The Written Word

Facebook is predicting the end of the written word (http://qz.com/706461/facebook-is-predicting-the-end-of-the-written-word/) on its platform and otherwise. Is it even possible?

A quick search of the history of writing shows us that the earliest form of writing with symbols came about around 6600 BC and the earliest script came around 3400 BC. Of course, some would be quick to point out that our ancestors had no Facebook or other social media platforms. But what they fail to realize is even in that day and age, people felt the need to communicate what was important by writing. Whether it be for the sake of posterity or merely expressing themselves, they chose to do so using the written word.

That tradition continues even today. Our most important documents are the letter of the law, legal contracts or binding deals. Whether it be the declaration of independence, the constitution or an agreement, none of these are left in pictorial format. They are represented in great detail in the written word. Why? Because the written word matters. The written word is powerful. In a world where everybody is expressing themselves using video or photography, it matters today more than ever.

It was Confucius who is known to have said, "Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know more." Referring back to Facebook, they believe that the written word will soon be lost due to the amount of video / pictures that people are using on their platform and Instagram. But they seem to have forgotten one important fact; these same people post their videos / photos, but any further communication on that happens in the written word. People in a certain sense are eliciting responses by their media in the written word. I would even go so far as to characterize the 'like' and other reaction buttons as ready written words. I wonder if they are counting the number of comments that people are posting on their platform or otherwise, for i'm sure that they would far outnumber the photo / video posts. 

Wittgenstein said, "The limits of my language means the limits of my world." I believe that the day we lose our ability to engage with the written word is the day we as a species would lose any value to give forward and therefore our existence. And since the very precept of our species is based on communicating using the written word and continuing to give value forward through it, i believe that the written word is far from done. Even when we say we are at a loss for words, we still find words to express ourselves. Because in a certain sense our very world is defined and limited by the limits of our spoken word, communicated in writing.

But how did we get to this place that some would believe that the written word is dead (albeit based on skewed analysis)? I believe it is because we have become too busy for our own good. The joy of writing is an art that is being lost. People today have a much better platform to communicate using the written word than they have ever had in any previous generation. Yet people seem to be content with consuming content in media rather than expressing themselves in writing, because they seem to have energy left only for writing. Writing seems to be reserved to make comments alone.

But even in this, the written word is not dead nor going to be anytime. If anything, it is more precious and valuable right now. It just requires a set of people who will once again set alight hearts and minds to remind people of the joy of writing and reading.

It is time that we got back to writing for the joy of it. Here's calling out all those who enjoy it! Let us garner our energies into expressing ourselves in the written word. Let us write to engage, to encourage, to prod, to tickle imaginations, to express and to give hope. Are you in?

The Search for Relevance - 2

2. THE RELEVANCE OF DISCOVERY

Discovery  [dih-skuhv-uh-ree]

Noun

The act or an instance of discovering.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain is known to have said, "The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why." Yet most of us would tide through our lives not allowing ourselves to give too much thought to why we were born at all. This is an interesting fact in the light of Mark Twain's statement. Because an evaluation of the same would mean that many of us have never realized the 2nd most important day of our lives.

The problem with the search for relevance in our lives is that we do not want to have to engage in this search; yet our innate beings push us, even beg us to answer this question. It is a paradox of sorts because we can't seem to bear to live with the mystery; yet find it almost impossible to find an answer that is truly satisfying. It makes us miserable especially when nothing seems to be making sense, it makes us frustrated when we can't seem to get a handle on situations and bend them to our wishes; but mostly it makes us feel helpless when we can seem to do nothing but resign to our mundane daily lives with no particular logical end in sight. The search for relevance is the quintessence of our lives, yet it is the single most frustrating characteristic of being human.

I believe that the answer to our search for relevance lies in the act of discovering the relevance of our lives daily, one step at a time. By extension of the same, we have the premise that in the absence of the process of discovery for our relevance daily, we stand little or no chance of ever finding the answer that our very existence begs of us. How could that even be true?

