The "Ghost" Philosophy paper

First off, thank you for any reviews and criticism's you may have. I will return the favor.

THE STORY: I was asked by a friend to "assist" with their mid-term paper, what with my affinity for writing and all. The following paper (split into three questions) was turned in. I've included the professor's "grade" below because for a twenty-two year old kid with no college edu, I thought I did pretty well. Questions 2 and 3 are much juicier...

Q: Would you consider Philosophy a "way of life"?

Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge regarding the intangible aspects of our anatomy. While the "Scientific Method" is ever-bound by the easily dissectible, Euclidian world of spheres and squares, philosophical endeavors are limitless in that they (most humbly) attempt to surmise the greatest "introspective" questions of all-time, The inner "essence" of our being (see: essential nature) is something that modern science can't even begin to investigate. We are a naïve species who have barely begun to recognize the potential power of an "organized" mind. Beyond that, we are starting to become aware of a metaphysical (true natured) horizon whose labyrinth of trial and error we have yet to even breach. Philosophy, a way to "deal relatively" if you will.
In alternate incarnations of understanding the world around us, method, mass and measure dominate. Philosophy stands above other methods in it's formlessness, yet universal applicability. The iconic scientists of yore used test tubes and beakers to cull physical tendencies from the world around them while the 21st century depends on particle accelerators and bubble chambers to somehow bring about our true "meaning in life." I doubt that material tools will be able to ascertain the true motives of genes. Whether I was created or not, I believe that I am here and that is all I'm concerned with.
To say that "philosophy is a way of life" is to say that an individual has asked why they exist. Why do I contemplate my future and why do I invest in it such? To bring meaning to our lives is to give our relative consciousness credence as our anatomical maestro. With an understanding of what we're supposed to be doing on this floating rock is to find consistent direction for us as a species, a path that would parlay the most efficient means to societal contentment. Man's trials and tribulations would be non-existent if we already knew where and how to "self-fulfill" our own prophecies. To exemplify the previous sentence, I ask this, "If you knew, preemptively, the most productive path you were best suited for, how far would you be able to go down your own "rabbit's hole," assuming you directed all ambition and focus towards said cause. The only affirmation that I have on this planet is that we should follow our own path (Nietzsche said: "Become who you are."), because that dear reader, is the only "way of life."
Do I agree with this characterization of philosophy? Of course. The last frontier is within ourselves and only when we identify those things that hold us back can we fully understand and ask of ourselves "Who am I?". You can't expect to be true-natured when your mind is clouded just like you wouldn't expect a clear image when using an unpolished mirror. Not one person writing this same mid-term is devoid of confusion about who they are, not one. Philosophical conception grows within and it is a means to find our place in humanity's spectrum in and among a whole. As long as I see someone different and empathize with their state, I am philosophizing, bringing many different parts together into a cohesive "whole." In only this way can one even come close to seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling the world around us in someone else's shoes, therefore conjuring a wider consensus of agreement on what it is to genuinely "be." My life is yours to learn from, and your experience is mine as well. No degrees, no merits, only mutual understanding. Tigers got it all figured out, there's no confusion in them.
Philosophy is congruent with other "ways of life" in that it unanimously strives to bring a sense of understanding with oneself, granting a fully "enlightened" individual with a true understanding of others. "How does one fully understand others, you ask?" Because the "self-realized" have trail-blazed a path towards their own contentment (inner peace), providing an opportunity to sit outside oneself and look back in (see: solipsism).
Philosophy stands higher among the usual rhetoric and ritual because all questions of such are directed towards the "soul", whatever that turns out to be. No religion, no culture, no frame of mind can argue with truth, where philosophy stands triumphant. When one follows the most basic principles of thought outlined in Philosophy, their revelations fall in line quite amiably with every religion, every culture, and every frame of mind. Veritas!
To answer the last question in this inquery, I don't know if this train of thought is how I'd want to live my life. To say that this is a "way of life" is to grossly misinterpret the philosophical essence of existence. There is no one and there is no all, no self, no separate, no path, no "way" to correct philosophizing. There are no absolute assurances in any of our personal conduct, only the potency and accuracy of our own self-reflection. Alongside other humans, we interact with each other to determine the best path as a species and only when we align our own actions and beliefs with the greater good will we be of true benefit. To tell you the truth, if I could describe the complexities of Philosophy on a level that justified the magnificence of Philosophy, I would have transcended my own concerns of writing this paper and probably ended up writing an exemplary one by mistake.


