On February of 2024, I had experienced a sense of melancholy; surely I was depressed in the mood sense, but more importantly I was anxious that I may also be depressed of fulfillment. This came about from [EDIT: mixing wheat and sucralose and destroying my good gut bacteria as a result] finding life analogous to solving a mathematical problem, where regardless of what type of work is shown and what type of calculations are made, the outcome remains constant. Naturally this math analogy posits math to be subjective in the first place, for I would be saying one can plug in any numbers to a calculator, and use any operators like multiplication or division, and still reach the same objective answer. But I will invite you to suspend any beliefs about mathematical objectivism. Only this way can I show you by the end of my essays, how existentialism can be solved just in case the worst case scenario is true that anything you plug into a calculator leads to the same one answer. By "outcome," I refer not to natural death but rather to the cyclical return to a phase of reassessment, prompting the search for purpose anew.
It is supposedly common for many people to experience existential crises once in a while, but many of them have completely different reasons or stories on how they came about that. Some feel like "love does not exist since we experience the same love chemicals from eating our favorite foods" or that "humans are nothing more than chemical processes working together in a multicellular organism with a backbone on it". Others may feel it is impossible to answer what it means to be "authentic" or the self that is true to both what our nature is and what we want our nature to be; I reckon the Japanese philosopher Mishima said something along the lines of "once we find harmony between our inauthentic self and our authentic self, we are ready to kill ourselves." Yet others might have an existential crisis for some reason far better founded than these generic stories or my story. But I would like to share my story anyways, and by extension, explain why I felt like life is analogous to a weird deterministic math problem. Through reason, the origins of my analogy are no less than twofold: "The hero's journey", and "auroras". In the context of the hero's journey archetype, what follows once the hero has successfully rescued the princess and their society's innocent victims? Does the hero and the princess merely live happily ever after in a state of perpetual love, dancing and drinking red wine and gourmet dinners with no conflicts in society that are outside the scope of the human condition? It is often said that every good story has a conflict in it. A several of my grade-school English teachers even went as far as to say conflict is a required criteria for a good story. Similarly, Classical Greek Tragedies, despite of repugnant settings and elements, were reassuringly pleasant for the audience. But why? The below quote by Aristotle helps to answer that, albeit not a comprehensive account.
"ALL men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things." -Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.1
This brings me to the search for a systematic solution to existentialism.
Most modern epistemologists regard soft rationalism or soft empiricism to be correct; rationalism is the belief that we are capable of thought without any of our five senses since we can operate on reason and/or preprogrammed knowledge-based instincts, and empiricism is the belief that we learn everything from perceptual experiences; staunch empiricists believe our perceptual experiences are solely limited to our five senses of touch, smell, hearing, taste, and seeing. Actually, soft rationalism and soft empiricism mean almost the same thing or some epistemologists even mean it to mean exactly the same thing. But regardless of which "genetic principles of epistemology" are true, it is the case that a good start in designing a practical doctrine for the search of knowledge of anything and everything, is to study animals in nature. Why? Because we can study them to learn how perceptual experiences affect on behavior. For animals take delight in their senses but lack any sort of advanced language and are enslaved by instinct [for the only known replacement for instinct is ideas brought about by advanced language, which humans have replaced, to some extent, their instincts with], it brings about their sensory endeavors to appear to be an isolated phenomenon. So they make a great case study on how senses drive our motivations. If the best doctrine for pursuit of knowledge is a step-by-step process, then incorporating the study of animals can appear in multiple steps and perhaps no fixed order.
Arguably and additionally, "common sense" might tell us that animal observation is a go-to technique for acquiring knowledge of practical wisdom. Engineers have studied animals to improve their designs on a myriad of technologies, from hydrolectric power extraction to aerodynamics to all mediums of transportation. Primitive humans in the wild have studied animals in order to infer which foods are poisonous for us to eat, and which foods bear health. As such, we must also look at animals in order to help us along the way of finding purpose. For instance, Greenland sharks, known to live up to 500 years, have been observed swimming slowly, primarily engaging in activities such as eating and mating. What is important is they do not do much more than that. Remarkably, some Greenland sharks have been alive since the time of the founding fathers of the United States, showcasing their longevity and unique behaviors, such as mating only after reaching the age of 100. The fact that these sharks do not exhibit suicidal tendencies despite their extended lifespan is indeed intriguing. Aristotle himself believed that animals knew their own purpose but that humans do not. I suspect that humans too would know their purpose if they did not replace their instinct with ideas instantiated by advanced language, although the matter is non-trivial. A human's nature could arguably be to overcome instinct in the first place. But generally, I tend to view our advanced language as something artificial, and an accident caused by the fact that humans leave trails behind of records on symbolic ideas of things for future generations to see and build off of.