Think about it this way:- If you find yourself in a market wondering why you are waiting in queue to buy some meat, chances are that you are there because:

a. you wanted to eat the meat and drove yourself there to buy it

b. you are running an errand for somebody near home who told you to buy the meat for them

c. you are accompanying somebody to the market and they kept you in queue to get the meat, while they finished shopping for other stuff

or d. you are either sleep walking / raving mad and are in the queue in the market to just stand there for no apparent reason

If your answers are a or b or c, you arrived at those conclusions by ticking off the obvious fact in play and trying to discover the most relevant truth to you at that time. If you were to however skip the entire discovery process and not tick off the obvious and most relevant truth pertaining to situation, you are faced the response d and immediately begin to wonder if there is no better explanation; because regardless of your persuasion about philosophical thought and method, our brains seem hard-wired to seek eudaimonian balance in the reason for what we are doing. In essence our brains are hard-wired to walk through a serious of analytical questions to answer reasonably why we find ourselves in that market queue; in other words we discover our reason for being there.

Our lives are very much like that market queue we find ourselves in. We do not know why we are there but we certainly need to know. As we analyze all possible answers to the same, we start by eliminating the obvious and work our way to an answer one step at a time; in other words, we discover our true purpose. The important thing to remember though is that this discovery is a process that cannot be bypassed. The same way that Einstein didn't know when he was 15 that he would hailed the greatest mind of the 20th century, nor did Mother Teresa know that she would be hailed as the icon of humanitarian outreach when she was 10. We need to go through our lives, discovering each day who we are; else we only land up bitter and disillusioned.

In this context, frustrating though it is many a time to deal with the same; it is easy to understand the relevance of discovery in our lives. But there is another reason that discovery is important to us - it is the crux of what makes our lives relevant and makes us who we are. From the time we are born we are always discovering something about ourselves - our likes / dislikes, our palette, our facial impressions, clothes that bring us looking close to our own self-image, our values and what we truly believe in, etc. This process of discovery is what leads us to finding our perceived true selves. Discovery is the cornerstone of the Philosophy of Self; without it, we would never be able to define ourselves.

Now lets consider an alternate viewpoint - literally. In order to find relevance, we know we must discover our selves, our lives and our purpose; frustrating as it is. But it would be of great advantage if we could analyze our lives from a lens other than our own. An external lens that has not limitations of its own, nor possessing biases that would render its viewpoint just as skewed as ours, would give us great insight into our lives and its purpose. Such an objective picture though can be gained only from a viewpoint that is far removed from our own lives, yet intimately able to perceive and capture even the finest details. Very much like an aerial camera can provide a whole new perspective to a soccer game, all it takes is a glance from a viewpoint high up and removed to completely change our perspective on the way we perceive things. The question though is, does there exist such an objective viewpoint; so far removed that it is unaffected and unbiased, yet so intimately connected so as provide us insights into our lives?

For me that is the ultimate viewpoint. There is not a time when i have stood on a seashore looking at the vast ocean or looked at the fluffy clouds from the window seat aboard a flight that i have not wondered just how constrained i am. More importantly, i wondered whether i would ever be able to understand things from such an objective viewpoint; given how constrained i am.

Sources:

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relevance

2. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/505050-the-two-most-important-days-in-your-life-are-the

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

The Search for Relevance - 1

1. THE NEED FOR RELEVANCE

Rel·e·vance [rel-uh-vuhns] 

Noun

The condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand

We are born, live for about 60, maybe 70 years and then die. That's it! What is the point of our lives? For in the grand scheme of things (the 13.8 billion year old universe for example) what do those 60 - 70 years of your life count for? Or what do all our human lives put together count, for that matter?

The search for relevance is quintessential of the human experience. After all, to know the relevance of our lives is to know why it matters or how it is important. It is to understand why we are alive, where we fit in; it explains the reason for our existence. The search for relevance drives our lives, making us strive hard to find our niche. It is the reason for everything we have done, do or ever want to do. We spend our lives in such search; yet have no clue why we need to find the relevance of our lives in the 1st place. How are we to understand this need for relevance in our lives? Better still, we could start by asking do we need to understand it at all? After all, as Arthur Clarke is known to have said, "If we waste time looking for life’s meaning, we may have no time to live - or to play."

