The Meaning of Existence
Hello, I've thought a lot about this and I think there will be (if this post is seen) many different answers to that question. So straightforward : "Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?".
For me the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans (and Animals or a possible god if you want).What do you think about the topic?
P.S. : Sorry for my language I'm german and not that great in english.
For me the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans (and Animals or a possible god if you want).What do you think about the topic?
P.S. : Sorry for my language I'm german and not that great in english.
Comments (65)
. Scientists say that "nothing is added in existence, and nothing deleted."
. Not a single atom has been added, cannot be added. From where can you bring it… when we talk about the total, from where can you bring a single atom? Or if you want to destroy a single atom, how can you destroy it? Where can you push it? Science says that nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created. The totality remains the same, but the parts change. A tree is destroyed, a body is dead; a flower is coming up, a tree is alive.
. Things come up, things go down; things are born, things die.
. But the totality remains as it is.
. A tree dies because a tree is a part. When it dies it goes back down to the total, but the total remains the same. This sutra says: I suffer not destruction, neither have I birth…. How can the total be born? This point also must be looked at deeply.
. All the religions have tried to think how the world came into being. Where is the beginning? Christianity says that before Jesus Christ, four thousand years back, the world came into being, suddenly, in a week. In six days God created the world, and on the seventh day he relaxed. That’s why the seventh day is a holiday. In six days he created the world – on a particular date. This is absurd, because this total cannot come out of nothing. And even if the world came into being, God was before it. So there was a world of a certain kind. God was there, so existence was there.
. Hindus say "this is beginningless and endless; existence is beginningless and endless."
. So worlds may be created and worlds may be destroyed, but existence continues. The Hindu mind says that one world is created and another is being destroyed simultaneously. A star is born and another star is dying. Our earth is just now old, and soon it will die. Whatsoever we do, the earth is going to die; now it is old. Many things will happen which will help it to die: the population explosion will help, atomic research will help, pollution will help, chaotic trend, revolutions, rebellions will help; everything will help this earth to die.
. Man going to the moon is a very symbolic act. Whenever some planet dies, life tries to go somewhere else. It happens only then, never before. Whenever some planet is going to die, life begins to try to go somewhere else, to be replanted somewhere else.
. Still scientists are not able to find out from where life came to this earth; there seems to be no reason how it can come up suddenly. It must have come from somewhere else. It is possible that some old earth dying, some ancient planet dying, and its sun…. Even one man and one woman transplanted to this earth would create the whole thing. It may have been Adam and Eve coming from some other planet which was dying; and two are enough to create millions.
. It is felt deeply that this earth is going to die soon; that is why there is so much search to go beyond this earth – to the moon, to Mars, or to somewhere, somewhere to find a home again. Life is just going to die here. Neither politicians can help us, not pacifists. This earth is going to die.
. Everything born is bound to die some time. And for the earth, one thousand, two thousand years are nothing. So it may continue, but it is just on the verge. Every symptom shows that it is just on the verge. So one earth may be born, another may die.
. One world may be born. When I say world, I don’t mean total, because there are many, many worlds. Our world consists of the solar system: this sun and the family of this sun. We don’t know. Out there are other worlds; there are many universes. We are totally unaware of them. Every day a new star is born and every day a star is dying, disappearing. But the whole remains, and the whole remains the same. It is neither born, nor is there any possibility of its being dead. It is beginningless and endless.”
Hi there SmartIdiot
While I agree that the meaning of our existence must be interpreted but what is the objective purpose of our universe? What if Man on earth became extinct, does the universe retain its purpose if indeed it has one?
There is a famous expression in Panentheism which states that the universe is the body of God. If Man is a mini universe, when we admit what our physical bodies do and our physical purpose, it should also be the purpose of our great universe. "As above, so below."
Science observes that our physical body is like a machine which transforms substances through our bodily processes. When we eat for example, the process of digestion transforms it into another. Regardless of what we think of ourselves, the purpose of our physical bodies and animal life is to transform substances.
