intrapersonaJanuary 14, 2017 at 12:0932500 views40 comments
Is that not begging the question? Is this sound and valid?
Comments (40)
Terrapin StationJanuary 14, 2017 at 15:22#467430 likes
Well, sound and valid are moot points, because I wouldn't say it's an argument. It's not as if there are premises and a conclusion there with an implication that the conclusion follows from the premises. So question-begging is irrelevant, too.
You're probably reading it too literally, rather than understanding the spirit it was meant in.
I think it is a quote, but incomplete. It doesn't address the question of why there is the question . Still it is up to each individual to give meaning to life.
intrapersonaJanuary 15, 2017 at 12:24#469270 likes
Well, sound and valid are moot points, because I wouldn't say it's an argument. It's not as if there are premises and a conclusion there with an implication that the conclusion follows from the premises. So question-begging is irrelevant, too.
You're probably reading it too literally, rather than understanding the spirit it was meant in.
The quote can be put into syllogism format if you wish.
P: The meaning of life exists
P: We can give our own life meaning by ourselves alone
C: Therefore, The meaning of life is to give life meaning.
What I don't like about the quote is that it assumes there is a meaning or meaning/s that you can place on life if you choose to do so, when in actuality nobody has any meaning to place on an explanation of existence at all (your kids and wife don't fucking count).
I understand the spirit it was meant in, almost as if to say "you control your own destiny, you can make life great if you choose etc." but I wanted to actually analyze it logically to see if it holds up. If an explanation of life doesn't hold up to reason then it is worthless.
Terrapin StationJanuary 15, 2017 at 13:49#469530 likes
I wouldn't say that your suggestion for a logical argument version of the quote at all captures what the quote expresses.
First, the quote exploits some wordplay ambiguity. On one level, it's saying that the only sort of x to be had is this specific sort of x, where that works rhetorically as it does because there's irony in it due to misconceptions about x. On another level, it's equivocating the term it's focusing on (where that's not a flaw--again, we're dealing with wordplay) to note that the one overarching drive or goal that people have in common, when there's some overarching drive or goal present to consciousness, is to frame things in a way so that they have a lot of significance for one, so that one has guiding goals/credos/etc., and so on.
I've said that. Life has no inherent meaning, no meaning ordained by God. The universe doesn't provide us meaning. If we didn't exist, meaninglessness would not be a problem. We do, however, exist and we need meaning. Therefore, if there is to be meaning, we create it. We give life meaning.
Terrapin StationJanuary 15, 2017 at 19:57#470870 likes
I've said that. Life has no inherent meaning, no meaning ordained by God. The universe doesn't provide us meaning. If we didn't exist, meaninglessness would not be a problem. We do, however, exist and we need meaning. Therefore, if there is to be meaning, we create it. We give life meaning.
^ This
I agree with everything Bitter Crank said there.
intrapersonaJanuary 16, 2017 at 04:01#471870 likes
We do, however, exist and we need meaning. Therefore, if there is to be meaning, we create it. We give life meaning.
But what is this meaning that is self-created? It seems that anyone can pick up an object, even a brick, and call it the meaning of their own life. How can we tell what is valid as a self-chosen meaning of which we give our lives? Why is "helping people" any more valid than "a brick" or "a statue" or "my bicycle"? I don't see how "helping people" can be a meaning for existence. Verily, it is a reason of how to act in existence, but a meaning for it? If someone asked you what is the meaning of an apple and you responded "to help people", isn't that a bit ridiculous? So if the meaning you place on life isn't "helping people" what is it? To love your wife and kids? To enjoy pleasures? It just seems like a nonsensical pattern of misplacing objects/processes as a source explanation for larger things in existence/existence itself.
It just seems like a nonsensical pattern of misplacing objects/processes as a source explanation for larger things in existence/existence itself.
Apples don't ask themselves why they exist, for what purpose, or in what meaningful sense. The same can be said for bricks. They don't ask. They exist.
"Helping people" might be a good meaning for life. "I am here to help people." You could do worse. Or, "Finding pleasurable experiences gives the meaning of life." Or "Learning about the natural world makes life meaningful," Or "Becoming an expert in Anthropology makes life meaningful." Or "Fixing up old cars is the meaning of my life." Or "Growing oats for horses and oatmeal is the thing that makes my life meaningful." and so on. People are the only creatures that ask and answer this question. The rest of creation gets off scot free. They can just exist to their hearts content. So could you, of course, but you would find it more difficult to merely exist than a pear on a tree would.