My wife and me have a 4 year old. Over the last year there has been one question he asks more than others - Why? He wants us to explain to him why were telling him to do / not do something, why some events played out a particular way, etc. In essence he keeps asking us the reason for things that concern / affect him in some way. It is part of our human nature to be curious. Curiosity is the only reason the human race has progressed so far. Edmund Burke would say, "The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity." To not try and address our deep seated need to find relevance in our lives would be to kill our most fundamental emotion. Colorado State University's Psychology Professor Michael Steger studies meaning, how people find it in their lives and whether it matters. He found that people in general who find some overarching meaning or foundational purpose supporting the things they do and their beliefs - tend to better withstand the things life throws at them. It is therefore that i believe we need to understand it; for Socrates couldn't put it better when he said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The need for relevance in our lives stems right from our childhood where we feel the need to identify why we are doing / not doing a particular set of things. Robin Sharma said about the same, "The purpose of life is a life of purpose." This deep seated need for relevance doesn't come from a life altering event alone as much as from within ourselves. Viktor Frankl, an Austrian existential psychologist surmised that our dominant driving force is to find meaning in life; as he put it, "He who has a why to live for, can bear almost any how." It was Baumeister who suggested that the search for relevance in our lives is in order to address the need for self-worth. Steger's research showed a direct correlation between one's sense of self worth and the perception that their life had meaning. As my wife and me watched our son grow, there was a phase where he loved looking at himself in the mirror and admiring himself. Child psychologists will tell you that this is how children get accustomed to their reflection and find a sense of worth as a distinct human being. It is at precisely that moment (usually when a child is around 15 months old) that we find the beginnings of the need for relevance in our lives. So closely knit is this imagery of self-worth to our being that as we continue to grow (and explore the world around us), this search for relevance grows to become a need for relevance; the need to be us!

The need for relevance more or less peaks by the end of our (exploratory) teen years which having been spent trying to define and express ourselves so that others would take notice; moves on (in most) to settle down into a more passive form of 'this is me and this is my life' mode. When questioned, most people tend to look back at this mindset of their 20's sculpted look, as the basis of the relevance of the remainder of their lives. However the truth is, most people in their 60's would have a good laugh about what they thought their lives would be in their 20's. Goes to prove that our need for relevance is not a milestone reached; rather is a process of exploration and discovery over the period of our lives. This is because our need for relevance is not in one action or thought that lasts a lifetime; rather it manifests itself in short and widely spaced quantum leap growth patterns of learning and developing. This never ending search for relevance as long as we live, is what defines our lives and edges us on to achieve. For ultimately it is this same relevance that defines our human experience and sets us apart from other the species on earth.

Make no mistake, this quest for relevance is a frightening one. Yet, the truth is we as humans only fear meaninglessness more. It is probably this fear that drives me to write. But if you are somebody who takes literally the satirical writings of Kurt Vonnegut when he said, "We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different;" well this series is not for you. Curiosity did kill Schrodinger's cat; but there is much we can achieve if we do not limit our curiosity. A case to the fact is everything the human race has achieved. So, if you are anything like me - a normal thinking human being wondering about our search for relevance, i ask that you embark on this journey of discovery with me.

Even as we begin this journey, ask yourself - "Am I relevant?" May it be that we find more answers than questions along this journey. I also sincerely hope that we will be wiser (and therefore happier) by the end of this literary journey to discover relevance in our lives.

Sources:

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relevance

2. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/relevance

3. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120618-why-are-we-so-curious

4. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/curiosity.html#E6gPJQgWzqIgSdA1.99

5. http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/09/17/the-meaning-of-life/
6. http://tinybuddha.com/blog/what-you-need-to-live-a-life-of-purpose/

