Meaning Of Life Part II

Meaning Of Life Part II

Giegerich claims that myth, religion, and metaphysics were never explicit answers to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” Rather, he says

they were merely the concrete articulation or formulation, in imaginal form, and, in the case of metaphysics, the explication, in the mode of thought, of the form of the factually existing in-ness in, or groundedness of, existence at each historical locus respectively. The tales of myth, the religious practices, doctrines, or dogmas, the elaborate systems of metaphysics, spelled out in different modes the logic that factually governed a people’s lived life. They were the self-expression in consciousness of the meaning that was.

He returns back to his metaphor of the fish in water to say,

Just as fish could never seriously question the meaningfulness of being in water, so from the age of myth through the end of the age of metaphysics, i.e., through the time of Hegel and Schelling, man could not possibly have in all earnest raised the question “Is Life Worth Living?” as a real, more than merely rhetorical, question.

Again, this brings to mind the notion of wu-wei. If we are letting life flow as it must without interfering, we have absolutely no need of questioning life as to its meaning. We are here.

We have been thrown into this world, not of our choosing, or at least it seems that way. Perhaps we actually did choose our lives according to our portion of fate, as in the Myth Of Er, recounted by Socrates in Plato’s Republic, but have no memory of it, having passed through the Plain Of Lethe (forgetting) before entering this world.

Nevertheless, it is futile to ask the ego to supply an answer to the meaning of life. A fish would not ask one of its gills why it is in the water and not living on land! So, it is just as preposterous to think we, in our egocentricity and preoccupation with external things, should attempt to dispel the mysteries of life.

This post has been read 3527 times!

6 thoughts on “Meaning Of Life Part II

  1. ok then, what do you think this psychologist is doing that is so different from him being a philosopher? i had a brief look at the paper (too busy reading other stuff to read another 50+ pages) and noticed most of his quotes are from philosophers (although almost none are from recent ones, except a brief and cryptic mention of heidegger). what are we doing with all these divisions? ignoring each other, you make a comparision to wu wei, something i have also done about wittgenstein, and who hears? locked away from each other what progress is possible? academos is our prison. plato is our god.

  2. Well, you’re right about the walls that exist between philosophers and psychologists. There is no doubt about that. When I was attending university, the psychology people were spending almost all of their time putting electrodes in rabbits’ brains.Giegerich is a depth psychologist, like Jung, so he is very philosophical. There is really not much room in academia anymore for depth psychology. It’s all behaviorism now.

  3. [* Shield plugin marked this comment as “spam”. Reason: Failed GASP Bot Filter Test (checkbox) *]
    you got a very great website, Gladiola I noticed it through yahoo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × two =