The history of Western philosophy has been one long search for definitive truth about reality. Today, philosophers and scientists agree that such definitive truth is not forthcoming and that we cannot know the ultimate secrets of the world. We have theories about almost everything, but these are speculative and illusory. Modern science says that whatever matter is, it is not matter as we used to think about it. What we think and say about reality depends on how we look at it. The world is what we perceive.
One of the most dramatic forms of failed knowledge is tragedy, as Aristotle understood it. In it, a protagonist thinks, talks, and acts based on what he considers certain knowledge about his situation. But, to his tragic astonishment, his knowledge turns out to be erroneous. The story of Oedipus is an example. To prevent that he would murder his father and marry his mother, as foretold, Oedipus is separated from them at birth. But that is precisely what creates the circumstance in which a man he later kills and the woman he marries after that are those same parents whom he never knew.
Reality as we live it plays tricks on us all, including not only those with Oedipal problems but even those scientists and philosophers chasing definitive truth about everything. So, what are we to think, say, and do? Should we be pessimistic, perhaps even nihilistic, since there are no absolute truths to believe? Not at all.
Considering the futility of chasing after final truth, Nietzsche asked: "Why not rather untruth, even illusion?" He was not being flippant. He redefined a truth as an illusory belief that supports a particular form of life or as a fiction without which that form of life could not continue. Was he being cynical? Here again, the answer is not at all.
He meant that we should live by ideas that make us confident, strong, and optimistic instead of weak, fearful, and nihilistic. Did he imply that "anything goes" and that there are no ethical guidelines in what we do and how we live? Once more, not at all.
His central idea is that we should become so well disposed to our life as it is and has been that we would be willing to live it again and again, endlessly, with nothing new or different in it. That amounts to the most significant challenge: How would we have to view our life--and how would we have to live it--to think that repeating it becomes a good idea?
He asked the question but did not provide easily understood practical guidance, leaving his readers to fend for themselves. That reflects how far Western philosophy has been from being able to answer the call of his challenge. For practical guidance, we are better off turning to the Buddha, who provides refuge for the weary searcher after a satisfying answer to life's big question of how we should live.
The Buddha's response to Nietzsche's question, delivered two and a half millennia before he asked it, is radical. He taught us to accept the world and life as they are and have been, not demand that they be as we want. The key to such radical acceptance is a sustained meditation practice. As Nietzsche put it, we must "learn how to see" before we start thinking and talking about or otherwise reacting to what we see. That way, we begin to see and understand not only how incomprehensible we and the world are but also how miraculous. We begin to enjoy and love everything unconditionally, much like a grandmother who unconditionally adores her grandchildren, but without becoming entangled in the dramatics of parenting and with a clearer view of the bigger picture.
Comments