7. http://www.strangenotions.com/if-atheism-is-true-does-life-still-have-meaning/
8. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19754476
9. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/do-you-want-a-meaningful-life-or-a-happy-one/
10. http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/sep/20/features11.g2
11. The Experience of Meaning in Life
12. http://www.whattoexpect.com/toddler/toddler-growth-and-development/self-recognition.aspx#
13. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mean-ana/
14. http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/08/the-meaning-of-life-in-under-300-words.php
15. http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9152.pdf
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Truth_is_relative,_understanding_is_limited/Meaning_of_life
17. http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vol.4-2Diehl.pdf
18. http://www.mortylefkoe.com/why-create-meaning/
19. http://www.rationality.net/meaning.htm
20. http://www.lunacoaching.com/DragonPower/how-being-curious-brings-aliveness-in-your-life.html
21. http://www.iep.utm.edu/emerson/
22. http://appliedsentience.com/2013/11/08/4-ways-philosophers-answer-children-that-keep-asking-why/
23. Schrodinger - What is Life?
24. http://www.umatterucanhelp.com/index.php/the-need-for-meaning
25. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/january/meaningful-happy-life-010114.html
26. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut

What is Life?

What is Life? It is a question that philosophers, theologians and scientists have been trying to define and answer for a long time. You might ask why should we care? Well to begin with, we are living beings, and that fact distinguishes us from most things in the Universe. Further still, we are among the few living beings in the Universe, so understanding the nature of life might be an important step toward understanding ourselves. And no, we are not talking about the meaning of life, the purpose of life or the philosophy of life. We are talking about the concept of life itself.

The Oxford Dictionary defines life as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and continual change preceding death or the existence of an individual human being, plant or animal". NASA's working definition of life states, "life is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution." While there are a multitude of definitions for the questions about the meaning, purpose and philosophy of life, it remains a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance; especially "since life is such a ubiquitous and fundamental concept, the definitions of it are legion." as John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler espoused in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. The nature of this problem can be understood by comparing this semantic task to the ancient Hindu story of identifying an elephant by having each of six blind men touch only the tail, the trunk, or the leg; what answer a biologist might give can differ dramatically from the answer given by a theoretical physicist, a philosopher or a theologian. 

Yet none of these issues stop us from trying to define life itself and understand its meaning, purpose and philosophy. The philosophical question of the definition of life has increasing practical importance in this age of science where almost all extra-terrestrial deep space probes (including Rosetta) seem to have 1 main fundamental purpose - to find, understand and explain life as we know it. While most of these efforts continue to take to biology, chemistry or physics; for the purposes of this blog post lets try to postulate a definition of life from a philosophical standpoint. 

There have been three main philosophical approaches to the problem of defining life that remain relevant today; namely Aristotle's view of life as animation; Descartes's view of life as mechanism; and Kant's view of life as organization. To briefly summarize and contrast the 3: Aristotle viewed life as any body / object / thing that is animated as a result of its soul which cannot exist by itself and has little to do with individual identity. According to him, each living being / object / thing is different because it / he / she is composed of varying compounds of form and matter. That is, different bodies / objects / things are animated by the same set of capacities, by the same (kind of) soul for each kind of object / thing / body. The soul therefore differentiated a living from a non-living thing / being. Descartes argued that the human body works like a machine and it follows the laws of physics. The pieces of the human machine, he argued, are like clockwork mechanisms. The mind or soul, on the other hand, is a non-material entity that lacks extension and motion, and does not follow the laws of physics. He went on to say, "I think, therefore I am;" that is to say that life is the object / thing / body being aware of its own being. Kant argued that all living beings / things exist in a self-organized fashion due to an internal purposiveness that accounts for the specificity of the structure of an organized being. As such, in contrast to a mere machine; organized and self-organized beings have formative force rather than just motive force; because of their soul or their being self aware. Thus life according to Kant, is an object / thing / body that has the ability to self-organize and produce within a set of process laws actualized by an external agent.

In short, these theories tell us that life is either a soul in a being / a self-aware being / a being able to self-organize and fend to keep itself alive. At the risk of being labelled as somebody who is pretty dumb, but acting smart, i posit an alternative definition for life as a unison of some aspects of the above 3 theories and more. Life is an organic being with a soul, that is self-aware, has the ability to self-organize and fend to keep itself alive in order to find and accomplish its purpose for being alive - which is to keep all other organic life going in its own way. This purpose becomes prime to all that is living and without it life doesn't exist; further this purpose doesn't come from being itself because it would mean having the ability to change the reason for its being - something no life is capable of doing. If life has died it is because it has exhausted its purpose contributing to ongoing life. A plant for example exists in order for it to multiply itself, while also providing of its produce to animal and man alike. Further it dies when it has played its part in keeping itself and other life going on - by ensuring that other life has been sustained by it in the past and will continue to be sustained by its multiplied forms in the future. A man / woman is alive in order to reproduce and also live out their lives in an attempt to keep other lives going around them. This causal action makes for the cyclical nature of life. So, in essence the purpose of life is inherent to life itself. As such, any definition of life should encompass such purpose.

