Why live? Many people have asked this question, but very few have tried to answer it. This question boils down to two smaller questions. The first being whether there is a meaning or purpose to life, and the second is what that meaning, or purpose is. For the purpose of this paper, I will define meaning to be a continuous goal or ideal that in striving to fulfill gives a feeling of purpose to the life of the one trying to fulfill it. Additionally, there are multiple ways to address the question of whether to have faith in a God. Typically, these arguments boil down into two categories, epistemological arguments, and pragmatic arguments. Epistemological arguments seek to try to prove God’s existence through some sort of evidence and/or reason, such as the argument that the world is so complex it must have been designed. Pragmatic arguments on the other hand are indifferent to whether God exists, and instead argue that faith should be maintained for a practical purpose. An example of this is Pascal’s wager which states that because you have the possibility of infinite punishment for not believing in God, and potential infinite pleasure for believing in God, that it only makes practical sense to believe in God. One such pragmatic argument that is common is the argument that God is necessary for a meaning, and sense of purpose in life. Specifically, I will be critiquing Kierkegaard’s version of this argument found in The Sickness unto Death and highlighting some alternatives to this argument.
To begin we will need to define some terms that are common and relevant in Kierkegaard’s work. Firstly, the notion of self that Kierkegaard has, which is the synthesis of the body and spirit. Since Kierkegaard was a dualist, and a catholic he held that humans were comprised of a body, a mind (or soul/spirit), and what he called the self which was what connected the two parts together (Kierkegaard, p. 43). Now for the important part, which is what Kierkegaard calls despair. Despair for Kierkegaard is most easily defined as analogous to existential dread. Despair is a phenomenon that everyone experiences in Kierkegaard’s view (Kierkegaard, pp. 52-58), and is what makes us question if life is worth living, and if it has a purpose or meaning. In a technical sense, Kierkegaard believes that to ameliorate despair there is a balance of bodily needs and mental needs that both need to be satiated (Kierkegaard, p. 59) Essentially on the body side you need things like enough food to eat, a place to live, and any other typical socioeconomic or “real” things to satiate your body (Kierkegaard, p. 63). Mentally, or better put spiritually our needs are quite different. Unlike bodily needs, which are overall easier to deal with Kierkegaard posits that the mind is much harder to satiate and that satiating it requires something infinite (Kierkegaard, p. 60). His reasoning is that the body is linked to the “actual”, whereas the mind exists in the “possible” (Kierkegaard, p. 65). Functionally this implies that your mind is capable, and you are free to entertain anything, whereas your body can only experience what actually exists. Because your mind is not limited to the real world and is ultimately free to experience anything the potential to create despair is infinite. No matter what your material conditions are, and no matter how well things are going we can always construct something better to compare ourselves to. We can consider other possible selves, and better possible selves and hold ourselves accountable to that standard.
For a practical example let us say you just defended a PHD thesis, and you are about to open the letter to know if you got your doctorate. At this point there are two possible selves in your mind, the self that earned the doctorate, and the one that did not. If you failed, then you are acutely aware of the fact that it is possible for you to have been better and are therefore thrown into despair. But the despair is not about the reality of the failure in Kierkegaard’s mind, but the fact that you can conceptualize a self that could have existed. Now this example is not necessarily that terrible, however because our capacity for this sort of thinking is only limited to our imagination this can get worse. No matter the circumstance unless you are a God of limitless power then there is always a better ideal self to reach for (Kierkegaard, pp. 91-98). This asymptotic relationship means that no matter what you do you can never not be in despair. For Kierkegaard ultimately the resolution to this spiritual side of despair is God, or more specifically the faith in God.
Essentially for Kierkegaard what he says is that because God is infinite that a faith in Him is the only way to have a real meaning. Essentially the argument is that no matter what the ideal self you construct is God is ultimately able to determine what you should be. Because of his omniscience out of the set of infinite possibilities only God can determine the right path. Essentially that using your freedom of thought to subordinate yourself to faith in God will net you freedom from despair. For the PHD example either you get it, and that is God’s will, or you do not, and God has another plan for you. This leap of faith and trust in “God’s plan” is what Kierkegaard thinks is the way to address maintaining the balance of mind and soul, and what will ultimately resolve despair. Essentially, assuming you solve your bodily needs a faith in God is what will balance the soul side of the equation.
While on the surface this seems to resolve the issue, there are a few issues with it. The most salient one being that it appeals to a tautology. With this form of faith in God it is impossible to disambiguate a decision by God from random action. For Kierkegaard this is considered a strength since it means you can have “true faith”. Basically, the fact that it is not ever confirmed is what keeps it faith. While this may work for some, this uncertainty is a dealbreaker for many people. The lack of concreteness, and validation when striving for an ideal or purpose seems to lead you to the same place you started. While this may work for some who do not care about some sort of confirmation it certainly leaves a lot of people who want more certainty out to dry. For many now instead of wondering if you have a meaning or purpose, you are always left wondering if you are fulfilling that purpose under God with no way to confirm it. While there are other issues such as the assertion of a soul, and the issue of multiple God’s to put your faith in I think even just the above argument nullifies this line of reasoning. This does however leave us with an issue, because this supposedly works for some who are devout enough it seems like there needs to be an atheistic alternative to invalidate the original argument.
The two main contenders are nihilism, and newer existential schools of thought like absurdism. Nihilism simply posits that the question of if a meaning exists has no answer. It would claim that not only is Kierkegaard wrong that God is necessary to determine meaning, but that there is no meaning to determine at all. Since that first question has no answer, you cannot even begin to get to the second question of what that meaning is. There are many possible ways to reach this conclusion such as an epistemological approach in asserting that humans do not have the capacity to discover a meaning in the world, or that meaning itself is not applicable to something as large as existence. While this approach resolves some of the issues with Kierkegaard’s view such as the tautological nature of his argument, it does not resolve the initial problem of despair. For some nihilists there is no answer to despair, and that it is just part of human life. Alternatively, some nihilists claim that despair itself is a vestigial aspect of humanity that is just us looking to apply human pattern seeking to a broader context. Essentially this argument states that trying to ascribe meaning to life is just part of human nature trying to make constellations out of stars and understand inapplicable patterns. In this sense Kierkegaard’s whole framing becomes irrelevant, and nihilists simply ignore the problem. As weak of an argument as it is Kierkegaard’s view at least tries to tackle this argument, whereas nihilism essentially avoids addressing it completely. Finally let us talk about some other solutions found in existential philosophy, namely absurdism.
Absurdism takes a similar approach that nihilism takes, but then comes to a very different conclusion. Absurdism starts by asserting that there is no intrinsic meaning to the universe. However, unlike nihilism absurdism uses the same idea of freedom presented in Kierkegaard’s framework to claim that one can be constructed. Absurdism essentially boils down to the argument that we are radically free, and with that radical freedom we can choose to rebel against despair and choose to live how we want. In a similar way to the Hindu concept of Dharma there is essentially an argument that we choose what can give our life a meaning. Whether it be to help people for the sake of helping them or make as many contributions to a field of study as possible. The whole point is that there is not a one size fits all solution, and as such the solution must be discovered individually instead of prescribed universally. This approach still has some issues. Namely that determining what that meaning is for each person is very difficult. However, this solution does give you an ideal to chase after that solves Kierkegaard’s initial problem, while answering the question of meaning without the need of a God. Therefore, it seems that this claim that a God is necessary for meaning, and to resolve despair and a lack of purpose is not valid.
Works Cited
Kierkegaard, S. (2004). The Sickness Unto Death. (A. Hannay, Trans.) London, England: Penguin.