Q: Is a God necessary to have a "meaning" in life?

What if God didn't exist tomorrow because we had found undeniable proof? Where would that leave us?
Although not necessary, the idea of a god as our greatest architect is an undeniably comforting staple of any society. Early on, ancestors gave each other meaning in life with a god who's motives were only realized in hindsight.
As new humans, it was us against the world. A god became necessary in our conception as a tool to explain the unknown aspects of nature, both internal and external. A god gave us a sense of courage and direction in a seemingly chaotic environment, again both internal and external. As the gaps of confusion with the natural world around us began to close with the utilization of science, we figured out that our sun's daily bisection had nothing to do with Apollo's chariot and that Zeus wasn't hanging out at the bottoms of cumulonimbi throwing around spears of electricity. Religion evolved to exclude these myths since they were now explained by science. God is a temporary fix until we figure it out for ourselves. Ready for a metaphor? A sapling, when planted, is tied to a post for extra support. When able to resist nature on it's own, the post is to be removed so that genetic design can guide the young tree into a giant oak. I know too many still tied to their "post".
I can imagine early hominids hustling back to their caves as distant claps of thunder grow louder and more intimidating from an advancing cloud, the dark mass above. When the first Homosapian imagined that a thundercloud was due to the clichéd, "omnipotent being in a toga" we recognize as myth today, they unwittingly created the only entity that could wipe us out with a mere flex of divine power. Evolutionary tendency favored those who adapted to the idea of a god. You clean everything up, appear productive and put on a good show because in the end, Alpha-males (now a "god") always get the last word concerning your fate.
Evolution spawned religion when imagination outgrew rationalization. I will explain in the following:
- Man enters world alone, respectively.
- Humans are the equivalent of Spam in the animal kingdom, no claws for foe nor fur for cold.
- At our "naked" (without tool) prime, we were lumps of pink meat. What were our genes thinking?
- Tribes assimilated, adopting each other's good qualities while settling differences, thus creating a larger, more lasting, "whole".
- This obviously assisted in the gene's in their "survival of the fittest" dogma with powerful societies springing up all over the world.
- To ensure the colony's compliance with the local ethics, an immortal and indisputable authority was set into place (the god's image being borrowed from local legend or pre-existing credo).
- The community's fear of displeasing their god created a generally accepted adherence to self-discipline, order, morals and tradition (which were exemplified in the culture's anthropomorphized "meaning of life" or more succinctly, their god).
- We continue to thrive because the virtues of discipline, order, kindness, and good-will are genetically favorable.
Evolution created God, God assisted evolution. Evolved societies shed the husks of outdated religions, yet kept the core moral concepts, thus evolving God. Did I just say that God evolves? Yes, yes I did.
Today, things are speeding up and with the realization of relative existences, God is evolving into a solipsistic entity, where we are held responsible for finding our "meaning in life" individually. Is a god necessary to have meaning? In the beginning…yes, but absolutely? Not if we can snap away from the sapling's post and learn to grow by ourselves (the "meaning of life" in itself?).


Q: Is faith in an organized religion irrational because there is no proof to confirm God's existence?

