But against the palpably sophistical proofs of Leibniz that this is the best of all possible worlds, we may

even oppose seriously and honestly the proof that it is the worst of all possible worlds. Arthur Schopenhauer

I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically gettin killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. The Myth of Sisyphus

What makes life worth living?

Ill just say this right at the outset. This will not be the feel good lecture of the year. Its not one youre probably going to want to bring up at the dinner table, or on date night while waiting to catch a movie. Its going to shake to the core, some of your most treasured values and ideals. Keep in mind, Im not in the business of bringing cheer; this is the truth business and I come to you with the truth, or at least, what I find to be true. I wish I could have packaged it, wrapped it in fancy paper, and put a nice bow around it, but I come to you with nothing but words, experiences, and ideas. Now, if these werent lived ideas, then I wouldnt have come before you to give this lecture. Youll see in the end that what I bring you is not an easy pill to swallow. My guess is that some of you, if not most, will have an

allergic reaction to what I have to say, and you will reject my words, and see them as nothing more than the dark mind of a pessimistic philosopher. (And, you might be right!) However, I ask you respectfully to suspend your prejudices until the end, and only until youve given some thought to what I have to say. Let it ruminate in your mind. Give it some time. One of the most important questions of philosophy in general, practical philosophy, philosophy as lived ideas, philosophy outside of academia, and, ultimately, philosophy in the world is, what makes life worth living? We see this question arise in ancient Greek philosophy, the age of enlightenment, existentialism, and most eloquently by the great American philosopher, William James in, What Makes a Life Significant. Ill get back to James later on in the lecture. We dont ask ourselves this question anymore. Philosophers seem to have moved beyond this central question. My guess is they feel it was answered in the past and now it is old news. The new school philosophy has become a pursuit to know things, as in the mind, consciousness, and in this shift, theyve left practical wisdom behind. The old school philosophy was more concerned with what we cant know, and now its all about what we could know, setting aside the age old (unanswerable?) questions. Keep in mind, the same questions that keep the wheels of philosophy moving around.

The new school philosophers rather dally with questions about whether a computer will ever be able to replace a human. What I say is that the question, whether a computer will replace a human has no meaning, if we cant answer the question, as my friend John McDermott likes to put it, what gets you out of bed in the morning? Why is it that we lose our children, our parents, our friends, and sometimes, lose ourselves, and yet, for the most part KEEP GOING? We all share the same fate and it is spelled D E A T H. Why do we keep pushing that rock up the hill only to have it roll back down the hill? What gets us out of bed in the morning? What gets YOU out of bed in the morning? What makes life so significant that a woman like Bonnie Hoagland could send her three sons and husband off to fight in Afghanistan not knowing if theyll ever return? Clearly in this case it is hope, but is hope enough? Now, consider this: What makes life significant for the mother that LOSES three sons and a husband in battle? What gets her out of bed? What keeps her going as she walks past those bedrooms, with those all too perfectly made

beds; the same beds she knows will never have to be made again? What makes HER life significant? Cognitive science and philosophy of mind cant answer these questions. What makes life significant for the young Japanese man that lost his whole family and watched everything they owned get washed away like a stain on the counter? Why? Whats the deal? What is it about life that could make somebody push through these darkest of times? There are many ways we could approach this question. The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer would answer, Its the will-tolive, a blind and relentless force, even in the face of the greatest struggles. All matter, Schopenhauer says, is nothing more than the objectification of the will-to-live, the struggle for existence. Quite simply, were not geared for shutting down the machine. It keeps going by design and stops when it runs out of fuel, or at the hand of the individual as in suicide. This, however, is not the majority. In laymans terms, nature keeps us in the game through trickery and cunning. Even in the darkest nights of the soul, nature sheds a glimmer of light, saying stick around, itll get better. Many times it does not get better it gets worse. The 20th century philosopher and author, Albert Camus says, Man MUST live and create. Live to the point of tears. For Camus, this is not a question of should or maybe, its a MUST. We MUST live and we MUST create. Its who we are, and part of the fabric of our being. To live is our lot even if this living seems more like a death sentence, than a week on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro. It might be a stretch to go from Albert Camus to Richard Dawkins, the celebrated scientist, and dare I say, philosopher, yet, Dawkins was onto something when he said: We are survival machines robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. For Dawkins, its the invisible hand of natural selection that pushes us along this bumpy and uncertain road. Theres a scene in my all time favorite movie, Manhattan, by Woody Allen, and in this scene, Woody Allens character Isaac, is lying on his couch, and in an attempt to mend his broken heart, he just parted from his young but very wise girlfriend, Tracy. He asks himself the question, while speaking into a tape recorder, why is life worth living?

