MEANING

History:

Life, originally had no meaning. Abiogenesis is the transformation of lifeless into life. The first
single-celled micro-organisms came into being. Some had the ability to multiply and adapt
survived. The energy that didn't simply died off. This was not an active decision, but simply a
property. Over the next few billion years, those cells kept evolving. Still, not by decision. A tree
does not decide to grow and spread. There are two characteristics that helped with survival:

-I do whatever it takes to survive.

-I do whatever it takes for my specie to survive.

Interesting that these things sound mutual exclusive, yet this couldn't be further from the truth.
More on this later.

So after a few more years the first humans came into existence. Humans have the special property
of actually being self-aware. For years our primitive ancestors had always taken care of the tribe,
individual survival, as well as survival of the species was always the main goal.

With human introduction of self-awareness came a new curiosity to understand ones self, as well as
the world. The human survival instinct is still strong, even in society today, yet survival was no
longer the main goal. Survival became a means to an end, instead of the end itself (see
Immanuel Kant). After all, why do we live if we're just going to die? Why do we build
civilizations if they will just crumble to dust in the end. Why create are or write books, when
eventually all will be forgotten?

People came up with a lot of different answers for these questions. Some contemporary, others still
popular.

Science became popular. People wanted to understand the universe. There was a need for answers
(note: difference between answers and knowledge), to give it all a place. If we could truly
understand the world. Then we could understand ourself, and find the meaning of life (Monthy
Python, good movie, check it out).

Religion is the most primal (and oldest) form of science. Everything around us is created by us. The
better we are, the more impressive things we build. The universe itself cannot (according to human
logic) have existed forever, nor can something come out of nothing. Therefore, something pretty
impressive must have created it. Therefore: God.

Science and religion went hand in hand for the first few millenia of human culture. Religion told
God did it and science explained how God did it. Science explained how it worked, but religion
explained why. Science was useful in everyday life, yet never explained this primordial question:
What is the meaning of life. Religion did, or at least many religions had many different answers:
Most of them came down to the following:

-To worship God.

-To be a good person.
But what is a 'good' person. With self-awareness came something else: Morality. Taking good care
of yourself and especially of the tribe a just feels like the right thing to do. It's in our DNA and has
been for many, many generations. It cannot be explained logically. There is still no answer to the
why, but in order to understand ourself, and not tumble into anarchy and chaos, morally became a
necessity to civilization. Because science only asked 'how does it work', it was religion, who
became the new authority on morality.

This went by for a few 1000 more years, until recently. Science made discoveries which
contradicted religion. Even religion (or the many different religions) contradicted themselves.
Because of technological improvements people had more free time to think and, because of the
same technology it was easier to travel and exchange ideas. Ideas that often contradicted each other
as well. This is the period of the enlightenment.

Science, while gaining a lot of ground, never found God, or a meaning to life. Religion on the other
hand (at least in Western civilization) lost much of it's (moral) authority. Nihilism arrived (see
Nietzsche, specially the Anti-Christ), claiming there is no meaning. Do what you want. We will all
die and be forgotten in the end. Not a very cheerful way to look at life.

Meaning had to be created to keep the masses in check. Something Politics and religion had been
doing for ages now. The easiest way to do this it to play into the human instincts of survival (and
survival of the species). It is easy to unite a group, if you tell them there is another group that wants
to kill you. This concept is as old as there are different group and in most cases probably true. War
is, unfortunately, a common part of human nature.

(there is a cool joke about this: check this out:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion ).

Even though people are more emotional creatures than rational, humans are rational enough to see
the benefit of working together. Especially in this day and age there is a lot to gain from
international cooperation. Unfortunately for some, there is also a lot to gain from conflict.

Prior to WW1 all countries in Europe basically hated each other. There was so much social,
economical and political strife that a war seemed (and was) imminent. It was called the 'One great
war to end all war'. Quite ironic on hindsight. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_war_to_end_war)

Of course, this didn't turn out this way and many more wars were fought. One can argue their
original intend was political power, or secure economical targets, yet it was always sold to the
people as an ideological war: Evil Fascist Nazi's, Communists who want to destroy the economy,
Terrorists, who want to take your freedom, etc. Fear is still the best way to control the people.
(again, see Nietzsche).
NOW

And now we are here. Science makes our life easier, but hasn't provided us with an answer.
Religion gave us an answer, yet it has lost it's authority. Politics make up whatever answer you
want, yet care little for the truth.

Yet, there is no reason to be pessimistic. Science has given us so much, that were are finally be
able to sit back and ask ourself these questions. Religion is the foundation of philosophy, encouring
us to think and politics, well, even though there will always be conflict. For the first time in history,
were are finally in an era or relative peace.

The only problem we have now, it that we have to find meaning ourselves. Remember our first,
DNA-coded objectives:

-I do whatever it takes to survive.

-I do whatever it takes for my specie to survive.

Even though they look mutual exclusive, they actually enforce each other. If you, as an individual
can survive, it means that you are strong enough to contribute to society and it society survives. It is
strong enough to help you. Yet unfortunately, this is not how we always think.

I give you an example; I was at Utrecht Central Station last week, where they were promoting a
book (Flip-thinking, ISBN: 9789400505834 ). There was a game, where four player could play at
the same time to win a book. There were a couple of questions. If you got every question correct,
you won a book. To illustrate your progress, every player had a train that moved forward with each
correct answer. Each player whose train got to the other side won. What I noticed, there was a very
competitive vibe among the players. Very little cooperation. They just wanted their train to get to
the other side, as though it was a competition. It felt like only one train could reach the other side,
or the one who got there first won. This is bullshit. Every train who got there would win, and
therefore if all the people worked together their changes of winning would increase fourfold. I don't
know if this was the goal of the promotion, but I think it was an awesome thing to think about.

Unfortunately I never read the book, because I gave it away, but I think if you want to give a 'new'
meaning to society, it is important to break through the old habits of them vs. us. It's easy to
demonize the other group (Trump is a Nazi, Hillary is communist, Hitler is monster), yet if we look
at common ground or at least learn from our opponents. A lot of needless conflict can be avoided/
(btw, check out 'Er ist Wieder Da (2015).

Let's take it one step further. Imagine one of the four players in the group wouldn't want to join the
rest to win the book. He/She wants to do it himself, win on his own conditions. Doesn't want to give
or receive help. Now imagine you see this player struggle, or even change his mind and ask for your
help. You probably are winning, because you have an entire team. Most common thing to say is
'screw you'. That it is his own fault. Yet by helping him out here, you lose absolutely nothing and
maybe, as gratitude, this player will help your team later in the game and rejoin the team. Again, so
much to gain, without anything to lose.

So from here I don't know exactly in what direction you want to go, yet I hope I provided a useful
basis on morality and purpose. I think the primary goal is not just to give people a new meaning, but
to change their whole attitude, break through the status quo, ancient dogma's and political
propaganda... Not an easy task, but if I can, I'd like to help you..