Therefore, i would define life as a caused self-aware being with a soul, that has the sure ability to self-organize, produce and fend to keep itself alive with the purpose of keeping all other organic life going on; in its own way or form. This would then limit bots or humanoids as being counted for life because they do not have a soul nor an ability to produce. On the other hand, a bacterial form on a distant planet is definitely life; also the unborn fetus in the womb is also definitely life because both fulfill each of the above criteria. Hence a life as a legacy is a life that given more to the rest of life around it. Robert Frost is known to have said, "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on." This truly is the essence of life - going on and hence i choose to characterize all life in this way as the on-going goings-on.

Though simplistic sounding, what do you think of the above as a philosophical definition of life?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/life

http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm

http://www.edge.org/conversation/what-is-life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/

http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~janot/aga0316/artigos/DEFINING%20%20LIFE.pdf

https://suite101.com/a/aristotles-definition-and-levels-of-soul-a101071

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/

http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_descartes.html

http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/#H4

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/17th.html

Kant and the Unity of Reason By Angelica Nuzzo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/

http://celestiallands.org/library/Mindvsbody.htm

http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/top/top07

That Ever Elusive Happiness

"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know," said Ernest Hemingway. It is interesting that Hemingway would observe thus; but come to think of it, for a large part of the intelligent population this is true. The question is why? For it is not like they choose to be unhappy. Why is happiness that ever elusive component of an intelligent thinking human life?

Kant proposed the following rules for happiness, "something to do, someone to love, something to hope for." By that definition, most intelligent thinking humans have something to do and someone to love; albeit these might be in brief spurts of their life span. The problem then probably lies with something to hope for.

Living in the postmodern existential world that we do, our deepest sense of longing seems to be eternally hoping that something worth hoping for comes along. For as it has long been said, to hope is to be human. Yet the unspoken concept imbibed in all our minds seems to be as Aristotle declared, "Hope is a waking dream." It would seem that being stuck in the midst of this deep chasm, between the deep seated need of our human self to find hope to live and the bellowing want of our minds to strip ourselves of an unseen reality; more often than not as a sublimation to keep ourselves from bring ravaged by the reality of non-events in the form of failed hopes - we seem to be naturally inclining ourselves towards the void and bitter pessimism of having nothing that holds any meaning in our lives. We seek to alleviate our suffering by choosing death over life. We choose to live with the notion that Nietzsche proposed "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." 

Yet, by doing so we rob ourselves of our own happiness and in turn try to fill such void in our lives with everything other than hope; only to perpetuate the cycle to infinity. For all the while, we do not realize that without hope or the need for it, our lives as humans can never be truly lived. Our failed hopes are but a blip on the screen of the grand scale of our lives and in trying to shield ourselves from the ever possible danger of another failed hope, we degrade our own lives to merely an existence. Jürgen Moltmann would write about the same, "Totally without hope one cannot live. To live without hope is to cease to live. Hell is hopelessness. It is no accident that above the entrance to Dante's hell is the inscription: "Leave behind all hope, you who enter here." "- Theology of Hope.

But what does one hope for and how? In the world full of hatred, despair, pain and hurting, where do we turn to draw our courage; courage for our heart to hope and our mind to dream? Living as we do, forlorn as we are in the absence of true happiness and joy from our lives; our need to find hope was never greater. 

Cicero noted that While there's life, there's hope. Carl Sandberg would go on to say, "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on." Our hope lies in life itself. Ellen Hopkins could not have captured it better when she wrote, "in a woman's womb. another chance. to make the world better." There is hope as long as we live. The reason for our hope is life itself. "As long as there's life, there's hope" - Tamora Pierce.