"Irrational" is a word thrown around by the observers of misunderstood perceptions. To use "modern" methods of logic and reason in justifying whether or not a religion is credible is irrational in and of itself. I am aware of this bold claim and I intend to defend it.
"Logic" and "Reason" are left in the Euclidian world (of spheres, pyramids, and squares) I mentioned in the first paper. My proof? Quantum Field Theory, one of the main relativistic theories of modern physics. Modern science has hit a wall and I find delight in it, although I, like the rubbernecking entity that I am, still continue to watch while they try and figure it out. We've found that electrons are suggesting (via some mathematical formalism that escapes me) that they traveling backwards in time, defying the very Newtonian laws we've depended on for centuries. Much excitement on my part due to it's being discovered by real scientists of logic and reason who fall short of explaining it. I thank a god science can see it's own limitations.
So, we continue to keep faith in mankind's potential rational, hoping that one day, we will understand. The spiritual would call this "irrational" because we are following the clues given by atoms and gravity when our consciousness is obviously far beyond them in complexity. Understand that, what constitutes the "strings" that constitute the quarks that constitute the atoms that constitute the elements that constitute me is at the present time unknown, but we chase the solution anyways? How rational is that? There is no proof that an answer even exists, right? Sounds similar to the rational man's problem with religion.
Whoever believes that faith in divine design is irrational might not (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) realize that the Sciences have unexplainable, improvable, yet oh so tantalizing mysteries as well. Space-time, now there's a subject on which respectively feeble (yet respectable) minds seem to have theory-purged. The door opened to that cluster and the greatest minds in science were (ands still are) awestruck. Sounds like the general consensus of any "revealed religion" that I've ever heard of. No reason, just faith. Show me a scientist that doesn't have "faith" in a higher aptitude for knowledge and I'll show you a dying breed.
Religion is simply putting aside all the tools, crucibles, theories and methods to trust that following gut instinct (your heart) will lead you on the most productive path.
Ever hear of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Oedipus of Greek lore was subject to such a fate when he tried to avoid the foresight he received as a child. Religion is nothing more than putting you on your own self-fulfilling prophecy. "I think happy thoughts, therefore, I may be happy with my life."
While life's scientists (subjective journalists favoring rational) try and stake out the "Meaning of Life" in the annals of progressive knowledge, thus revealing incredibly insightful aspects of the consciousness's construction, the theists will have progressed just as much, having skipped all the nonsense of the material world to focus on our very nature, our "soul", and what it means to be human.
"Faith" itself is irrational, but it's what keeps us going, professor and preacher alike. Quantum Mechanics pushed the revelations of Sir Isaac Newton aside while an entire generation of theists are disowning any single religion. We are all growing. An amalgamation of ideas is taking place on both sides of the fence and nobody knows what will happen next. We could discover time-travel or the evidence of a divine entity tomorrow, changing the world as we know it, but to suppose that faith in one or the other is irrational is to exemplify ignorance. We don't know "jack" about the universe around us and (at such a simple stage in our existence) to argue for one side over the other is, to me, the epitome of irrational pursuit.


The professor's reply via an e-mail to the student I wrote it for:


Dear *******,

I started teaching philosophy 6 years ago when I was pursuing my M.A. at the University of *******. Since that time, I have taught hundreds of students at 4 different institutions. Without a doubt, your examination is the best work I have ever received in any of my classes. I am telling you the truth.

The fact that I still have upwards of 70 examinations to grade is irrelevant because this paper is peerless, truly in a class by itself. I am astounded by the depth of thought and the quality of the writing. These are gifts which you should cultivate.

The way in which you approach these issues is unusual. It is the mark of a frightening brilliance I didn't even know was there. It is what sets this work apart.

Perhaps you will do me the courtesy of considering enrolling in further philosophy classes? Perhaps some creative writing classes as well? There is no doubting your talent.

This is not an 'A' paper. To paraphrase Nietzsche, it is "beyond A's and B's." It is a masterpiece.

I am truly impressed - so much so that I don't even know what else to say.

Sincerely,

Dr. *******