Our bodies serve the necessity for our existence just like the universe serves our Source. The universe is a necessity just like our bodies are a necessity for our existence. For those who can admit this, the obvious question is how the universe works. If we know how the human organism functions, we can know how the universe functions. Is it possible?
"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk
Quoting SmartIdiot
It is meaningful since the importance for human knowledge. As Descartes said cogito ergo sum
Since the exactly moment we are available to think and therefore the stimulus of awareness provides us the situation that at least we literally exist. Probably all of our reality is fake and is meaningless but the existence of human themselves develop our consciousness.
The debate is open about if since the moment we exist how worthy our reality actually is.
Drinking beer. Driving 911's (not in that order).
Meaning is manifest in action...
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.
The question of meaning arose late in the historical game (just my guess). Tyrannosaurus Rex probably didn't worry about the meaning of existence. Five million years ago, our predecessors weren't worrying about meaning either, We, on the other hand, do worry about it--a lot. (At least people on this forum do.)
We need some context in which to fit our good and bad experiences. Even the idea that there is no over-arching meaning that is certain, is a context that is better than endless confusion.
I grew up in a protestant home and received a clear religious framework of meaning. I have since become a non-believer. Starting out life with a clear structure of meaning enables one to change without falling into nihilism. Nihilism (no meaning, nothing matters...) is probably the worst of all possible worlds.
We can fashion a positive 'meaning of life', and live it.
Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?" It's an odd book that contends that homo sapiens did not become self-aware until sometime in the last few thousand years. Here's what Wikipedia says:
Abandoning the assumption that consciousness is innate, Jaynes explains it instead as a learned behavior that "arises ... from language, and specifically from metaphor." With this understanding, Jaynes then demonstrates that ancient texts and archeology can reveal a history of human mentality alongside the histories of other cultural products. His analysis of the evidence leads him not only to place the origin of consciousness during the 2nd millennium BCE but also to hypothesize the existence of an older non-conscious "mentality that he calls the bicameral mind, referring to the brain’s two hemispheres".
I don't buy it, and a lot of psychologists and anthropologists don't either, but he wasn't laughed out of the room.
Seems to me that sense of meaning is a function of consciousness.
My main objection to his idea is that consciousness probably exists in other species, but to a lesser (and much lesser) degree. I don't think consciousness sprang into existence with us and only us. Brains have been evolving towards complexity for a long time. A dog, for instance, is not a 'conscious being' like us, but it seems like they have some consciousness.
Yep, that's pretty much it. Meaning is not a thing found in the world, but imparted to the world by us. It's what we choose to do.
Those who talk of objective meaning have a profound misunderstanding of what is going on, in that they suppose meaning to be found, not made.
It ask the question when : exactly is the boat ceased of existing when replacing the single parts of it.
There is just one problem : The ship doesn't exist but in our minds. Because a ship is nothing but a bunch of atoms formed in a special way. To these atoms we give the name "ship". So there is something but the existence of the ship is just created by our thoughts exactly like the meaning we claim to be objective/universal. But if you find a error in my logic please show it to me because it would really help.
Nothing has any "true" meaning, whatever we do isn't important at all, talking to you now is not important, living is not important , even knowing that all isn't important, shortly : nothing is of real importance. But that raises folloing question : Why are we searching Meaning? why are we doing anything? why am I talking to you and you to me?Why aren't we just all killing ourselves (à la camu) why do we want to know things?And the answer is in my opinion : Because of feelings and thought.
Why am I eating - because I'm hungry. Why am I not killing myself - because I'd rather like to live.
So all our deeds follow from our Feelings and thought?
And that is the exact moment where philosophy and ideology start to apply.
There is no meaning but which invented meaning should we choose to "create" and then follow.
In answering this kind of question human history is littered with claims in the affirmative and negative. How would you go about trying to determine which ones are true or not? Should you even care?
