What Gives Life Meaning? aka The Wrong Question

I repeat, exactly as it is written on the title. If you have even read the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (WARNING: SPOILER) you will know that the answer to life is 42. However, because that answer makes no sense, they bring up this dandy idea: "But what is the question?" And that is exactly the point I am trying to prove. Anyone who asks this question is WRONG. It is just like any word we have ever learned to associate an object with. A little while after we are born, we learn to speak, and identify objects. Meaning, equate them with someone that supposedly allows us to understand them. But does it really? No, words are merely something we use to cover up the mystery of things that we don't actually understand.

But back to the "meaning of life". My refusal to answer this question is not a denial of a meaning, nor an acceptance of one. I am saying that thinking of life as something that has a meaning, something you can equate with a word, is just not the right way to do it. Life is not a thing. It is not terminal, and death does not end it, it is not a means to an end, as most people prefer to look at it. It is a journey, albeit not eternal (in this current consciousness), yet still eternal, because everyone is one and all. Every person is one piece of the whole, the universe, the big picture. And while we search for a meaning, a purpose, while we think and equate our "self" with our thinking mind, essentially with our ego, we will be unawakened, unable to see the big picture of it all. The true self is not the one who is thinking, but the one who is observing the thinking mind. He is the truly awakened one. Until we are awakened, we will be unable to proceed on this journey to enlightenment, and our "reincarnation", if you must, will only gain the karma of our past life, giving us yet another chance to advance towards enlightenment.

So what is the meaning, you ask? Some say to be able to deal, some say to be happy, but I say that once you are enlightened, you will no longer need a meaning at all. Therefore I reject this silliness on the terms of my current attempt to work towards enlightenment, and become awakened, unattached to the material, and ultimately unidentified with the ego that is keeping me here.

Does Candide's Punishment Fit the Crime?

The obvious, humane, moral and current answer should be short and simple: no. Of course not. Candide did not know better. He was completely innocent, sheltered, knew nothing of the world or its doings. His very first punishment, getting kicked out of the castle, definitely doesn't fit his crime. He didn't know what he was doing. All the unlucky things that happened to him, including getting drafted into an army, having his tutor killed, Cunegonde taken away multiple times, and safety and riches snatched when they were right at his fingertips, were not something that he deserved for the measly innocent "crime" he committed at the beginning of the book. Arguably, that really is the only crime he committed, and his later crimes, including killing three people, all happened only because of the very first one. They could even be seen AS punishment coming from his first crime.
But back to perspective. The punishments are all seen as fair by those who give them. They are decided depending on the beliefs and cultures of the people who punish Candide, and while the reader (and Candide) can only see them as cruel, the punishers see them as just.

How Do I Know What I Know?

The easy answer to this would be, "because I learned it". It doesn't matter from where: from a teacher, from friends, books, the news, or just experience. That's how everyone learns. However, I learn so many things every day. I hear tons of sounds, music, words, and see new things and colors. So the real question is, why did my brain choose to retain the information I could currently call to mind if I wanted to? I know what I remember, and those who have a bad memory are just very unlucky.

I could say my brain retains memories that I like, that are interesting, or that are important to me. However, that's not true at all. I know some very random things that will probably be of no use to me in my life, ever. I know things that I wish I didn't. If only I could find some kind of pattern to things I know and remember, maybe I would have a much more definite answer. However, there is no pattern whatsoever. I know what I made an effort to remember and studied. I also know things that I have repeated many times over. I know things my brain just happened to clasp onto at a certain moment when it was susceptible to this random-information-remembering-mechanism. So how do I know it? I just do.

The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth living? and The Modern Gadfly.

Socrates is correct - but to an extent. It all depends on if you are examining life the right way. It would be just as true to say that life is not worth living in ignorance, if all of your thoughts and conversation is trivial and on the surface. I just read Farenheit 451, where in the future world the government brainwashes people into believing that people on their wall TVs are their real "family", that they shouldn't think too hard about any issues, and that books are completely pointless because they are all made up. Of course, that seems like a very useless life, because I believe that under the surface of it all, under the blissful ignorance, you will know that you are missing out on something, you will know that there really IS more to life than your trivial problems because you are still human and humans are curious. And those unsettling thoughts of unfulfillment will be what really keeps you from true happiness.

The first person I could think of who is a modern gadfly is Michael Moore. I recently read one of his books and saw one of his movies, and I really could understand how important people, especially politicians would find him extremely annoying. He goes out of his way to uncover corruptions in EVERYTHING - though I guess it really isn't out of his way because it's his job as a researcher, reporter, and activist. And the greatest part is that he doesn't really choose sides; he finds something wrong with everyone. That's right, first audience. He's making fun of you, too.

Her Eulogy

What did she stand for? Well, this depends on the perspective you look at her life from. From the idealistic view, is was ideal. But from a realist's perspective, well, things might not have been quite clear to someone who wasn't Daniella. Of course, she believed in the greater good, but when it came to happiness and striving for enlightenment, she, her own mind, and her beliefs came first. Sacrifices were made. People were given up on. But that's what life is about; at least, in her opinion. You cannot change the world before you change yourself, and that is what she strove for. And you know what? She got closer than most of the world. Maybe not closer than Buddhists and monks who spend their whole lives meditating, but not a day went by where she was not able to stay happy and optimistic about whatever it was that was necessary to do, in control til the end; and even if a certain event was to make the path wobble, she would take control of her emotions and get back on. So what was it she believed in? Mental and physical health for the whole of society, ideally, of course. It all starts with food and lifestyle, the two things that are most neglected in this modern world. If everyone was healthy, there would be no war. No crime. No accidents. Only enlightened people, everywhere. But once again, the only thing you can change is yourself, because the only thing that exists is you, your world, the one you perceive at this current second. And that is all that matters.