Infinity most definitely exists in some shape or form. Either the universe expands on forever in space–and by extension into time–or the universe has a spacial and temporal end, begging the question as to what lies beyond in space and time. Perhaps there is no substantial continuation of reality beyond these bounds–if this was the case then there would exist an infinity of nothingness beyond the material universe that we exist in, and are inhabitants of. We have a finite existence, and such will be the case, for the universe will almost certainly perish eventually, along with traces of humanity, including the legacy that many live on through. In the face of something which is infinite, that which is finite (including our finite existences) is nullified.
Whether it is present in an infinite span and reach of the universe, or beyond the bounds of the universe, infinity has a substance. Perhaps the substance may be positive, as would be the case if the universe expands on forever, or if there were to exist a realm beyond it, one which is timeless, and would thus possess the attributes of infinite time and space, such could even be non-being, yet it would still be infinite nonetheless in its nonexistence, and thus would serve as something that finitude is nullified in the face of. Furthermore, if the death of the universe as we know it comes, the entirety of reality is not inherently necessitated to occur alongside it, and even if such does occur, there will still exist infinity, for the hypothetical pervading non-reality would be infinite in time and scope. There are evidently many mysteries in the universe, and many of them cannot be solved. With this knowledge, I believe that it is an uphill battle to rationalize belief in meaning within the bounds of finitude that is not nullified.
Perhaps, somewhere out there, there may be a method of immortality, and a mode of infinite sustenance. Perhaps there may be aliens far away that possess this, albeit there would be no incentive for them to share it with us, but perhaps they could consider doing so. Perhaps it even grants a solution to surviving the destruction of the universe. If such were the case, then it could be herein that meaning would be found, of course not from the method and mode intrinsically, but from their instrumental consequences, that being an eternal existence. Perhaps they could even survive the eventual death of the universe as we know it. Yet, such an existence would ultimately become eternally unpleasant, as I have highlighted in another work of mine, that being, a short story: An Infinite Existence Between the Bookstacks.
Alternatively, perhaps meaning could be garnered if there existed some sort of eternal recurrence akin to or identical to that outlined by Friedrich Nietzsche. Unlike other posited modes of recurrence, eternal recurrence would be eternal—hence the name—and would thus not falter with regard to meaning in being reducible to zero in the face of something infinitely greater, as would a posited finite and temporal recurrence. In the Nietzschean concept of eternal recurrence, wherein the universe will not so much come to an end as it would restart its existence, perhaps back from the Big Bang, there could be true meaning, for it would be eternal, and would thus carry along eternal meaning that is not overshadowed by an eternally larger reality. However, this is still suboptimal to the concept of a paradise beyond reality, as is present in many religions.
Perhaps an appeal to a transcendent could be made. It could be the transcendent itself which is this infinite form–if the universe indeed does not have an infinite spacial and temporal existence. Perhaps this transcendent could be identified as being God. Now, if the prior premises are true, then perhaps it could be said, as ironic as it may be, that God would be the cause of the lack of meaning in finite existence, for it would be in the face of the infinite (God) that all that is finite is rendered meaningless. Or, perhaps, as many religions would posit, this God offers an infinite existence–eternal life in heaven.
While the idea can be attained by pure rationality that an eternal life carries along eternal meaning, and is thus eternally more meaningful than finitude, which is thus rendered nothingness, the question of whether or not such would occur, as opposed to whether or not it ought to occur, is something that can not be answered in the affirmative by pure rationality. Such is a matter of faith. This is also incredibly intertwined with the question as to whether or not God exists, which is likewise a matter of faith. Ultimately, I believe that for such a belief, a leap of faith, as described by Kierkegaard, would be necessary. However, I do not believe that such would necessarily entail an abandonment of rationality. Perhaps it can even be said to be what is most rational.
In appealing to a transcendent being by means of faith, a potential transcendent form of rationality may be conjured, if it is that such a transcendent being, who I call God, were to indeed exist and bestow the gift of eternal life unto man. If such were the case, then it could be analyzed that the position of faith was one of transcendent rationality. There is evidently an upper bound of rationality that faith surpasses, for it appeals to something that is above the upper bounds of rationality–the territory entered into is beyond rationality.
Given that this upper bound of rationality would be transcended above through faith, if the faith were to be rational by means of retrospective analysis, if it is indeed true that God exists, then the faith itself would function as a transcendent form of rationalism. If belief in eternal life within another realm–heaven–were to be believed by one to be the only manner of achieving true meaning, then perhaps it is most rational to subordinate rationality to faith–albeit only somewhat–and if such a belief turns out to be true, then we could retroactively ascribe the leap of faith as being a transcendentally rational action that is itself rational, in addition to being transcendentally rational. Furthermore, to reach out to the transcendent would be to emulate meaning in this finite life, invoking a bridging–a bridging between the finite and infinite. In this, there could be meaning in finitude, unlike in the framework of eternal recurrence, wherein the meaning is in the infinite repetition of reality.
To aim for heaven should not necessarily entail forsaking our current existence, but rather a search for the bridge between the transcendent and immanent within our universe, and for the action of bridging between the transcendent and immanent in our own lives and the lives of others. I cannot help but rave about a conceptualization of a concept akin to that which I am describing in Orthodox Christianity, whereby the belief is held that we can interact with the uncreated energies of God, particularly within the sacraments, wherein such a bridging indeed occurs; through this, individuals can attain unity with God, and infinite meaning and purpose therein. There is a rich theological belief set herein that includes a quite beautiful concept tangential to the discussion at hand, a concept that is famously articulated in a quote from St Athanasius of Alexandria which reads: “God became man so that man might become God.” Herein is a bridging, one initiated by God.
Note: This quote from St Athanasius is not saying that we will become God himself, nor is it saying that we will possess the same essence as God.
Thank you so much for reading,
- Eli Gardenswartz
Comentarios