The Matrix Retold

[Chaerophon]

We are incapable of determining truth.

Damn straight. As far as I, and many others are concerned, perfect certainties are an impossibility (with one possible exception: that being that 'I' exist as a thinking thing...) and we must only be satisfied with practical certainty. That being said, I'm not sure that you can infer from that that humans are idiots! In order to believe in something, a leap of faith, large or small, is necessary. That includes scientific 'fact' as well as religion. Thus, the 'purpose' of your existence is certainly subjective as we are incapable of empirically defining what that purpose may be; however, in the act of EXPLORING THE QUESTION we may be able to come to better understand what we WANT the purpose of our lives to be. That is to say that we may come to define what it is that we think is worth living for.

Existence in such an environment in which God is not empirically provable may appear to not be worth living. In my opinion, the task of existentialism, then, is not to say:

The road gives itself purpose

The road, instead, HAS NO empirically definable purpose.

Rather, existentialists tend to make the case that we must create our own reality in order to provide life with purpose and from this and only this will stem human happiness or at least satisfaction. In a world devoid of certainties, we must create our OWN certainties. Two major points to be considered in contemplating existentialism:

1.) Existence precedes essence. In other words we are born into the world without a difinite path, meaning, goal, etc. There is no discernible purpose to life before we are born. Existentialism is centered on the belief that we are thrown into a world where there is no meaning except that which we create ourselves.

2.) The world is absurd. If we are to believe that the only real meaning in the world is that which we create, we must first assume that the world is absurd and ridiculous. Ideas like "the meaning of life" are thrown out the window when we realize that the world has no meaning on its own.

And from this stems (well, preceded, really, but, I digress...) the Nietschean notion of creation, or the expression of the Will AS purpose.

Now then, in this context, Doc's words both seem to gain as well as lose some meaning. On the one hand, he is expressing purpose as an intensely personal experience which is extremely difficult or even impossible to relate with which I cannot argue; however, on the other, he seems to making the argument that there is a single purpose to be found with which I would strongly disagree unless he means by this that each must come to this existential realization.

All of this being said, if we are to accept that there is no empirically confirmable "truth" to be found in our world, a 'leap of faith' is a necessary component in order to believe in ANYTHING, scientific, religious, or other. In making such a 'leap', one cannot be defined as "wrong", as any and all things are plausible to a certain extent. I would argue, however, that one WOULD be wrong in making such a leap without extensive contemplation. This is where the opinions of PhD's and those of some depth of understanding come into play. They guide contemplation. In my opinion, the ignorant bible-thumper is WRONG not to question his religion. How can one be considered firm in one's convictions if one has never considered the alternative. After such a contemplation, one's beliefs, whatever they may be, take on a meaning, and thereafter, the virtues expressed by one's belief system may say a great deal about the nature of one's will. The "meaning of one's life" only becomes real through consideration and CHOICE. If the world has no intrinsic meaning, then it is up to the choices that one makes to create a meaning.

This isn't all perfectly clear to me, but I'm working on it ;)