He continues: Why is life worth living? Its a very good question. Um Well, There are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. uh Like what okay um For me, uh ooh I would say what, Groucho Marx, to name one thing uh um and Willie Mays and um the 2nd movement of the Jupiter Symphony and um Louis Armstrong, recording of Potato Head Blues um Swedish movies, naturally Sentimental Education by Flaubert uh Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra um those incredible Apples and Pears by Cezanne uh the crabs at Sam Wos uh Tracys face Isaac answers the question why is life worth living, by citing things that make HIS life worth living, not life-in-itself, and the list ultimately culminates in Tracys face. It would appear from this list that there is nothing intrinsically valuable to life. I agree. Its my contention that life has no intrinsic value. Life is MEANINGLESS, in and by itself. The reality is that we are being pushed by the blind hand of natural selection, or will-to-live as Schopenhauer describes it, and it is absurdto keep going as Camus says, because there is no end game, no goal, no light at the end of the tunnel, no greener pastures, no right hand of the father, no vestal virgins. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Yet, we keep on truckin Life has no meaning until we bring meaning to life. WE are the creators of meaning and value. Its the role of the individual to find what feds them ontologically, and to find what others are fed by ontologically. Life in-itself is a cold and brutal bitch right through to the core, as in aint that a bitch, and, it is a bitch. Time robs us of all things memories, experiences, life, love, friendship, and most tragically our own person. Theres nothing scripted into life that says Hey, you! Come have some fun. Life is work and much of it is often all in vain, and bears the mark of something better not to have happened in the first place. Schopenhauer says (and Im paraphrasing) if you go to a cemetery and knock on the graves and ask the deceased if theyd like to do it all over again, 9 out of 10 times, theyd say no. After all, consider this we didnt choose this life. We were thrown into existence, given a name, most of us a religion, coddled for a number of years, then booted out into the real world, and told to deal with it.

If we were able to see a trailer of the film called life, how many of us would have opted to still buy a ticket to the performance? Its my contention that the question, what makes a life significant? rests on the assumption that life has inherit meaning or value. The question proper is Is life-in-itself significant? of which, Id answer with a resounding No. Life has no inherit meaning except from the biological perspective which is to pass on our genes. Nothing more. Nothing less. Biology doesnt tell us that we must go to college, buy the house with the white picket fence, marry our one true love, buy the new car, or the summer retreat. The reality is that biology doesnt say much of anything, it guides like I said, with an invisible hand. It works from behind the scenes. Its the silent partner. Theres a voice inside that says, There must be something else. What about Tracys face or the crabs at Sam Wos, or better yet, a babys smile? All those things are beautiful and stand to give meaning, but they are not part of life, they are part of the individuals life. Some people never see Tracys smile, or eat the crabs at Sam Wos, or get to take in a babys smile. What about those people? Is life NOT worth living? Perhaps, but that could be said for any of us. The point is that the purpose of life, the meaning behind its significance comes at an incredible cost. The individual has sole responsibility to find their own significance, make a life, and as Camus said, live to the point of tears. This is our story, right? The main theme that runs through Sartres existentialism, is that, we have no design, no set meaning, everything is for the making, and its only the individual that could add this meaning and create. There is a twist. The choices we make, which make up who we are, are also choices that define the collective group, society as a whole, in other words, mankind. Thats the burden of existence. Its almost enough to keep us from acting, and rendering us perpetual spectators. So, we have a dilemma The American writer and journalist, Hunter Thompson says, Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed? Thats the question. Now that we got past the grim reality that life-in-itself has no intrinsic meaning and value, and its only the individual that is able to create meaning, were confronted with having to ask whether were up for the task of sucking the marrow of life, or do we just sit by the shore and watch? It is a gamble. The only certainty in life, is death, and everything else is up in the air. You just dont know what tomorrow will bring.

Kierkegaard touches on this dilemma. Weve made a commitment to life and life as a pursuit for the truth involves a leap of faith. There are many different interpretations, and this is only one of them. Are you going to live the triumphant life of a Nick Vujicic, otherwise known as the man without limbs, or peer at life through a mousehole, as in, the unnamed character in Dostoevskys Notes from Underground?, or will we sound more like, Prufrock: For I have known them all already, known them all: /Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons / I have measured out my life with coffee spoons.. Theres a moral question that arises out of our own existential dilemma. Theres a lesson in how to treat others, and to respect that which another person finds significant, whether that significance be another person, or a thing, which is never just a thing to the person that finds it significant. William James says in What Makes a Life Significant: In my previous talk, On a Certain Blindness, I tried to make you feel how soaked and shot-through life is with values and meanings which we fail to realize because of our external and insensible point of view. The meanings are there for the others, but they are not there for us. There lies more than a mere interest of curious speculation in understanding this. It has the most tremendous practical importanceIt is the basis of all our tolerance, social, religious, and political The first thing to learn in intercourse with others is non-interference with their own peculiar ways of being happy, provided those ways do not assume to interfere by violence with ours. What James is highlighting is the fact that our significance(s) are on a person to person basis. What makes my life significance, does just thatmakes MY life significant, not yours, however if youre somebody that can gain nutrition from what I find significant, then pull up a chair, and enjoy the meal. That which we find significant is person based, its not up to any one individual to judge or devalue that which anybody else finds significant. It was brought to my attention not too long ago by a friend that my interest in Woody Allen seems more like an obsession, and from the outside, I can see how it would appear that way. However, as I see it, life-in-itself has no value or meaning, and our own personal existence within life-in-itself is often so difficult to feed ontologically and spiritually that when we do find

something where we grow and develop, but more importantly, gives us meaning and makes us happy, then I say run with it, take it as far as you can, because Time doesnt discriminate on what it steals, our interests and enjoyments are often on Times list of things to destroy. In closing, life-in-itself may have no meaning outside the blind biological force pushing us along, but our own personal existence bears the potential to create boundless significance. We have the potential to turn a bankrupt existence into a rich personal life. The follow up question to this and I will address it in the 2nd and 3rd lectures, is whether or not, this technological shift that is speeding up messaging and disconnecting us from the real flesh and bones of society is playing any role in shaping what we find significant.