The "Meaning of Life" is a theoretical overlay which we place on top of our animal existence. We can do that. Bears, pears, and mares can not. There are, of course, ready made meaning-of-life overlays on the shelf. You can go into the closet and look through the available models and try one out. If you don't find it satisfactory, you can try a different one.
Vestis virum reddit, sed homo vestimenta sua. Clothes make the man, but man makes his
clothes. Acerba Vectem, famous Latin Philosopher.
"Helping people" might be a good meaning for life. "I am here to help people." You could do worse.
So why, presumably, would "killing people" not be a good meaning to give to life? The problem for me with the idea that meaning is only something we assign to life is that I think meaning and ethics are aspects of one metaphysical reality (for lack of a better term), and so they can't be separated. For us to assign life a meaning, the meaning has to pass some sort of general consensus of being a decent choice. There's still an ethical litmus test at play. That's not at all to say that we don't assign our own meanings to our lives. We certainly do. I would even go so far as to agree that at least almost any meaning we ascribe to our lives is just "a theoretical overlay" as you say, but the problem here for me is that we create an unnecessary dichotomy between subjective and objective. It's true that we subjectively project meaning unto our lives, but this in no way excludes the possibility of a transcendent meaning also existing. The reason I think we do this is because, historically, for most religions, a transcendent meaning was assumed, and now the idea that we project meaning has historically grown out of the old understanding. A teenager may wake up one day and realize she doesn't have to follow her parents rules. She very well has the capacity to do as she likes, she can, in a sense, make her own set of rules for herself. The parents may punish her for this, she may disobey in secret, or the parents might just not care, but regardless, she now has this power. And she may, years later, realize that at least some of her parents rules would have been beneficial to follow. In my view, the whole process is necessary: the initial rules that govern the raising of a child, the rebellion from the rules, and the closure of looking back and seeing value in some, not all of the rules she rebelled against. And with a mature view, she can also realize the benefit of her rebellion as well.
Terrapin StationJanuary 16, 2017 at 06:34#472190 likes
But what is this meaning that is self-created? It seems that anyone can pick up an object, even a brick, and call it the meaning of their own life. How can we tell what is valid as a self-chosen meaning of which we give our lives? Why is "helping people" any more valid than "a brick" or "a statue" or "my bicycle"?
Yes, one's "meaning of life" could be anything. None of them are more or less "valid." Validity is a category error for this.Quoting intrapersona
If someone asked you what is the meaning of an apple and you responded "to help people", isn't that a bit ridiculous?
It would be ridiculous because non-sentient objects do not have meanings in this sense of that term.
So why, presumably, would "killing people" not be a good meaning to give to life?
Although we are not born into life with divinely assigned meaning, we are not blank slates either. By the time we are old enough to think about the question of life's meaning, our basic human nature has been formed, and (perhaps surprisingly) "killing people" is not what most people reach for first when they cast about for life's fundamental meaning. A few do find some sort of satisfaction in killing people -- some psychopaths for instance. Psychopaths are people who do not feel guilt, people who are not warmed by the milk of human kindness. They do not "cathect" with other people (bond, make connection with).
Of course people will kill. They will kill out of rage, out of greed, and if they are in the army, out of need. But, you know, they come home from the war and they go back to being carpenters, clerks, engineers, and teachers.
I don't know much about "transcendent" meaning. Religion is in itself an overlay that is quite rooted in this world and doesn't transcend anything. That doesn't mean it's not good. Lots of stuff in the religious overlays are quite worthwhile.
Lambda, dear, you know damn well there is no proving or disproving these kinds of statements. If you think God ordains meaning, fine. Stick with that. I was stating what I think, and I'm sticking with it. Neither of us can prove God exists, or doesn't, and even less can either of us prove what God thinks.
The important issue isn't whether God provides meaning, or whether you cook up a meaning yourself. What is important is the quality of meaning that you think life has. "The meaning of life is to fuck as much as possible then die" is not a very elevated meaning. Some severe cases sound like that is what they think the meaning of life is. Maybe for sewer rats, it is. I think they could aim higher for people. The Chinese adage that "Getting rich is glorious" as a meaning for life isn't very elevated either. One would think the ideological descendants of Karl Marx could come up with something higher and deeper than that.