One of the first stumbling blocks is located in what is meant by 'existence'. The presuppositions people have about what existence is leads them to meanings or the lack of them. So the question is hard to explore without a whole bunch of foundational epistemology.
I have read Julian Jaynes' work and one aspect which is interesting is that he suggests that early humanity experiences thoughts as 'voices' because they were not able to conceive of the inner experience of consciousness.
One thing which I am also wondering is if we think about any form of consciousness in any other life forms apart from human beings, we would have to query in what form would meaning be grasped if it is not in the form of language, as we know it?
"Objective/universal meaning" presupposes existence so I agree existence cannot be meaningful. On the other hand, "meanings" become intelligible in a context and the only context of "existence" that comes to mind is nonexistence which, when considered from this (Buddhist? Democritean? Heideggerian?) perspective, makes explicit the "objectice/universal meaning" – ineluctable shock (thaumazein) – of that X (or "the mystical" according to TLP 6.44) priori to any & all what Ys. :eyes:
Why what?
By existence I mean "things that are" but the problem here is of course that we don't know what is and what isn't existing. But we don't have to know that to discuss the problem of meaning. We don't know what exists but we know that some things DO in fact exist (I think therefore I am).
You've answered your own question here. The specific question I responded to addresses the 'objective' and 'universal'. As you say we 'don't know what is or isn't existing'
Resolving this ancient conundrum largely depends on where your epistemology takes you - which then could lead into atheism, mysticism or theism depending on your conclusions and influences. And of course, everyone is free to make up any shit they want in the absence of certainty. I know I do.
This looks like you have a syllogism in mind:
therefore,
Can this be made to work? Well, let's start by removing the weasel word "true". We get "Nothing has any meaning" - now this is obviously false, unless you would like to say that your own posts have no meaning. Better, we found some agreement in "meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans"; so we might replace "Nothing has any true meaning" with
But then, whatever we do is of the utmost importance, since meaning comes from what we do...
And in so far as what we do follows from our feelings and thoughts, you are again right.
I'd also like to add that what follows from that is that there's nothing, really nothing we OUGHT to do but we've got infinite things we CAN actually do. And that's the bauty of it. You want to be a humanist then go for it. But you can also be a fascist or racist. Not that I'd like that I hate racism and this stuff but you're free to do whatever you universally speaking. From here as I said begin the roots of philosophy (subjective of course) : What shall we see as good? How shall we act? What are we? Do we even exist?
But in my opinion it all rest on the fact that there's no objective meaning. From there on everything is discussed.
Yes, but as you say that is opinion. The matter is not settled. There are members here that believe everything is consciousness and all matter is an illusion. Some physics points to this conclusion. If one accepts that consciousness is all there is and that there is a higher consciousness, there there may be an objective truth (my words are no doubt crude and a simplification).
Quoting SmartIdiot
Why hate racism if it is just a subjective position? If views are just opinions then many would argue we have no right to tell anyone else what is better or worse, because there is no foundation or arbiter to any any of it. These are all well worn arguments that have not been settled.
Worn out argument, perhaps.
That racism is objectionable is not like that I prefer vanilla. My preference has no impact on how I think you might act - I will not insist on your eating only vanilla. Ethical judgements do carry over to others. In such things I am the arbiter; no other option is viable.
If you - by way of example - think racism acceptable, then I say you are wrong.
You present an example of the sort of muddle that talk of the subjective engenders. Ethical positions are not 'just subjective', nor are they objective. That dichotomy serves only to mislead the conversation. Ethical positions set out how we want things to be, and hence what we ought to do.
Quoting SmartIdiot
I do not follow your reasoning here. You are concluding that our lives here have no purpose, because purposes are the sole preserve of minds. But that simply doesn't follow. You're correct, of course, that purposes are the sole preserve of minds. Minds and minds alone can have ends they are doing things to try and serve (which is what a 'purpose' is). But how does that, by itself, imply that our lives lack a purpose?
