Topics Value

Question Some people are comforted and secure by the idea that the Universe has inherent purpose or meaning, and are frightened by the notion that it might all be inherently meaningless. Others, however, feel empowered by the notion that they are ultimate source of value and meaning in their lives, and feel frightened by the idea that there might be some all-encompassing meaning or purpose that they would have to submit to or recognize. With people sitting on such seemingly distant sides of the river - not merely in such broad terms, but on every level from disagreements over what tastes good, through arguments as to whether one must always stand by one's people, all the way up to the problem highlighted above - how much can we allow ourselves to hope that one day we might finally agree on a common, general vision for humanity's future?

Accepted:
November 11, 2010

Comments

Excellent question! I wonder whether such disagreement entails that we lack a common, general vision for humanity's future. In your opening example of wide divergence, both parties probably agree on a huge number of points. Probably both groups believe in the importance of justice and compassion, the good of friendship and courage, the importance of intellectual integrity, the greatness of loving others, and so on. And probably both groups, at their best, are not driven by fear, but by what they passionately value. I imagine that those who see an ultimate purposive direction of the cosmos or value in it, are driven by an overwhelming sense that the goodness of the cosmos is too good (as it were) to have come into being by chance. And I imagine that the second group is probably humanist in orientation and share the belief that there is great goodness and value in human autonomy and creativity. In brief, I suspect that when one looks at the wide scope of values each group shares, one can see some common bonds. And if both groups respect each other and value collaborative inquiry, then one "common, general vision for humanity's future" could be the good of shared inquiry, in which groups with shared but also competing worldviews collaborate in arguments and productive dialogue in which we seek to enhance each other's search for the true, the good, and the beautiful.

Maybe the point can be made more forcefully in relation to your point that people disagree about "whether one must always stand by one's people." Imagine you and I disagree about this and we are from different nations (or represent different people). Imagine you believe we should all be cosmopolitan and internationalist, but imagine I am a self-described patriot. So long as we respect one another and value dialouge, I would have to try to make a case that I am justified in giving primacy to my nation (or people). But at the same time, I would (probably) be givine grounds for why you should be giving primacy to your nation or people. Whether or not I persuade you, we would in effect be creating a new people (as it were), namely people who are committed to inquiry about goods, rights and wrongs, loyalty and impartiality, across political communities. This dialogue would, then, not insure agreement, but it would mean that we would create "a common, general vision for humanity's future" in terms of having respect for one another's reasoning and values. And who knows, dialogue may produce frustration and tension, but it might be more likely (if pursued sincerely and over meals in which we each played the guest-host relationship) produce friendship.