The primitive pragmatic doctrine applied to existentialism, points us in the direction of greenland sharks. LOL! But in what way do greenland sharks tell us what our purpose is? Well, they move, eat, mate, and perhaps experience beauty in the whereabouts they roam. But which one of these four activities is congruent with the core principle of our purpose? There can only be one, unless we regard purpose to be non-cognitivist (i.e. something like an intuition or an emotion). But a non-cognitivist view of existential purpose raises too many questions about why that doesn't simply boil down to purpose not existing in the first place, and I do not want to get into that. According to Ockham's Razor, my essays provide a more simple answer for life purpose than any rationale for purpose being a non-cognivitist faculty. Anyway, There are multiple things that a greenland shark does, and we can not know through the primitive pragmatic doctrine which one of these things represent our true purpose. Alas, we are in need of other disciplines (i.e. metaphysics, biology, normative value theory) to help us solve existential crises.
The interconnectedness between living and non-living entities is a fundamental aspect of existence...In order for any of our body parts to contain living things, it needs an interconnected system. Our body parts contain living components, but they would not be alive without the system of all body parts working together. If one were to cut off their hand, all the organic matter in the hand would start to die unless it can form some harmonious ecosystem. One can expound this analogy to any scale. For instance, humans needing the Earth for sustenance. We rely on specific conditions like temperature, trees, and harmonious ecosystems to survive and avoid threats like gravity, drowning, or diseases. The heart contracts with electrons through ion channels, involving calcium and sodium.
In lieu of the ability to apply this idea to any scope whether be it zoomed in or zoomed out, it is self evident that all observable reality (most probably an infinite multiverse as you will see shortly) sustains God. Atheist readers here should view God as a placeholder for something like "natural order" or "reason" (described as the laws of nature, laws of physics, etc.). In a multiverse, God is forced to constantly create universes nonstop. In a multiverse, there exists "all possible worlds"...So any and every "realistic fiction" we could possibly imagine (and even those which humans may not be able to imagine) would in fact be a reality found outside our own universe. Now, one perspective of a theistic nature, suggests God as a personal entity with infinite power, as supported by arguments like Plantinga's modal ontological argument or Pruss' contingency argument, and implies that God must oversee all possible worlds to maintain infinite power and influence. Another perspective that is more deistic, is how God is an impersonal being that is forced against their will to create infinite universes to avoid demise due to being infinitely powerful. Regardless of which of the two perspectives is correct, the relationship between the living and non living shows a possibility that all sentient animals have free will and that it is the mark of all sentient beings...But what is the mark of all living beings since some living beings are not sentient? One candidate is temporality of time, although im not sure because viruses are (possibly) not living yet have a temporality. Arguably, the same is true about radiation; it is a non-living thing that has temporality. What about Francium? I don't exactly know because knowing would require answering many followup questions about my metaphysical framework...For instance, whether it is accurate to describe time as the movement of 3D planes such that the movement is shaped as a 4D version of those same shapes...Here, among many things, I would need to analyze the "geometry analogy to calculus" about how calculus can be visually described as the animation of geometric figures. Any of this would rest outside the scope of my essays on Existentialis At any rate, another candidate for what separates the living from the non-living is reproduction, but viruses reproduce and ai could artificially reproduce. So reproduction is highly unlikely to be the answer. Perhaps a more tenacious candidate for the essence of the living is egoism, but I guess there can exist species that desire to die as well and/or give something to another species at the same time...So can we call them egoist then? I dont know...In deriving a more general category of which egoism fits under, I would think the marker between all living beings from a functionalist standpoint must be something like motive...Egoism is a subcategory of motive and so might be too narrow. All living things seem to have motive, and all non-living things seem to lack motive. Viruses do things but do not have motive. AI does things but has no motive. Non-sentient living things like flowers have motive. So rest assured, it seems like part of the equation then for the purpose of living is to have some kind of motive...But actually holding this belief can get into really dangerous waters and lead us to potential mind-traps, for I would argue we and living things (and even some non living things) have intrinsic value; such self-descriptive values would imply we have purpose even we literally have no motives at all...For that reason, we must look at normative value theory to help us solve existentialism.