To get to that conclusion you would have to make the additional assumption that no mind is responsible for having brought us into being here for any purpose.
Yet the proximal cause of us being here is the sexual activity of our parents. Such activity was not necessarily purposeful, and even if it was it needn't have had the production of you as its end.
But it's entirely possible, of course, that your parents did seek to bring you into being here for some purpose or other. Your life would then, in a very real sense, have a purpose: it's purpose was to fulfil the end for which your parents brought you into being here.
That, however, would presumably not satisfy you, as the purpose you're interested in and sceptical about is a grander one that applies to us all and comes from the same unifying source.
So it seems that you are assuming there is no single mind who brought us all into being here for a purpose.
Fair enough: I agree that this is indeed the condition on our lives having a purpose ('purpose' in the sense that those who wonder about the meaning of life are wondering about). That is, it needs to be the case for there to be such a mind who has made us all live here for a purpose in order for it to be true that our lives have a purpose in the relevant sense.
But you would have to accept, then, that if such a mind exists, our lives do have a purpose, yes?
Jaynes had some thoughts on how our consciousness is related to our ability to form metaphors that I found very interesting and convincing. The rest was sort of highfalutin Malcolm Gladwell pseudoscience.
I don't think I find any error in you thoughts, although I do have a somewhat different perspective. As @Bitter Crank says in his comment, scientists have come to believe that some animals are conscious in a way similar to how we are. In that context, consciousness is seen as the ability to think about themselves in an abstract way. One of the ways they test this is to see if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. Crows, chimpanzees, and octopi have passed that test. It's amazing to me that an invertebrate, related to clams, may have self-consciousness. That may be evidence that evolution of intelligence and consciousness is not that unusual.
That's a really good question.
Existence is objective and universal meaning!
Banno, I am representing these arguments as they are generally presented. My own views have not been included. The OP has not yet made a case that he can overcome them.
So what does it matter if your choices impact upon others? If you say there are no objective truths, you have to hold a presupposition that the wellbeing of others matters as a part of your worldview to get there. Or you might get there via what they used to call self-interested altruism.
Quoting Banno
Based on what though? How people want things to be includes racism, and all kinds of horrors, like eugenics. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's - someone who doesn't care for the wellbeing of others?
It is amazing. It's also amazing that all the remarkable features that an octopus has are innate -- it doesn't have time enough to learn it's remarkable repertoire of behaviors. MY OCTOPUS TEACHER is a fine documentary on a particular octopus - on Netflix.
Not people - you.
You decide what to do next. You can't make that decision for someone else. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's is that it is yours, and hence the one you will use to decide what to do next.
Quoting Banno
Sure - which is what I do. But it doesn't really matter what I choose does it, as long as it is the version I most want?
And that will tell us about you. So yes, what you choose is of the utmost import, since it will decide who you are.
Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system?
In other words existence is Dr. Phil telling you to get real and is time to get your shit straight. And we hate the truth, is a hard pill to swallow
Is easier cater to our egos or maybe our arrogance by asking the question because maybe subconsciously you want it to be meaningless. So you don’t have to take accountability
Is easier to dismiss something as undefined so we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions.
If you want a straight forward answer the purpose of existence is to make you face the truth by witnessing your peers.
Experience is Craving; Craving is the Individual; The Individual is Existence; Existence is Man, and Man is Egoism. We are ontological Gods who seek Being and Experience in all possibilities, be they trivial and mundane, to the metaphysical and unreal.
Even with the finiteness and the limit, even what does not exist and it is pure idea will allow itself to be created by humanity, because we, through our nature, are doomed to this destiny: - The destiny of self-realization, be it consented or not.
"Nothing has any Value" includes, and thereby refutes, itself. Objectively speaking.
This conclusion does not follow from the self-refuting "nothing has any Value". You're just babbling inanities.
