| What is Life? What is life? Is it an unending search for the ‘whys’ and ‘wherefores’ which continually spawn more queries for answers to be sought? Is it a trial which at its culmination is dealt the gift of life eternal or torment of interminable destruction, one of which reserved to the truly pious, while the other for those that disdain supernatural beings? Or is it, by none other than a fool’s folly, a meaningless void of perpetual hardship and adversity? The question itself is not easily answered through means of physical manipulations of tangible things, nor is it answered through theoretical manipulations of the most sacred of cognitive objects, but is most decisively approached through introspective thought. That is to say that one must look within oneself to find the definition of life, and though it is not an easy task it must be undertaken to fully expunge any misconception of life imposed by societal factors that claim infallibility but are undoubtedly mistaken. Now, before the definition of life is discussed the essence of introspection must. To comprehend this delicate and wonderful art one must first release oneself of all innate biases, or, in laymen terms, free one’s mind. This can easily be accomplished by the myriad of state altering “tools” whose acquisition is facilitated quite well by the various “connections” one can make in even relatively small urban (and suburban) locales. Keep in mind that I am not so callow to condone such a foolhardy act and do not, in fact, condone it. It is solely mentioned as an expedient way of ridding oneself of the pervasiveness of alien influences. Of course a less drastic (but slower) method to do so does indeed exist. The method is to purify our essences through blatant disregard for all accepted beliefs, even those one holds to be true. The repetition of phrases such as “this is all bullshit”, “who came up with this”, and “this makes little sense” will eventually spawn indifference to societal impositions, which is, in fact, what is needed for true introspective inspection. After accomplishing this mighty difficult undertaking one is fully capable of the divine art of introspection… and finding the true definition of life. Second, I assume I must clarify the undoubted misconception much of the misbegotten populace has. That is, of course, that the definition of life is one in the same with the meaning of life. One would truly err in making this grievous fallacy because if it were true then life would be defined as procreation, which makes absolutely no sense, my imbecilic prodigies. As you can see, life’s meaning or ‘purpose’, if you will, cannot define life for life defines it. So, what exactly is life? Well, now is the time to truly delve into the depths of one’s soul (or, more realistically, romp through one’s cognition) to find the answer… As the journey to recognize the definition of life begins an idea of social duty realizes and seems rather feasible. This would mean that life is a perennial series of contributions to the structures of civilization to improve the common welfare. And all seems fine and good, except the fact that very few beings have some type of social structure, which is indeed evidence to believe that society is a product of life and therefore cannot truly define it. “But what about the Social Contract?” you say. “Well, the social contract was devised by an idiot philosophe that had no insight into the nature of organisms,” I reply. You see, Rousseau did not fully grasp a concept that his colleague, Thomas Hobbes, did. The concept was that humans are inherently evil. Hobbes, however, did not define ‘evil’, and my assumption would be that such a brilliant man did not mean it in the biblical sense, since most know that there exists neither good nor evil but solely perspective and interpretation. Hence ‘evil’ as used by Hobbes means the drive to self-preservation and self-interest. This drive, extant in all things, triggers the inevitable failure of any “Social Contract”. Images crossing one’s mind produce quite the pretty picture of what life may be but to interpret them is a most difficult mission, but maybe elucidation is unnecessary. The pretty picture itself may in fact define life for what better definition is there of life than beauty. It is true that almost all things, however insignificant, however destitute, horrendous, repulsive, perfumed, comely and gargantuan, possess an intrinsic beauty. Have you not stopped to observe the magnificence of a potentially pungently fragranced mammal devour the leftover of some non-environment friendly individual? Or what about the clichéd stopping and smelling of roses? Is that not beauty? The cerulean sky, azure waters, emerald greenery, and the majestic rainbow of all living things possess splendor. All is handsome… except one, humanity. I see only animosity and ugliness in man. It is the sole thing in which I cannot find any attractiveness. As hard as I search I see no semblance of the comeliness found in all other aspects of nature. Hell, even the Bubonic Plague had more beauty. Apparently, this cannot be a truth but yet another fallacy in our seemingly unending quest for the definition of life. But such hindrances will not stop us, we shall continue on. “This thing called love, I just, can’t handle it… Crazy little thing called love.” Listening to one of Queen’s greatest hits has opened my eyes to a new path in this wondrous excursion, and it is love. Could love possibly define life? The possibility exists that an emotion that I thought false (and still do) could somehow define life. The traditional view of love held by many like myself was that it is a derivation of fear, not a self-contained, perpetual entity. “How is that?” you say. Well, when one is afraid to lose comfort and familiarity they claim love but it is, in fact, not. Contrarily, when one strives for comfort and familiarity they search for “love”. It is solely a name given to the mind’s interpretation of those fears. Also, “love” is often sought to appease the messages that stem from the phallic region along with other regions of chemical stimulation, which is an urge to copulate not a hunt for love, and, of course, is physiologically defined in that sense. But then how can a contradictory statement as “love defines life” be made? I