#2 - Is setting goals ultimately meaningless? - Problem of the Paradox of the End - Nature of the problem

In part #2 I will show how the closer we get to achieving our goals the happier we feel. And this is when we are confronted with the paradox.

In later blogs I will take you through to what I think is a resolution of the paradox. A way to find meaning where there is none.

#2 The Nature of the Problem
In setting ends we hope their attainment will improve our condition, perhaps even that of others. Moreover, the closer we get to the attainment of these ends the happier we feel. But herein lays a paradox. The moment an end is achieved the sense of meaningfulness derived from striving to achieve it is diminished, and with it a measure of our happiness and significance. But consider; if acting is to be associated with reasons, as opposed to aimless or undirected acts, then both actions and thoughts are directed toward achieving certain ends. Therefore, so long as we continue striving both actions and thoughts have meaning. However, once an end is achieved that sense of meaning and purpose derived from striving is diminished and feelings of emptiness and boredom follow. So, restless and agitated we then seek to annul the boredom in pursuit of other ends. But in repeating the cycle to satiate our appetite for meaning and significance the activity itself endlessly evaporates in the vacuity of boredom.
So, are we to conclude that meaning is no more than momentary forgetfulness in activity? If so, then evidently more meaning, significance and happiness are derived from striving toward ends than in actually achieving them. Achieving ends only seems to leave us in want of some significance and meaning in our lives. It is this feeling of emptiness associated with achieving ends which is referred to as the paradox of the end.
The problem of the paradox of the end arises because achieving ends causes us to lose our feelings of happiness and significance. In that case perhaps it would make sense for us to not try to achieve ends, or more perversely, even try not to achieve them. Yet if we do not try, or try not to achieve these ends we again lose the sense of purposefulness and significance we wished to preserve. The solution to this conundrum appears to be, then, that we should both try and try not to achieve our ends at the same time as Landau suggested. We should try to achieve them because we will lose the meaningfulness derived from the struggle. But we should also try not to achieve them since if we do we shall lose the meaningfulness striving provides.
From the foregoing we might conclude that striving toward ends seems better than achieving them since we at least gain a sense of meaning. Yet if this is our conclusion then it follows that what we initially considered to be an end is in fact the means, and what we previously considered the means is actually the end. Whilst on face value this inversion may seem satisfactory it means conceding that what we supposed was a meaningful end has no value other than giving significance and direction to what would otherwise be aimless activity. Yet somehow this also seems unsatisfactory because we normally associate our strivings as effort directed toward some particular meaningful end.
In falling back on the notion of activity being a means and not the end, the problem still remains that the significance we once enjoyed from our activities vanishes. This is because the moment we realise we only wanted the end because it provided meaning for what would otherwise be aimless activity the end itself then becomes unimportant. But of course the moment the end becomes unimportant so too do the efforts we might exert toward achieving it. Consequently, all activity ceases to have any meaning whatsoever. So, ‘[m]ight existence be even more fraudulent than a bankrupt?’ as Kierkegaard suggested? And if it is, should not all ‘meaningful’ activity cease and surrender itself to the inexorable laws of Nature, or Fate?
An initial summary of the situation seems to suggest that all is meaningless and ineffective, and that the ends set, which we should both try and try not to achieve, provide only impetus for what would otherwise be aimless activity.
But experience reveals to us that not everyone believes themselves to be engaged in pursuing meaningless ends, and therefore not in need of liberation from the internal dilemma brought on by the paradox. Moreover, for them at least, the paradox has not led to an existential paralysis. So what are the strategies they employ? Do they provide us with a viable alternative to embracing the absurd?
In what follows I will initially follow Landau’s taxonomy of coping strategies, however, I will go a stage further and show some of the shortcomings of these strategies. Then I will add what might properly be called three weltanschauung, or world views, which more fully articulate the nature and consequences of the foregoing strategies, and inadequacy as distinct perspectives. I will then conclude with a strategy which avoids the paradox and suggests we embrace the absurd, rather than turn toward philosophical and religious movements whose systems incorporate methods of coping with the paradox of the end.

In #3 I will look at transcendent ends and the idea that we resolve the paradox by setting ends that can never be attained.