As you alluded, it should be apparent that even if we suppose there is a god, and said god wishes us to behave in a certain way, the choice to do so remains with us. That is, god does not decide what to do, we do.
This argument extends to any supposed source of objective morality; if, for instance, evolution dictated that we should act in a certain way, it would remain open for us to do otherwise.
It's remarkable how many otherwise self-critical folk fail to see this
Will you act so as to reduce racism? Do you agree that suffering is worth eradicating?
Your answer tells us about you.
I'd love a bit of software that could analyse discourse to pick out stats like that.
...and yet you still are not be able to follow the conversation.
I made a similar point on one of the religious morality threads.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yep, an oldie but a goodie. Using reason to justify the use of reason seems similarly fraught.
Quoting Banno
I can answer yes to both the above. So?
Is the issue of others relevant? Who is the us?
How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm not trying to trap you. I can answer the question for me. I think I was largely socialised to believe that suffering is wrong (but whose suffering matters to society is the interesting question for me - it's not a level playing field) and now I hold a view that the wellbeing of others is a reasonable presupposition to build a basic ethical framework on.
I've been thinking about watching that.
So what more is needed here? We agree that suffering is worth eradicating. What more do we need? Why ask "How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?" when you already have the answer?
I thought you might say that.
So all we have in public discourse are declarations of personal value judgements. Which is pretty much where I've always been.
The person who says suffering is necessary for human growth and poor people should die out because they are inferior, is also just providing us with their personal values.
There is no mechanism to determine whose view should predominate in social policy.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's quite right - no mechanism, no algorithm. you decide the truth of ethical propositions. Is the person who says suffering is necessary for human growth and poor people should die out because they are inferior right? No. You agree. That's all there is to it.
How fragile, but how important!
Sounds like a truism. Kind of like being socialized to believe that pain is unpleasant. You might say ‘of course I believe MY pain is unpleasant , but I may not necessarily believe someone else’s is unpleasant’, or at least. not unpleasant for me. Unless of course I identify with that other person. Hmm, perhaps the ability to relate to and empathize with the Other is the key to whether we believe their suffering is wrong. Is that empathy a matter of socialization, or is the ability to understand other persons
and groups from their own vantage and moral justifications more akin to the grasping g of a scientific paradigm? Or is the understanding of a scientific theory a matter of socialization?
Sounds like the understanding of scientific theories.
I can't possibly say. Chasing my tail makes me dizzy, so I generally chase other people's. But I do know that there appear to be a lot of people with no or marginal empathy. For some of the cod-social-Darwinists and Christian fundamentalists - this may be seen and as an evolutionary or theological advantage.
Not according to Kuhn or cultural theories of science. You may change the theory ‘to march what you see in the world, but what you see i the world is already theory and thus value- laden, which makes science the cousin of ethics and politics. The world around us only appears to us through ideology.
That argument will work in ethics, too.
"I realized that everything is in vain, and I hated life. And this too was in vain"
-- Ecclesiasticus
I in turn could direct you to Rorty for an excellent critique of Davidson, starting here: https://youtu.be/e6PitPJiN5c
I think Davidson wants to hold onto some remnant of empirical realism and so misreads Kuhn’s intent.
No one , including Derrida and Rorty , embraces the label of relativist because within cultural and scientific paradigms one can speak of right or wrong in a normative pragmatic sense, but not between. This complements Wittgenstein’s description of normativity operating within but not between language games.
This argument rejects the idea that the universe and nature of existence is random and chaotic, as specific processes with specific characteristics, qualities, behaviors etc. resulted in the creation of existence. And since these processes pre-determined what existence would be, it can also be assumed that existence is the way it's "supposed" to be.
Yeah, it sure looks that way. But that can be good and bad. Here's a video I recommend that talks about this subject. It concludes that there can not be an objective universal meaning. However, the absence of such a meaning creates the circumstance wherein thinking beings therefore have the right to define a purpose of existence because there isn't a universal objective meaning.