Eternity In Our Hearts?

"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!"- Johannes de Silentio (Soren Kierkegaard)

I have lots of things to teach you now, in case we ever meet, concerning the message that was transmitted to me under a pine tree in North Carolina on a cold winter moonlit night. It said that Nothing Ever Happened, so don't worry. It's all like a dream. Everything is ecstasy, inside. We just don't know it because of our thinking-minds. But in our true blissful essence of mind is known that everything is alright forever and forever and forever. Close your eyes, let your hands and nerve-ends drop, stop breathing for 3 seconds, listen to the silence inside the illusion of the world, and you will remember the lesson you forgot, which was taught in immense milky way soft cloud innumerable worlds long ago and not even at all. It is all one vast awakened thing. I call it the golden eternity. It is perfect. We were never really born, we will never really die. It has nothing to do with the imaginary idea of a personal self, other selves, many selves everywhere: Self is only an idea, a mortal idea. That which passes into everything is one thing. It's a dream already ended. There's nothing to be afraid of and nothing to be glad about. I know this from staring at mountains months on end. They never show any expression, they are like empty space. Do you think the emptiness of space will ever crumble away? Mountains will crumble, but the emptiness of space, which is the one universal essence of mind, the vast awakenerhood, empty and awake, will never crumble away because it was never born.-Jack Kerouac (Jack Kerouac)

If neither of these quotes make a ton of sense to you, its probably because they didn't make all the sense in the world to their authors either. Kidding aside, Kerouac and Kierkegaard are two authors always worthy of comparison. Both relied heavily on pathos, both used pseudonyms, both were prone to depression, and both were highly introspective, concerned not with grand schemes, but with the particulars and quirks of everyday happenings. The main differences, in my mind were that one, Kierkegaard is considered a philosopher, (although he rejected the label), and Kerouac a novelist and poet (although a philosopher in his own right). I own the books from which both these quotes came, but I have neither of them on hand, so I looked them up via internet. The funny thing about the site from which I got the Kierkegaard quote was that it was called "Stream of Consciousness". Kerouac practically invented, stream of consciousness writing. Truman Capote, a contemporary often compared with Kerouac, as both novel writers wrote what was coined, "the autobiographical. novel", about Kerouac's style quipped, "That's not writing. That's typing". When you read Kierkegaard it sometimes appears he was just "shooting from the hip", but this is more likely than not, because of his intentional aloofness, and not as Kerouac's "typing". Now to compare these two quotes, which turn out to be quite contrasting. Or more precisely, Kerouac proves Kierkegaard's/de Silentio's point. (From now on we will refer to the author of the former quote as "de Silentio").
There's a ton of analysis to be done on Silentio's . I'm not sure a Google blog is the place for that. Let it suffice to say that at the bottom of de Silentio's rhetorical charade, is the singular statement: men believe in eternity, because they must; they must in order to prevent themselves from utter despair upon despair upon more meaningless despair about the utter despairing vanity of everything.
At the bottom of Kerouac's pathos laden quote is the denial of reality as he knows it, so that he can claim everything is eternity, for if everything is eternal, then everything is nothing, and if everything is nothing, there is nothing over which to despair. It's a convenient belief for Kerouac, but albeit one that you could never shake him of, even you drop on him the soundest, most compelling skeptical analysis in the world. For Kerouac, like de Silentio know, that if there is no such thing as eternity, then their is only lies and despair.
The Bible agrees. It says, "God has set eternity in the hearts of men."
However, Stephen Hawking has argued that an materialistic assurance of no-after life does not necessarily lead to despair. He has seemed to prove that true as one of the happiest men alive (for all appearances). Those who disagree with Hawking's strict materialism can say that he's out of touch with his feelings, and that he's just in denial. I say that's just begging the question, and mean prejudice. Perhaps he really is happy, then de Silentio's comments are not necessarily true for all men, maybe for de Silentio, but not for everyone. None of this sheds any light on the existence of God or an afterlife, nor the validity of a skeptical worldview. But it at least contrasts two paradigmatic psychological perspectives. On one hand, you have the scientific objective observer, and the other, the introspective subjective thinker. Neither can make his case perfectly for his opponents. Both can only edify those who share the psychological predispositions. The main question, the meaning of life, ultimately is left without an absolutely doubtless conclusion. But as one who identifies with an introspective approach. It is perhaps the case that I have an unhealthy obsessive fear of the unknown, namely death. But I do believe that the scientific approach deals with the question by denying the importance of the question. The introspective person deals with the question by posing eternity. Both are going to die. That's the inescapable bear truth. And I cannot believe that the irreligious blind denial of an afterlife is any less religious or superstitious handling of the question than the religious blind affirmation of eternity. For now, I can only appeal to Mr. Pascal and his wager.