It’s fairly easy, and a construct of existentialist philosophy.

There are two branches of explanation to the meaning of life. These are broken down into consequences and content. Consequences would be an expectation that life is building up to an ultimate goal, or that anything a human being does has an inevitable consequence and meaning. On the other side is content, where the meaning is within life itself.

Now under each of these categories there is a subjective and objective explanation as to the meaning of life.

Subjective Consequence

This is best described in religion. Instead of confronting the meaning of life, or looking for it in consequence that can be measured or observed, we look beyond our own world and explanation into the heavens. Thus the meaning of life is not discovered or attained until death, and then it is only subject to a deity or other religious belief. The problems with this are the same old problems with religion when discussed in a philosophical context. There is the problem of God and the status of God as evil or good, the notion that one must die to know, and the lack of any kind of reasonable evidence in our everyday experience.

Objective Consequence

Rocks. This is how my professor in existentialist philosophy put it. Objectively, that is using evidence in the real world, and observed logical conclusions, the consequences of our actions are just a different pattern of atoms. If I decide to throw my pencil across the room, then it is across the room. If not, then it is still here. The consequence of such actions, in context of the meaning of life, is that when all is said and done and billions of years have passed, rocks in outer space may be in a different place.

Subjective Content

The meaning of life is whatever makes me happy and whatever I see as valuable to me. This sounds like a reasonable claim. However, it is not. This is a leap away from the question, avoiding the meaning of life by assigning value to meaninglessness. It is the path of empty desire. Self fulfilling and is more of a distraction than anything else.

Objective Content

Meaning comes from everyone around us, and is evaluated objectively and logically. The ultimate truth of which comes with death. Everyone dies. Therefore the one objective and most reasonable answer for the “Meaning of Life” is death itself.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Those existentialist are sure the life of the party.

I just have to comment about this escalating situation all over the world, as it seems to be becoming a flash point for major violence, and I don’t see it ending anytime soon, perhaps escalating more as larger amounts of people catch wind of it.

For those of you that don’t know, a Danish newspaper published various cartoons relating to Islam and caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. The cartoons were largely poking fun at various aspects of contemporary fundamentalist Islam. Though largely benign to western people, these cartoons are viewed as very serious shots at Islam, even blasphemy. This all began around October and has been building ever since. There has been continued threats and violence to Danish people, as well as the taking over of an EU office by masked gunmen in protest. The Danish prime minister has refused to really apologize for the cartoons, and I think he is correct.

As Americans and Europeans, we share a common western culture that values liberalism and democracy, and all the individual rights that encompass those ideas. Many other parts of the world value a different set of principles. The difference is obvious, but the question is should we capitulate and give up some of our free speech rights to more radical and less liberal parts of the world who take offense to western values. The answer is an emphatic NO!

We have protesters who are so angry that Islam is characterized by violence that they are committing large scale acts of violence as protest. We have more moderate Muslims condemning the violence but saying that westerners, the Danish in particular, should recognize the differences of cultures and apologize. Finally there are the fundamentalist Islamics who are already so angry at the west as a whole that violence has been occurring for decades. There is irony in each of these situations. How can someone protest and deny Islam is a violent religion by committing acts of violence? How can you preach for taking care in noticing cultural differences and then overlook the core difference in liberal ideology in the west that permits such speech? The anti-western movement and the movement against post-modernity has been going on in the middle east for decades, and I don’t think it is going anywhere until one of two things happen: the majority of the middle east adopts liberal values or they are marginalized by continued conflict and evaporating global importance (resources such as oil being used up).

One thing is clear. No one who values their free speech or western values needs to give in to “terrorist” demands that cartoons and humor about Islam is forbidden. It should be quite obvious to the middle east and Muslims who are protesting that the west is not going away, nor will it adopt Islamic values.

Another thing, I am completely and totally DISGUSTED at the major media outlets of the United States for being hesitant about showing the cartoons. This is ridiculous. I’m wondering if they even value free speech at all, or just use it as a tool when they think they can milk money out of some kind of juicy tidbit they get their hands on. Is the issue too hot? Are you afraid you will lose your vast viewership in the Middle East? (laugh) How can you coherently even do a story on these cartoons without showing them to anyone?

As for the counter to all this, the growing anti-Muslim sentiment that probably triggered these cartoons. Deal with it. Seriously, stop being cry babies. Sometimes in life your feelings are hurt and people don’t believe the same as you do. This isn’t “politically correct” world where we have to be careful what we say … this is clear cut free speech. Was it irresponsible to publish the cartoons? Probably. Was it driven by anti-Muslim sentiment? Probably. Should this kind of activity be permissible? ABSOLUTELY. It’s fundamental to liberal values to have almost unfettered access to freedom of speech, even when such speech may hurt someone’s feelings or interfere with their belief.

Of course my view is that something as widespread as religion (there are thousands of religions, maybe millions from the past, present, and more in the future) should not be something you fight over. Your religion is just one of many, you can believe everyone else is going to hell or something, just keep it to your damn self and quit trying to tell everyone else. Unfortunately it is in the nature of Christianity and Islam to spread aggressively which causes inevitable conflict.

Anyway, here are the cartoons .. because I happen to value my freedom of speech and expression.

I loved this little story that I came across tonight and just had to post it for anyone that happens to read it. It comes from “Buddhism Plain and Simple” by Steve Hagen.

There is an old story about a man who came to see the Buddha because he had heard that the Buddha was a great teacher. Like all of us, he had some problems in his life, and he thought the Buddha might be able to straighten them out.

He told the Buddha he was a farmer. “I like farming,” he said, “but sometimes it doesn’t rain enough, and my crops fail. Last year we nearly starved. And sometimes it rains too much, so my yields aren’t what I’d like them to be.”

The Buddha patiently listened to the man.

“I’m married, too,” said the man. “She’s a good wife … I love her in fact. But sometimes she nags me too much. And sometimes I get tired of her.”

The Buddha listened quietly.

“I have kids,” said the man. “Good kids, too … but sometimes they don’t show me enough respect. And sometimes …”

The man went on like this, laying out all his difficulties and worries. Finally he wound down and waited for the Buddha to say the words that would put everything right for him.

Instead the Buddha said, “I can’t help you.”

“What do you mean?” said the astonished man.

“Everybody’s got problems,” said the Buddha. “In fact, we’ve all got eighty-three problems, each one of us. Eighty-three problems, and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you work really hard on one of them, maybe you can fix it - but if you do, another one will pop right into its place. For example, you’re going to lose your loved ones eventually. And you’re going to die some day. Now there’s a problem, and there’s nothing you, or I, or anyone else can do about it.”

The man became furious. “I thought you were a great teacher!” he shouted. “I thought you could help me! What good is your teaching, then?”

The Buddha said, “Well, maybe it will help you with the eighty-fourth problem.”

“The eight-fourth problem?” said the man. “What’s the eighty-forth problem?”

Said the Buddha, “You want to not have any problems.”

Some ancient eastern wisdom is actually pretty damn contemporary. Try to eliminate all your problems, and problems will pop up in their place always. Ignore your problems and distort the reality of them and they will haunt you forever, eventually piercing through your veil of ignorance. Deal with problems as the come, prudently and logically and without worry, in the moment. Worrying about something before it happens does nothing, and similarly stressing over something that has already happened will never change the past.