Ecclesiastes: Two Perspectives in Antithetical Opposition

This is just an outline for further discussion, but most of it should be pretty clear:

1. Under the Sun: Life is Meaningless

a. Everything is meaningless, Ecc. 1:2-11
b. Wisdom and folly are meaningless, Ecc. 1:17-18; 2:12-16
c. Pleasures are meaningless, Ecc. 2:1-11
d. Toil is meaningless, Ecc. 2:17-23
e. Riches are meaningless, Ecc. 5:10ff.


2. Under God’s Authority: Life is Teeming with Meaningfulness

a. God gives meaning to our pleasures, our work, our knowledge, our wealth—in short, to all of life, Ecc. 2:24-26
b. God gives meaning by placing eternity in the hearts of men, Ecc. 3:9ff.
c. God gives meaning by promising to settle accounts in the end, Ecc. 3:17; 12:13-14


3. Contradictions

a. Christians live life as if this world is all there is (when we despair, when we say there is no justice, when we say that there is no meaning in the symbols around us [such as music], when we act as if authority is man-made, etc.); it’s the “aren’t we lucky to get this manna from Mother Earth” perspective, where Mother Earth is purely a euphemism for how the world presents itself to us, as if manna were not a gift from God
b. Non-Christians cannot help but borrow Christian capital, because it is impossible to live life consistently as if it has no meaning


4. Examples of non-Christians who seem to understand the antithesis described in Ecclesiastes

a. The origin of morality, truth, logic, rationality, knowledge, meaning, love…: it must be somewhere under the sun, and it cannot have any meaning outside of what is under the sun.
b. Quine: Neurath’s Boat (epistemology under the sun)
c. Danniel Dennett: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: cranes and skyhooks; Darwinism is the universal acid
d. Nietzsche on meaning, necessary falsehoods, morality
e. In spite of David Hume’s philosophical skepticism and protracted, vehement argument that there is no rational justification for the knowledge that we claim to have, he concludes, “But a Pyrrhonian [i.e., the most radical of skeptics] cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.” (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, Third Edition [Oxford reprint], p. 160)
f. Bertrand Russell: Buddha vs. Nietzsche. How can we choose Buddha’s ethic of love over Nietzsche’s ethic of hate, power, and meaninglessness? “For my part, I agree with Buddha…. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.” (A History of Western Philosophy, 772-3)

At least Russell is honest enough to say that, given his life under the sun, he has no standard by which he can reasonably and logically pass judgment against Nietzsche—Russell must resort to feelings in the end. But Nietzsche would have laughed at Russell. Why must one’s ethic be self-consistent? From where does the logic of consistency come? A skyhook? Isn’t it the case that logic and the requirement of consistency itself must originate from under the sun as well? If life is meaningless, consistency is not necessarily a virtue. (We should be glad that those living in the under the sun perspective show their inconsistency by choosing to be consistent.)

g. Machiavelli: “A wise ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed…. [I]t is necessary to know how to disguise [a morally repugnant] nature well and to be a great hypocrite and a liar: and men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present needs that one who deceives will always find another who will allow himself to be deceived…. Therefore, it is not necessary for a prince to have all of the above-mentioned qualities, but it is very necessary for him to appear to have them.” (The Prince, Trs. Bondanella and Musa, pp. 58-59)


5. Why would Christians seek to undermine the antithesis?

a. Thoughtlessness
b. To minimize the implications of the biblically mandated moral difference between Christians and non-Christians
i. To make ourselves less concerned about our own righteousness
ii. To sound less judgmental to non-Christians
c. (There are many other possible reasons)


6. We should highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistency and borrowed Christian capital (it is confirmation of Christianity because it points at the true nature of things).


7. We should not always highlight the non-Christian’s inconsistencies, but instead should appreciate them

a. Because truth is from God, even if the truth betrays a contradiction
b. Because it is better for the world and for our society if the non-theist rejects the moral implications of consistently applying the worldview of meaninglessness

8. Our lives in Christ should be a concerted effort to locate and eradicate all the elements in ourselves that bask in the meaninglessness of life under the sun.