don’t actually know as I do not recognize love in its intangible sense but I assume some anthropologist or psychologist could, so let us forego that discussion and have one of more relevance. Love is ever extant in the minds of humans and is personified by the care shown by a part to their counterpart, such as father to son or sister to brother, and is also true of animals. However, the invariable truth is somewhat stretched, if you will, for you see animals do not possess the same ability to cogitate as humans and have only the ability to actually recognize baser emotions such as fear, not love. Love, in this context, is comprised of lower echelon emotions (basically various states of terror) and constructed by reason to assume its familiar form. Therefore animals do not love as humans love. Their love can be described as a defense created to protect their offspring. It is also evident that in actuality all animals do not retain an inherent disposition to care for their progeny or other counterparts. Take, for example, the sea turtle which lays its eggs on a beach and leaves its offspring for dead as it again ventures off into the ocean. Or take certain male primates that kill all perceived threats even if the threat is its progeny. The same can be said about humans as well. Every year there are many that kill their counterparts: brothers kill sisters, mothers kill children, sons kill fathers, etc. All this proves the invariable error in this supposed “truth”. Perhaps the best way to define life is to analyze its converse, death (I know we could just define life as the lack of death. But then how would you define death? As the lack of life. You’re an idiot. That would be a circular argument. Anyway, it’s in no way introspective). Now, as you think of death what thoughts appear in your Gulliver (to use a phrase from the magnificent A Clockwork Orange)? Joy, happiness, serenity? Look deeper, deep into the inner depths of your mind, ah yes, you see it, animosity. Yes, it is true all creatures truly abhor death. What being could not hate a sphere devoid of their existence? No animal for certain, but what about humans (as though we are ignorant to the fact that humans are animals)? Surely they must, through the use of their “reason”, actually find comfort in the thought of their eternal repose. But I contest the notion that one can rid themselves of the animosity toward the intangible death that leaves their tangible acquaintances free of life and ultimately will remove theirs. So, what now? The abhorrence of death characterizes life. But do “baser” beings that cannot comprehend the complex love comprehend the equally complex hate? Of course not, but now what? Well, love and hate are essentially the same for they stem from a common progenitor, fear. We enter the world cold and stricken with fear only to suffer more duress, harsher than any we have ever known. At every turn, each day, each moment we are filled with fear that prompts us to make certain decisions to insure survival. This is true of all organisms because none actually want to be dead, no matter how strongly they profess their indifference or make apathetic displays. In truth they actually fear death. They fear no longer being extant. They fear leaving their loved ones behind. They fear being left behind. They fear death. Therefore life is, indeed, fear. All actions, all emotions, all thoughts are derived from fear. Without fear there would be no life. If no one had fear all would gladly accept death, and no one would protect their progeny, no one would choose to go on living for life contains strife, hardship, pain, all things we gladly submit ourselves to simply to avoid our cursed demise. Life is fear. I am somewhat shocked at that statement. I felt that fear may have had some part in life but not the definition of it. It is somewhat humbling to find that I, thinking I was not controlled by such a trivial thing, am totally consumed by it. All statements, all remarks derived from… fear. But wait, maybe life is not fear; maybe it’s characterized by something else. After the previous humbling experience (an effect introspection sometimes has) I choose to put aside those effeminate ramblings for a more affluent thought. You see, choice is ever prevalent in life. Though it seems to be an effect of fear, I would like to pose this question, “Do we choose to fear or fear to choose?” Indeed, it is not an easy notion to ponder as it is quite perplexing. First, I assume a clarification of the terms may be in order. If we “fear to choose” then fear is, in fact, the definition of life. Contrarily, if we “choose to fear” then choice would characterize life. Let us pensively ponder this dilemma for I cannot whole-heartedly accept my previous argument. And maybe that concept is the necessary point. If one chooses not to agree with fear, then are they not proving choice is the definition of life? But if that choice is derived from fear of being fearful then would that not contradict them? It seems so. But it’s not possible that choice comes from fear because we often choose the most perilous roads, correct? Although that choice may be spawned from a fear of mediocrity. Though if you do not fear mediocrity or peril then the chosen path would be exactly that, chosen. Hence choice would be the greater argument, subduing the weaker fear. Neigh, it cannot be so, for if fear is intrinsic it may also be latent. We could be oblivious to the impetus that drives our choices, effectively nullifying choice. Latent fear making choices for us? How preposterous. Fear cannot fully impel, I presume, but solely influence, ultimately leaving the decision to the individual. What a quandary this is, is it not? On the one hand we define life as fear and put our destiny at the whim of the basest of emotions, how effeminate! On the other hand life is choice and we define ourselves and our future. Whether the former or latter is the truth I do not know, nor do I wish to continue pondering for I hath lost mine self in the contemptuous art of introspection. Hopefully, you have gathered something from my ramblings and now have sufficient insight to delve into yourselves for the elusive yet existent definition of life. You must ponder diligently this question and expose your findings to ease my restless mind… |