From Meaninglessness To Higher Level
Think, the beginning of life, the first self-replicating molecule in a sea of materials for self-replication, then, there are too many self replicating molecules and the soup is all used up. Enter, the age of big fish eats little fish, as the rule of the day. The talking snake comes much later----- lol!! My thought is this, if humanity could deal with the obvious meaninglessness of life, and realize that all we have is each other, could we not move on to a higher level than to dwell in delusions and denial. Nietzsche had doubts humanity could live without mythic delusions, with Nihilism he was frightened for humanity. Perhaps facing meaninglessness we can without guilt, take the power of self-control and bring in a new world perspective, for without self-control, there is no control, and that is our apparent reality in a dying world.
Comments (65)
We already do that. It's called "popular culture".
Once, there was the Theatre of the Absurd. Now, we're living it.
Better yet we've never heard of the abyss and toil with full absorption in fruitful aspects of the gardens of life.
"Thoughs who know the most, must mourn the deepest, orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life."
Self-control of the collective must be the goal of humanity, or as Leaky stated in his advice to humanity, change or perish.
Who's to say some of us haven't already done so?
You wouldn't recognize such people even if they hit you in the face
Don't treat meaning as if it were something you find. It's not. It's something you build.
Good point. There's something more to be said about this. Searching for meaning, which many of us may or may not do, implies a belief in the universal truth about life. Certainly, Schopenhauer believes that there is a universal truth about life, for example.
If it's come down to this, that it is something you build, then you know meaning is subjective and to each his own. It's an admission that there's no meaning out there to be found. It's what you make it. And this does not appease some people. To some, it's a depressing thing to realize.
That doesn't follow. Meaning is built - it is what you do. And what you do, you do together with other people. Creating meaning is inherently a communal activity.
Quoting boagie
Yup!
The choices are:
1. Slavery: Do what you're supposed to do. Don't even think about asking questions
Or
2. Freedom: Do what you please.
Interestingly, these same choices can be rephrased in a moral context as,
3. Slavery
Or
4. God's evil
Either God is evil or life is meaningless. A dilemma to give you sleepless nights.
:meh:
Yep; if I say "private language argument" I'll lose my audience...
Meaning is something derived from experience, or meaning, experience, is knowledge. I think your talking about reaching for a goal, to build a meaningful life ect.
Yep. Meaning is built from experience, but it builds into the future.
Claiming that life is meaningless misunderstands what meaning is. Life is meaningful if you so make it.
There is no inherent meaning to the physical world as object, there is nothing in this world that has meaning in and of itself, but only in relation to a conscious subject. I quite agree that if one is to live a meaningful life one needs to create it, give it meaning. The physical world is utterly meaningless, it is biological consciousness which bestows meaning upon a meaningless world.
I like this. Is it possible to push it any further? I'm thinking along the lines that people have a responsibility to construct their own meaning rather than inherit an 'off the rack' version (theism or scientology, whatever). Or would you find this too prescriptive?
Quoting boagie
A bit too messianic for my taste, but something like that.
It's far worse than that: people have no choice but to construct their own meaning. Hence the angst that comes from simply being.
And yes, authenticity is pivotal here. Allowing others to decide for you - "off the rack" - is itself making a decision, but an inauthentic one.
This is all just channeling Sartre, by the way.
The natural world is replete with meaning for animals. Culturally we build on that basic, biological, embodied meaning that varies with different kinds of bodies. Or we shrink from that and imagine other-worldly meanings.
Certainly, different biologies experience a somewhat different reality than human biology. Whether we are talking of humans or other animals we are talking about consciousness. Life is consciousness, consciousness is life. Like humans, no doubt animal's sensory experiences provide it meaning relative to how its body is effect by the physical world, this meaning experience is then bestowed upon a meaningless world. For all animals, reality/meaning is a biological readout. Where subject and object stand or fall together, meaning is always the sole property of the subject, never the property of the object.
The self-replicating paradox
The DNA molecule copies itself faithfully with probably one error in a billion replication cycles. Yet, children are not exact copies of the parents. It's like xeroxing a document only to discover the copy's different from the original.
If DNA were faultless, evolutionary development would not be possible. Mutation is a high price to pay for adaptation, with most mutations meaning death to the organism. It is imperfection that drives evolution.
The DNA replication paradox
1. To maintain a good trait, its replication must be hi-fi.
2. To develop a better trait, it's replication must not be hi-fi.
3. Life has to maintain a good trait and develop better traits.
Ergo,
4. DNA replication must be hi-fi & DNA replication must not be hi-fi.
In other (more succinct) words, what said. :up:
Quoting Janus
Low blow.
I think a big problem here is the English language. When talking about a ‘meaning of life’ we’re just
talking about ‘purpose’ or ‘reason for something’.
‘Building’ meaning makes no sense. Either something has meaning in reference to something else or it doesn’t. The colour blue has meaning if colour is important to an aim. Meaning is inherent in the aim of a task.
The problem framed with the terms ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ is when they are applied in a universal manner. That is the mistake.
Second:
Life is not ‘meaningless’ anymore than blue isn’t a colour. We are temporal so necessarily directed in one way or another towards something in way way or another. Understanding how we are directed, what we’re directed towards (relative to other items) and distinguishing items, is all there is to life.
What is the meaning of blue? Without context a useless question.
What is the meaning of life” Without specifics (ie. contained within tangible bounds) equally useless.
