Forty-Two

The movie The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy follows the quest of an awkward and unimpressive man named Arthur Dent, who is trying to save planet earth by attempting to answer the ultimate question, “What is the meaning of life?” He travels from his tiny home in the countryside across the galaxy, fights off aliens, befriends a depressed robot, and falls in love with the President of the Galaxy’s girlfriend, all while holding onto a towel, only to learn the anticlimactic answer to his question. The meaning of life, according to a supercomputer built specifically to answer this question, is forty-two. Arthur is understandably upset upon hearing this. He lost everything: his home, all of his belongings, his entire life. He risks life and limb to figure out the answer to the ultimate question, and all he got was forty-two. He then realizes though that the important thing wasn’t forty-two. What was important was the journey he went on and the process of coming to a conclusion, even if that conclusion wasn’t what he was hoping for. 

This principle of appreciating the process more than the result can be found in Plato’s Republic also. The book is about Plato’s teacher, Socrates, and a group of men trying to come to a consensus on what justice is. Socrates first poses the question, “Speaking of that thing, justice, are we to say it is simply speaking the truth and paying whatever debts one has incurred? Or is it sometimes just to do these things, sometimes unjust?” (p. 5) Him and his friends then proceed to pick apart this statement and continue to evolve their opinions on the specifics of justice. They continue to use a form of discussion called the socratic method (named after Socrates) for the rest of the book. Someone would offer a definition, but Socrates would be quick to point out the flaws in their thinking. He clearly had an idea of what the true meaning of justice was, but he wanted them to experience the process of finding the answer themselves. Learning to value work over results is an important trait for anyone to learn, especially for philosophers. 

While I appreciate that principle, the issue I have with Plato’s Republic is that most of the philosophers with the exception of Socrates seem to not believe in absolutes. Certain philosophers of Socrates’ time believed that truth was relative and that what was right for one group of people might not be right for another group. This mentality led to selfish decisions being made under the pretense of relative truth. The hamartia in their thinking is that truth is absolute, and truth comes from one place only: God. Job 12:22 says, “He reveals the deep things of darkness and brings utter darkness into the light.” God offers us the truth if we just ask. Plato’s Republic is hard to read, not because it’s poorly written or uninteresting but because I believe all of their questioning is mindless philosophising in light of this fact. 

This type of relative thinking is prevalent in our society today. We call it “tolerating” other people's opinions, but if truth is not relative but absolute, we should feel obligated to speak out, not so we can prove others wrong but so we can help them be right. We as christians know absolutely that there is a God, the maker of heaven and earth, that there is a place of torment for those who die outside of fellowship with Him, and that His Son became like us in order to save us from that punishment because He loves us. These are absolute truths. They do not change depending on where you’re from, who you are, or what you have done. God is constant. 

However, just telling people these facts won’t be enough to make them believe. Like Republic or The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the process of coming to a conclusion is vitally important. Our job is to guide them to the truth the way Socrates guides the discussion on what is justice. The only differences are that we deal in absolutes and the conclusion that we come to is far greater than forty-two.