.jpg)
In part #3 I will explain how transcendent ends try to resolve the paradox and the sense of hopelessness you might well be feeling at this point.
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
#3 Transcendent Ends
Monotheistic religions and some philosophical doctrines are based upon transcendent ends thus coping implicitly with the paradox of the end. They achieve this by specifying ends that can never be attained. Although adherence to a given doctrine or creed might get one ever closer to the end asymptotically as Landau points out. But in never actually attaining those ends adherents can at least continue to strive in the belief that their life has meaning and significance. For the monotheist, then, all their activities can be made meaningful. Consequently they need never suffer discontent and the sense of meaninglessness as those who aspire to more earthly ends.
As a coping strategy transcendent ends contain more than a hint of optimism in their eulogising. For the monotheist God is a beneficent being whose ends could not be other than Good for those who pursue them. Moreover, as Leibniz argued, this is the ‘best of all possible worlds’ because if God is morally perfect then of necessity he must have created the best of all possible worlds. This is a world, Leibniz argued, in which the most good could be obtained for the least evil. If he was right then how could we not fail to take a favourable view of life living in a world that is a dilution of God's essence?
Whilst emphasising the optimism of monotheism I would not wish to mislead the reader in to thinking doctrines which pursue transcendent ends are wholly optimistic. Certainly the prevailing temper of the Old Testament writers is optimistic. Indeed the notion of a Jewish nation under the watchful eye of a benevolent God has to inspire a bright and hopeful view of the future. Yet despite the Bible’s optimism pessimistic murmurings are also to be found. In the Book of Ecclesiastes we find ‘Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.’ And, ‘What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?’
But regardless of whether certain religions give expression to a hopeful or despondent view, the situation remains unchanged regarding transcendent ends. Transcendent ends are only effective strategies for coping with the meaningless of life, if we are prepared to be discontent in this life. This discontent also extends to some philosophical doctrines. For Plato this meant the unattainability of Knowledge, for Kant noumena, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, would always be beyond our grasp.
But are we content to be edified by the knowledge we will never attain our ideal end in this life? It seems to me that a strategy of transcendent ends requires that we be constantly discontent; a discontent we might want to voice in the way Kierkegaard did
Where am I?... Who am I? How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it? ... And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager - I have something to say about this.
In #4 Kant suggested we just don’t set any ends at all. But does this resolve the problem?