To further break this down we find ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (meaning valuation). The purpose/meaning grows from the context of a question/proposal and how we consider it as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ and for what reasons. We have small goals in life not some ultimate goal because we’re not privy to any kind of complete picture. We naturally investigate and map out our experiences and make up ideas and plans to help understand our direction - and possibly alter it (as we’re just time machines).
More succinct that my rant :D
Enter power games, hierarchy, and all that which eventually makes life so meaningless and so inauthentic.
No. This is because people are not rational beings. People are rationalizing beings. A rational being will come to a conclusion that is logic, and act on it despite their emotional and personal misgivings or dislike of the solution. A rationalizing being will attempt to present arguments and logic that rationalize their view on life. Most people will reject logical and rational arguments in favor of what they want to believe.
And I'm not talking about others. I'm talking about both you and me. The best we can do is attempt to minimize our propensity to rationalize, and actually attempt to use reason and logic. It requires humbleness, strength of character, an inquisitive mind, and a willingness to admit when one is wrong, even when it hurts or shames. This takes training, effort, and a will to do. Most people will never do this.
Yeah, I can't really disagree, excellent philosophim!
Sartre is just Heidegger without the affectation or naziism... That's not a criticism!
Only if you allow it to.
“you can always make something out of what you've been made into”
Wasn't meant as such. Re authenticity Banno said he was channeling Sartre; I was merely pointing out that Sartre was channeling Heidegger
Logic provides no reason to act. Logic may tell you that if you walk off the edge of a cliff you will fall and likely die. It cannot tell you whether or not to do it.
Sure, it's not the property of the object considered in abstracto or considered in objective, analytical terms as a mere present (id)entity. That's Heidegger's point: more primordial than that analytic "present-at-hand" mode of thinking is the "ready to hand" mode where all things are replete with meaning. And this meaning is not constructed by the "subject", but comes from 'being-in-the-world", which is altogether prior to the thinking that gives rise to "subject" and "object".
Quoting Janus
That's the "low blow"! :sweat:
:up:
A blow may be low, but true nonetheless; Sartre was greatly inspired by and acknowledged his debt to, Heidegger.
Unless you were referring to anal sex...or fellatio... :joke:
Quoting Janus
Not without dinner and flowers.
(I know you didn't really, I'm just playing along for the sake of derailing this thread).
From the Higher Level to meaninglessness (to get back on track).
It sounds like a bit of nonsense to me. All meaning is cognitive, all meaning is the property of a conscious subject. Meaning like apparent reality itself, is a biological readout. Meaning is the experience of the physical world upon one's biology. You have been reading to much Nazi material- - - lol!!
It's not just "most people will never do this". It's: Everyone thinks they are of the few who have. No matter how sharply you define what rationality is, it is still at the mercy of rationalizing. "Don't place too much confidence in your opinion if it's about something you know little about" is a reasonable request. Everyone will agree with it, and everyone will think they're following it and the people who they disagree with are the problem!
It doesn't seem to me like it's possible to tell when one is actually "rationalizing less" from a first person perspective. Or from the perspective of someone who one largely agrees with.
The refugees at the border of Poland and Belarus, stuck there for days, neither state is letting them pass:
They are "allowing it".
Ms. Thatcher has taught you well.
How incongruous.
Quoting Banno
Yes, yes. The Jews, for example, have "created their meaning" "together with other people" -- with the Nazis.
What you've got going there is a nice little recipe for rigidly obeying social norms under the guise of authenticity. Because if your "true self" happens to match social norms, then you're just not inauthentic or acting in bad faith, now, are you.
IOW, you sound exactly like the advice one finds in women's magazines -- "By all means, be yourself, find your own meaning and purpose in life: as long as it's what society dictates that it should be."
I don't know to whom you are replying, but it is not me.
Cheers.
Since death exists I can't find any other worth full meaning in life except from trying to live a happy life.
And since happiness is just an abstract concept. I define happiness as living as much time (seconds from your whole life) with pleasant feelings. If not pleasant then peaceful- calm feelings .If neither calm then with "neutral" feelings.
In general by trying to minimize the time of your life that you will spend with unpleasant feelings.
It's the only purpose I have found worthy fighting for.
Hence these forums, I suppose.
Might go do some gardening.
No, you're not that shallow. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
The communality you so highly praise is fraught with conflict and strife, which you conveniently refuse to admit.
I don't take credit for that last sentence.
If you have the ability to wank all day and you get so much happiness from it, then none of my business. You better do that indeed.
Not all of us though have "wanking value" so high in our priority ranking. Whatever suits you better though.
I do. It' just that of course the community is fraught with conflict and strife; but that doesn't make what I said wrong.
Nothing wrong with a bit of hedonism, of course.
And when you hear "pleasant feelings", wanking is the only source that comes to your mind getting them. Cool. I don't judge.
Quoting Banno
Sure not.
And you are presenting unargued assertions coupled with a lack of imagination.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on where my statements have gone astray.
Explain if you would, how the world as an object, obtains its meaning. The Nazi thing was tongue in cheek by the way.
And the Jews in Nazi camps created their meaning, made their life meaningful, in communty with the Nazis.
I'm not saying that what you said was wrong. I'm saying it sometimes has brutal, sadistic applications, and, of course, clandestinely endorses conformism. So much for authenticity.
Yes, Dimosthenis, it's called forethought, pain, pleasure, desire, desire to stay out of pain.
Let's face it reality is the shits, that's why so many people choose a fantasy life, read religions.