Regarding the how we could find hope J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, "Oft hope is born when all is forlorn," in The Return of the King. When we see pain, destruction, suffering our emotion to it is quite naturally forlorn, but our reaction to it ever ought to be hopeful. Michael Jackson is known to have said, "In a world filled with hate, we must still dare to hope. In a world filled with anger, we must still dare to comfort. In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream. And in a world filled with distrust, we must still dare to believe." For as Chesterton observed, "Hope is the power of being cheerful in circumstances that we know to be desperate." After all, "Hope is a verb with its shirtsleeves rolled up." like David Orr said. We find hope in our ability to change - ourselves and the world around us.

Regarding the where we find hope, "We carry within us the wonders we seek without us” observed Thomas Browne. For many of us a logical conclusion leading from how we find hope becomes being hopeful of finding hope within us. Sadly, i propose we couldn't be more wrong. For when a creature so desperately longing for the need for hope to live tries to find hope within itself; it voids itself of its own store of hope, thus pummeling itself into another bout of hopelessness - when the hope within has been spent on the world without. This then brings us back eventually to the same existential state of life, as we try in perpetuity to refill our store of hope from ourselves. No. The answer to where we find our hope is not within. We find joy within. We find peace within. But we cannot find hope within alone. Finite that we are, we are ever in need of refilling our portion of hope from without.

So where then do we find our refilling of hope? I propose we find it in love. When we have someone to love who loves us back, our portion of hope is always full. We let go of our existential pessimism, being pumped up with the hope of happiness we have before us. We are driven to do and be our best for our hope drawn from the love we share with this person, drives and feeds us. For some, this is even true of the love they share with their pets. For some like me, it also stems from the metaphysical love i share with God. But regardless of the person or being, a shared love fuels our hearts to hope and gives our minds the courage to dream. And in that sweet spot we find happiness.

For as humans, we are driven by 3 forces - an appetite, the need for security and the need to belong or feel loved. Where something to do fulfills our appetites, someone to love provides us with a sense of security; the love we share gives us something to hope for, long for and dream about. It is then that we find ourselves truly happy; in the perfect collusion and fulfillment of all the fundamental forces that drive our being as humans.

I therefore posit that the ever elusive happiness we find ourselves yearning for in our lives as intelligent thinking humans can only be found from finding our hope in the love we share, with the someone / life / being we love. It gives us a hope for our future and a happiness as its present. That ever elusive happiness if very much within our grasp; should we only find our hope in the love we share.

You, the Philosopher

Philosophy - for me is a big word with a small meaning. At the risk of oversimplifying it and using the word loosely, Philosophy for me essentially means belief in an explanation of something; our underlying belief in the explanation of an idea, thought, pattern or system that at its most innate level helps qualify our everyday lives and rationalizes our behavior, attitude, lifestyle and culture. This explanation could have been taught (by culture, people), experienced (by circumstances) or even rationalized by oneself (to find meaning and purpose to an event); but in the end it is what characterizes everything we hold on dearly to and why we choose to be the way we are. Whether or not these beliefs have rational and / or logical flaws in them is immaterial; as long as they make sense to the person who holds them. Sometimes the explanation might be as limited as 'This is just who i am;' yet the fact that it is explanation enough for the person, goes to support the fact that it is the underlying philosophy for that specific event, circumstance, behavior, attitude or being. Where all philosophy starts with a question - how, why, where, when, what; our being human starts with trying to make sense of the world we are in. We often do so by asking questions and sometimes by just accepting answers without thinking through them.

Therefore, believe it or not, every human (you inclusive) is a mini philosopher; most times even without trying to be. As we all hold onto an explanation of why we choose to be the way we are, or what we do; we all have and continuously develop our own unique philosophy of life and our being. Philosophy is a way of life (even when practised informally in everyday life) and is deeply connected to our being human. Charles Schultz is known to have said, "I think I've discovered the secret of life - you just hang around until you get used to it." While hanging around thus, we develop our own unique formula or philosophy of life.