But first, let us digress to chaos and order theory, for there exists a causal connection between it, and motive.
Chaos and order implies movement; this movement can be literal or a figure of speech depending on the context. If one were to fill up a fraction of a tank with gas, it would start out as chaos. Then, it would gradually move towards order by filling up the whole volume of the tank. Existence is intricately tied to movement within a mind-independent frame of reference. Some certain modern scientists believe we are in the process of solving and understanding consciousness this very year of 2024. They are actually using computer programs that are programmed to think [in some artificial sense] in unconventional ways beyond human comprehension. Namely, counter-intuitive frames of references with respect to time and movement. Notice how movement here is mentioned a lot. Biologically, movement is vital for sustaining life, as it ensures the functioning of essential processes like heart pumping and oxygen intake. Marathon running serves as a metaphorical embodiment of movement, reflecting a sense of purpose and alignment with intrinsic value. Some marathon runners (e.g. Michael Arnstein) seem to think the purpose of life itself is to do marathon running. This looks like both literal and figurative movement! Existentially, does aligning one's state of living with motive and intrinsic value necessitate movement? The transition from instinctual behavior to idea-driven actions poses an existential question, since humans grapple with the freedom of choice and the burden of ideas. The more choice we have, the less sure we are of our purpose. Pythagoras' belief in the existence of ideas in all possible worlds underscores the significance of discovery and exploration in humans; more to the point, if Pythagoras is right, then it would help explain why humans were able to replace instinct with ideas of reason. Other forms of movement, such as continuous learning and pursuing knowledge, echo Aristotle's lessons to Alexander the Great that account for his large scale domination in Europe and Asia Minor, emphasizing the pursuit of understanding and expansion of one's worldview. The concept of the Nietzschean Übermensch revolves around the perpetual creation of value, suggesting that ceasing to create value renders one replaceable. The Übermensch's essence then must arguably be the continuous generation of value, for stagnation leads to the imposition of a slave morality and the loss of Übermensch qualities. So according to metaphysics and biology, it seems that movement, even in the broad sense, serves as a fundamental aspect of existence, purpose, and the pursuit of value in various philosophical contexts. But without using value theory as a tool to solve existentialism, it is unclear whether the solution to existentialism is movement in the sense of fulfilling instrumental duties, or movement in the sense of intrinsic value. Greenland sharks do both.
I would like for the reader to notice that movement is mentioned not only here, but also as one of the functions mentioned above of a greenland shark.
So what does movement itself look like? Ethically, from a moral realist perspective, the ability to do good is contingent on movement. But the purpose of a flower is not solely to provide food for honeybees; that is just a beneficial side effect. The true purpose of a flower, which is intrinsic, is simply to be a flower. When we reduce the purpose of life to only instrumental benefits, it leads to an infinite regress issue. Aristotle discussed this concept in his Nicomachean Ethics. He observed that all processes require an initial source or intrinsic value to set things in motion. For instance, he decided through a myriad of reasons as well as criticisms against various Greek schools and philosophers, that there must be an Unmoved Mover...This is something which does not move, but attracts everything else to move towards it. Perhaps a more intuitive and relatable example is the idea that a waterfall can be perpetuated, but only so long as an unmoved infrastructure with rocks and streams allow it to be. If the purpose of life is solely instrumental (serving others), it would create an endless chain of instrumental goods, resulting in an infinite regress. This contradicts the idea of a universe with a clear beginning and order. Chaos theory also challenges the notion of infinite regress, as it shows that chaos eventually transforms into order in various aspects of life. This transformation from chaos to order indicates that the universe does not operate in a perpetually regressive manner. If infinite regress were true, then reality would have to perpetuate order infinitely. It is not possible for chaos to perpetuate infinitely, for lack of harmony is temporal and harmony is permanent. Chaos is what we see in reality. So infinite regress is impossible.
