, real meaning in life; for Plato
that involved the life of the mind, "Philosophy" (which literally means "the
love of wisdom"). Those who live for pleasure get it completely wrong. That
is not what life is about. It is about knowing how to live properly (based
on true philosophy), to seek for justice, and honor, and truth.
It is within the context of developing these ideas in his many Dialogues
that Plato occasionally expressed his views by telling "myths" (i.e.
fictional stories) about the afterlife and what would happen at death. In
these myths, a person does not simply die and then is dead for all eternity,
just like everyone else who is dead for all eternity. Everyone will have
to account for how they have lived.
Have they lived just for bodily desires, as if their own pleasure was all
that mattered and that getting it at any cost - whatever pain and misery
they might cause for others - was the goal of existence? If so, then they
will, after death, receive what they gave. They will be physically
punished. Have they lived the life of philosophy, caring not for the
pleasures of their bodies but the virtues of their mind, striving to do what
is right, no matter what the consequences for themselves? They would be
rewarded after death.
Centuries after Plato Virgil picked up on this theme in his Aeneid, book 6.
Aeneas, as we have seen, takes a journey to the underworld just as Odysseus
had in Homer's Odyssey book 11 (Virgil's model for his account), but what he
finds is very different. Death is not the great equalizer. Everyone is not
equal. By any means.
Aeneas finds two very distinct places within Hades: Tartarus and Elysium.
Those in Tartarus experience horrifying and eternal punishments (Aeneas
hears the screams, the cracking of the whips, the dragging of the chains)
because in life they deeply harmed others. These are not only the tyrants
but also regular folks: murderers, the rapacious, those who accumulated
wealth by destroying the lives of others, traitors, those who committed
incest, and on and on.
In Elysium, on the other hand, there is a gloriously pleasant existence
-pleasant wooded areas basking in lovely light, where people dance and sing
and engage in meaningful conversation. And most people there have a chance
to come back to life and enjoy the world above yet again.
In short, at the heart of our existence here on earth, there is meaning in
how we choose to live. There is justice. Good lives will be rewarded.
Wicked lives will be punished. We should not simply live for ourselves, for
our own pleasures. We should treat others well and be concerned for them as
well as for ourselves. That is the ultimate meaning of life.
There is much more to both Homer and Virgil than this, of course.
Especially Virgil, who ultimately thought - and portrayed in Aeneas's
observation of the underworld - that it was the Roman empire that was the
ultimate point of existence, with its civilizing capacities and ultimate
destiny to rule the earth.
But the basic points of Homer and Virgil provide stark contrasts with one
another, and should certainly give us pause. Is this life all there is? If
so, does that mean we should strive for pleasure at all costs, everyone else
be damned? Or should we live lives that are just and fair, working not just
for our own pleasure but concerned as well for the world around us? These
questions, of course, affect not just our personal ethical decisions and
religious views, but our social and political commitments as well. What
kind of world do we want to live in and what kind of society - and leaders -
do we want to support and promote?
