The Existential Comedy: What on Earth is Man Here For?

The Existential Comedy: What on Earth is Man Here For?

Overview:

• Introduction: Questioning the purpose of human existence

• The pursuit of happiness and its transitory nature

• The elusive nature of success

• The inevitability of suffering and death

• The capacity of man for both good and evil

• The role of suffering in shaping great individuals

• Conclusion: Finding meaning in suffering

The Existential Comedy: What on Earth is Man Here For?

What is the purpose of man (human)? Men are born, and with all born men, death is certain. Could we say men are born to die? That would be too simplistic and might leave one feeling that there is no point in being born in the first place if it is only to die. I’ve asked many people why they live. The more religious told me they are living so that they may know God. I asked, "Once you know God, can you then die?" Others often give a list of things they need to do or achieve before they die, like a cosmic to-do list that never quite gets completed.

One of the more common replies to the question of what man desires is “happiness.” But quite often, men who set off in earnest to seek happiness rarely find it. It seems to me a life of waste if one pursues happiness because sooner or later, he finds himself more unhappy. Sometimes the unhappiness is about being unhappy. Like Groucho Marx once quipped, "I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy today. I can choose which it shall be."

An example would be somebody who is unemployed. In many instances, the person will do all humanly possible to find employment. One week or three months down the line, you find someone is unhappy about either or the combination of pay, working conditions, or work content. It would be argued that the person was unhappy being unemployed and still unhappy being employed. The only constant in this situation is being unhappy. In such instances, it may seem irrational for man to pursue happiness because such happiness is usually transitional until more unhappiness is unleashed. Like that time you finally get the dream job only to discover the coffee machine is perpetually broken.

Another example would be somebody bored at home and thus unhappy. He decides to go watch a movie at the cinema. He chooses the movie, sits back to watch in anticipation that the movie is going to be “nice/enjoyable,” and therefore he will be happy. Then the movie is so bad, the person is enraged and is thus even more unhappy than when he was at home. It’s the cinematic equivalent of expecting a gourmet meal and getting a soggy sandwich instead.

A person enters a relationship with an “unknown” character (lover) in anticipation that they will be happy ever after. After 30 years of marriage, something called “divorce” happens, which leaves them devastated and more unhappy. Suffice it to say, there were times when they were really happy; none, therefore, shall challenge me when I say happiness is transitory and cannot, therefore, be the main reason for existence. Something else must be a reason and must be pursued to give a reason for man to live. “Happiness is not something ready-made. It comes from your own actions,” as the Dalai Lama wisely pointed out.

Some people say their quest in life is to be successful. I ask for the definition of success, and all sorts of things are mentioned, e.g., money, degrees, position of power, cars, homes, etc. There is such a variety of things that are mentioned all in the name of success. How do we know if a man is successful? If someone passes a NSC/Matric, say, a man applies for admission into an undergraduate program at a prestigious university. The response letter reads, “Your application was successful.” He enters university and 5 years later, he obtains a Master's Degree. He works for a big company in a leadership position, we envy him, and we say he is successful. The fellow is unhappy as hell two years down because his thesis for a Ph.D. was marked “fail.” We on the outside look at him as being successful, yet he feels like a total loser for not obtaining the Ph.D. Success, it seems, is as slippery as a bar of soap in the shower.

A bright student obtains only two distinctions. The parents are gatvol (fed up) because of the private tutors, the facilities, and all the opportunities offered ought to have produced 8 distinctions. Yet a kid who has reaped almost every grade in school is now graduating with a Master's Degree. We say he is successful.

Top golfers are playing it out for the Scottish Open. There “can only be one winner.” It's a 3-man play-off. One of the three is an amateur golfer, and everyone is hooting for him, and he is eliminated thus ties for second. He has NOT won the Open. It looks to me that success is very hard to define and that it is relative.

I’ve said over the years that success may be defined as “the difference between what we become and what we could have been.” Thus, success as a pursuit may not be the reason for man's existence, for even a jail inmate intent on escaping, and thus escapes, has achieved success in as much as doers are successful in their craft. “Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value,” advised Albert Einstein.

If success is relative and happiness is elusive, what else on earth is man here for? What is his purpose? And while on the subject of happiness, let's say someone pursues a relationship (love). He is successful (he finds a girl to love) and they get married. They have lots of sons. He is very happy. Whilst coming back home, he sees people coming in and out of the house with sad faces. He accelerates the car and gets to the house. His phone was off (the battery finished). His son was stabbed by a boy at school over a quarrel about some insignificant topic.

It follows that a rational man will be devastated to lose a son over death. Even if death itself is inevitable, then it should be the key tenet of life. For if there is life, then for sure there is death. It thus follows that man should not fear death even by the very fact that death is inevitable, yet many people fear death. I dare the man to say it is indeed better for his son to die and he survive his son. Would he prefer that the son survive him?

If all men are sure to die, the question is, while they are living, what would they prefer that after death they are known to have done whilst living. This question perhaps holds promise in shaping what the man ought to do whilst living, thus becoming his reason for existence.

Undoubtedly, at some point in time between the birth and the death of man, and in doing things, there may be suffering. The hope is that the suffering is not self-imposed or unnecessary. Think of all the suffering in this world: world wars, terrorism, diseases, stress, death of loved ones, rape, to mention but a few. If man is suffering, it is possible that the suffering is man-made. A man is in pain having been stabbed by another man. A man (lady) is in pain having been raped by man. It thus follows that one gets an understanding of what man is capable of. Man is capable of loving, caring, and nourishing. Bless the man. The man is capable of killing, robbing, creating weapons of mass destruction, raping, slaving other men. Curse the man. This is a paradox we are facing.

In the journey between birth and death, man encounters man, and the possibilities are endless. Some men will surely suffer in the hands of man. Being a South African, apartheid comes to mind. I mean, man coming into another man's land, taking his land, forcing him into a sub-inferior man oppression, and the deeds I rather not get into, they are well known. If man is capable of inflicting such pain, what to make of the man suffering the pain? What is the point of his suffering? What must he do? Commit suicide since there is a list of suffering? Hang on a second, didn’t some men die horrendous deaths? Did some men survive such conditions to become the “greats”? Didn’t such suffering shape esteemed men like Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Albert Sisulu, Helen Suzman, to mention a few?

If man, as in white men, designed and implemented apartheid, it is not that all white men are bad. But there are white men who fought against apartheid. And indeed, there are black men who caused untold harm to fellow black men. It can thus be deduced that man is capable of both good and evil. And it can also be deduced that man can overcome untold suffering to become great. “The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it,” said Molière.

What would become of the “great man” if there was no suffering? Would South Africa produce the Mandelas and Suzmans in the absence of suffering apartheid? Not that I presuppose it was a nice thing to have apartheid in the first place. I am just positing that man survives the worst to become good/great.

What then are we to make of suffering? I dare posit that it is sometimes the necessity of suffering that may make some life and therefore the man's reason for existence. It really is a condition that a man has to suffer to get the meaning/give meaning to life. Put another way; in order to survive the suffering, man has to have a reason good enough for him to persevere in spite of suffering. Take a comrades marathon runner. Having to endure 89 kilometers from Durban to Pietermaritzburg and having suffered cramps, dehydration, swollen legs, and shortness of breath, the knowledge that he will receive a medal for finishing the ultimate human race is good enough to keep him pushing towards the finishing line. Thus, to survive the suffering, one must find a reason for the suffering..