Purpose and Meaning

A distinction with a difference

In his book, Bacteria to Bach and Back, Daniel Dennett argues that the question: “Why are we here?” can be interpreted in at least two distinct ways. The word “why” in this context could be asking How come? or What for?— “How come we are here?” is a very different question from “What are we here for?”

When addressing the question, “Why are we here?” Dennett argues that scientists tend to answer the first interpretation: How come? They explain the evolutionary process taking place over billions of years. Everything from the big bang all the way up to our present state explains how come we find ourselves as mostly hairless apes with large brains, hurtling through space on a giant ball we call Earth.

But it doesn’t answer “What for?”

Asking “What are we here for?” assumes that there is some kind of design- some kind of purpose we are here to fulfill. Many scientists would answer that there is no evidence of such purpose and therefore it is not a question worth exploring in a scientific context at the present time. That is a fair answer and one that I am inclined to believe. However, answering the question of “Why are we here?” by only addressing the How come? feels unsatisfactory to many people, which is why the second interpretation persists. One can only feel “fulfilled” if they are fulfilling a purpose.

This is not a new issue in philosophy, and it’s one where I find myself sympathizing with the Stoics, Taoists, and Existential Nihilists of the world. The similarities and contradictions of those worldviews aside, this issue gets to the very heart of both character motivations and themes in my novel, Nekonikon Punk: Ctrl Break.

One of the main themes of the story deals with a similarity in how dogmatic religions, colonial forces, and capitalist organizations exert influence on a populace: give them a purpose. Answer for others the question: “What are you here for?” and you will find adherents. Religious, colonial, and capitalist institutions all find a great deal of their success by creating potential purposes that people can fulfill by taking actions which benefit the system. Members of organized religions report feeling more fulfilled, the universalization of Western perspectives has taken root in many former colonies, and we’ve all heard of stressed out consumers engaging in “retail therapy” to feel better.

The only way I know to resist these control systems is to determine your own purpose. As Wagner says to Bao in chapter 28, “…nature abhors a vacuum. If you don’t invest in understanding yourself, someone else will fill the gap with their own philosophy. Inevitably, you will adopt it as your own. That is how people allow themselves to be controlled: by their own lack of concern.” Or as Socrates said over two thousand years ago, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

This brings us to character motivations. Juan- the main character in Nekonikon Punk: Ctrl Break- is motivated to protect. In other words, protecting others is his purpose. This does not change for him throughout the story, but what he finds meaningful and worth protecting does. At the beginning, he is training to be a guard and he finds a degree of fulfillment in protecting the Krelborn-aligned denizens of Nekonikon. However, as the story unfolds, he begins to find value in less privileged and less competitive areas and denizens of the city-state.

Rafiq is a foil for Juan in this regard. He does not share Juan’s desire to protect, nor does he share his moral compass. Rafiq has not discovered a purpose for himself and therefore has allowed Wagner’s propaganda to provide that purpose for him. This is why he can stay loyal to Krelborn in the face of atrocities and Juan cannot. The main difference is that our hero has his own purpose. As Dennett might say, Juan knows what he is here for and Rafiq does not.

Greta is another character that contrasts Juan in this area. Her motivations are wholly selfish. Her purpose is to give herself the best life she possibly can, even if it comes at the expense of others. She is capitalist greed incarnate. Like Juan, she can see through Krelborn propaganda. However, unlike Juan, she remains “loyal” because it is a world she fits into with her selfish motives. As Beeson tells Juan in chapter 24, “Everyone has the hole. The want. The hunger…But, not everyone becomes selfish…Some fill the hole helping others. Most help themselves.”

The role of purpose is central to the motivations and conflicts in book two, currently in progress. By this point, all of the prominent characters have well-established purposes which motivate their decisions and actions. However, some of them find more meaning in their purpose than others. One antagonist’s entire motivation in book two is an existential crisis as highlighted in Dennett’s distinction: She knows how come she is here, but cannot figure out what for.

As I work through the second book, I welcome any discussion on the above topics to help me work through the strands of the plot. I know where the story is going, but discussions like this help me figure out how to get there.

So, let me know what you think, and thanks for reading this far!

If you would like to support my work, you can always buy me a coffee using the link below!