it is intriguing to observe how individuals, particularly older adults, find joy and fulfillment in activities that transcend the mundane aspects of life. They often derive happiness from engaging in intellectual pursuits, such as reading books and sharing their wisdom with younger generations. This exchange of knowledge and passion serves as a source of fulfillment and purpose for them. It all goes back to the earlier quote by Aristotle, on how all people desire to know. The pursuit of superficial endeavors, such as engaging in promiscuous behavior or seeking fame through activities like pornography, may not lead to the same sense of contentment and fulfillment. Why? Because the very best case scenario good that pornography can be, is an instrumental good. Even then it probably is not any sort of good. While some may argue that individuals like Johnny Sins, a well-known figure in the adult entertainment industry, have achieved a form of eudaimonia due to their perceived authenticity and self-expression, the true depth of their satisfaction remains questionable. According to Aristotelian value theory we have the capability to make a desire to e.g. masturbate to porn, completely unnatural for us. He would want us to make everything good for us natural to us. He thinks it is possible to make monogamy (and lack of desire to cheat on a partner at all) a natural instinctive desire for most people, or to make polygamy [organized multitude of partners as seen in gorillas] or promiscuity [random sex as seen in rabbits] a natural instinctive desire for those same lot of people. I agree with him, but for brevity's sake, proving it may be outside the scope of solving existentialism. Still though, it helps us give clues that the purpose of life is not just to move, but to move in a way that fulfills intrinsic value as opposed to instrumental values. Examining the behavior of creatures like Greenland sharks, who spend a significant portion of their time in constant motion, raises interesting questions about the nature of purpose and fulfillment. For beings unencumbered by the complexities of human consciousness and the pursuit of knowledge, the act of movement itself may suffice as a means of fulfilling their inherent purpose. In contrast, humans possess a unique inclination towards seeking knowledge and understanding, a trait that sets them apart from other creatures. Aristotle, in his ethical philosophy, emphasized the importance of aligning one's actions with their inherent nature, highlighting the human desire for knowledge as a defining characteristic of our species. This pursuit of knowledge, driven by our innate curiosity and desire to comprehend the world around us, is a prime example of "moving our innate value".
After examining greenland sharks and other animals, delving into Aristotelian metaphysics, exploring chaos theory and its tendency to evolve from disorder to order, analyzing the interplay between living and non-living entities, and considering the concept of intrinsic value, I have arrived at the conclusion that our purpose, which applies universally, is to "move." By movement, I refer to a broad and metaphorical concept that entails embracing our true selves, akin to how a flower simply exists as a flower, embodying intrinsic value. Animals seem to effortlessly embody this essence, while humans often struggle due to their freedom from instinctual constraints. Aristotle shared a similar sentiment, pondering the essence of humanity and envying the innate understanding animals possess compared to humans. To truly realize our intrinsic worth and authenticity, I propose that movement, in a fundamental sense, is essential. For Aristotle, this movement signifies achieving eudaimonia, while the interpretations for Kant and utilitarians may vary. It is breathtaking how Aristotle got so many things right which thousands of years later serious philosophers miss out.
In lieu, I reject the notion that individuals create their own fundamental purpose. Such beliefs can actually contribute to feelings of depression as it is fundamentally flawed in the first place. I say this on account of my primitive practical doctrine, my metaphysics, my biology, my value theory, and so on. Indeed, it would seem challenging to align the perspective of creating one's purpose with moral realism without caching out a ton of kinks.
Anyway, I have a short and funny story. After I drew the conclusion of moving towards our intrinsic value which itself is movement, I had forgotten why I had any sort of existential crisis in the first place. Quite literally, if we are a creature that is not infatuated by perceptory experiences, then it is enough for them to be able to move around a black blank slate...But humans have this problem of desiring to know!! Aristotle says the ethical thing to do is to fit whatever the nature of our socratic genus, is...and mans desire to know is one of the socratic genuses of humans. For what it is worth, Aristotelian ethics is attractive in the first place since it is one of the very few moral-realist theories that allow for certain cultures to have certain kinds of differences between one another. But that is for another day.
The way to cache all this out is "movement towards intrinsic good". This can be thought of as being creative, but only a certain kind of creative.