But all to what end? "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how," said Neitzsche. Could it be that our deepest sense of longing and all our philosophy of life and being works towards leading us to our purpose in life? Gautama Buddha is known to have said, "Your purpose in life is to find your purpose and give your whole heart and soul to it." Robert Bryne said that The purpose of life is a life of purpose. If we look at our everyday lives (at least if i look at mine), i find this pursuit to be true. Everything i do and every philosophy i live seems to be guided by finding, loving and living out my purpose in life.

But how do we find our purpose - if we do have one? Carl Sagan said, "We make our purpose." "Free yourself from the complexities and drama of your life. Simplify. Look within. Within ourselves we all have the gifts and talents we need to fulfill the purpose we've been blessed with," said Steve Maraboli in Life, the Truth, and Being Free. However where most people's answer to where and how they find their purpose starts and stops by looking at / within themselves, i personally believe that the whole question of purpose is a moot point without the existence of God. 

Therefore as Rick Warren wrote in The Purpose Driven Life, "Without God, life has no purpose, and without purpose, life has no meaning. Without meaning, life has no significance or hope;" i believe that we need to understand God and our purpose from the perspective of a created being, else we would write off the very need for a purpose. William Lane Craig said, "If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose."

When all of us being human seem to be driven by the need to find our purpose and how we spend our lives, especially with it being the question we seem to pose to ourselves from our deepest beings; we ought to be able to find an answer to it. "The question of how to spend my life, of what my life is for, is a question posed only to me, and I can no more delegate the responsibility for answering it than I can delegate the task of dying," said Anthony Kronman in Education's End. I find my purpose in life in being a Christian; as such my philosophy of life stems from understanding and living the purpose for which i was created.

Where do you find your purpose and what is your philosophy of life?

Where do you belong?

"Home is a notion that only nations of the homeless fully appreciate and only the uprooted comprehend."

- Wallace Stegner, Angle of Repose

"Where are you from?" is a question i used to cringe at while growing up. For i never knew what answer to give. So, i remember as a child giving different answers to that question every time somebody asked me.

As i grew into my teens, i tried to grapple with the concept of my identity. It was then that i figured, since i didn't really belong anywhere i had the freedom to explore and choose. And explore and choose i did; today i am a practising Christian.

But by the time i was an adult i realized, just because you choose to feel comfortable with something, someone or somewhere doesn't actually mean you belong there. There lay the problem; for a larger multitude of the something, someone or somewhere still reject you being part of them. You are back to square one.

Today, halfway through my life i still grapple with the fact that i belong nowhere:

• I have no homeland, yet i feel most at home in the North East of India; Nagaland in particular. "Language is the only homeland," said Czesław Miłosz. Well in my case i have no language too. But like John le Carré said in The Honourable Schoolboy "Home's where you go when you run out of homes." I find myself running to the North East (or at least wanting to) when in need of solace, peace or just some quiet time of my own. Yet most there would stare at me because i neither look, nor act, nor dress, nor talk like them. But i do love their food.
• But can food truly act as a common denominating factor? "There is no love sincerer than the love of food." proposed George Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman. On my travels i have seen a sense of bonding over food; often permeating the tough fabric of ego and parochial walls that are built up by humanity in an attempt to undo the sense of being dominated over by the others. After all, "we all eat & it would be a sad waste of opportunity to eat badly," like Anna Thomas is known to have said.
• But if food habits alone can give a sense of belonging, the whole world should feel Indian. After all, we did give the world spices. So much so that when William Cowper penned down, "Variety's the spice of life..." the greater world was in process of being awakened to what they had been missing out on. Going by that rationale alone, the world should feel a belonging to India. But that is not so. So, what makes one belong?

William Glasser suggested that "we are driven by five genetic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun". It is interesting that he would club love and belonging. Is it possible that feeling loved is the most innate and underlying emotion to feeling a sense of belonging?

If so, my own life experience make sense. For i feel a deep sense of belonging to Nagaland and the North East of India because i have always felt most loved and accepted there. David Gemmell would say in Legend, "Live or die, a man and a woman need love. There is a need in the race. We need to share. To belong." 

Where do you belong? And why? What do you think?