Reply to Bitter Crank What I was trying to point out is that there seems to be an ethical element to assigning meaning. The meanings we assign to our lives don't exist in a vacuum; they affect other people. This is why there is an ethical constraint in play. And that to me is why ethics and meaning are aspects of the same thing. Which is why I don't think the notion that "there is no inherent meaning and we assign it ourselves" holds up. If meaning is subjective, then ethics are too; yet ethics are what constrain meaning.
Life has inherent (permanent and essential) meaning (definition, explanation, connotation).
However, meaning is not always known. In fact, life begins in an apparently meaningless sea of appearances. Life is ultimately inexplicable, therefore ultimately meaningless, as long as it is assumed that appearances (rather than life) are real. Appearances are deceiving, life is true.
Since life has inherent meaning, it is unchangeable. Therefore, it is not up to you to give your life meaning, but rather to discover the (unchanging) meaning of life.
Since life has inherent meaning, it is unchangeable.
But if meaning is unchangeable or static, how can freedom exist? Again, to me these dichotomies between subjective and objective meaning are unnecessary. It's perfectly plausible for mankind, endowed with freedom of will, to dynamically create or cause meaning, which we subjectively experience, which at the same time could teleologically evolve into a unified transcendent meaning.
The full meaning of life is unchangeable and static, but full knowledge of this meaning involves full knowledge of all experience, which is infinite appearances. For example, if you are acutely aware of death in your life, life can become much more precious, much more meaningful. You do not simply assume that life is a given. The light is brighter because of the darkness, essentially.
Freedom is a somewhat different issue, in that it exists when imagination exists. Imagination is the opposite of assumptions, for if you just assume certain things to be true, you will not think, not imagine ways in which things could be different. If you look at life from a variety of viewpoints, then you have greater experience, and therefore greater meaning in your life. In fact, freedom increases with knowledge of the unchangeable meaning of life. Nobody can have the full meaning of life, since it is as infinite as the number of possible experiences one can have, but the more you find this meaning, the more it is synonymous with freedom.
In short, the meaning of life isn't some tiny definition that boxes humans into their bodies and makes them unable to act - rather it illuminates the truth that bodies and the universe are merely appearances, and life transcends these appearances.
intrapersonaJanuary 19, 2017 at 03:36#480760 likes
"Helping people" might be a good meaning for life. "I am here to help people." You could do worse. Or, "Finding pleasurable experiences gives the meaning of life." Or "Learning about the natural world makes life meaningful," Or "Becoming an expert in Anthropology makes life meaningful." Or "Fixing up old cars is the meaning of my life." Or "Growing oats for horses and oatmeal is the thing that makes my life meaningful."
Ha, it sounds like a bunch of humans who realize they are in a meaningless existence and so therefore mistake processes and objects in their life to give their life meaning.
Maybe the word you are wanting to use here is "purpose" as in a farmer would say my weekly purpose is to sow my crops. But that would not be an absolute purpose for why humans exist in totality. It is only a small directional purpose of how that farmer is to conduct his time until he
A) finds some absolute purpose or meaning for that matter
B) Dies
But to say that the farmers life meaning is to sow crops is just ridiculous. You might as well say that the meaning of his life is to crunch sticks together and beat his left thumb for 15.4342 hours every day. In other words, that process just mentioned doesn't give any more meaning (description) to why he is alive.
intrapersonaJanuary 19, 2017 at 03:37#480770 likes
Apples don't ask themselves why they exist, for what purpose, or in what meaningful sense. The same can be said for bricks. They don't ask. They exist.
You mistook what I said, I wasn't saying apples exist and therefore need to seek meaning. I was saying it is foolish to call an apple or a brick the source of meaning of ones life.
intrapersonaJanuary 19, 2017 at 03:39#480780 likes
Yes, one's "meaning of life" could be anything. None of them are more or less "valid." Validity is a category error for this.
Well if that's true then ANYTHING can be a source of meaning for ones life, which plain ludicrous. Meaning comes from definition and explanation. Having 1500 barbie dolls in your room doesn't explain any more of why you exist than you stark naked in your room with nothing at all.
intrapersonaJanuary 19, 2017 at 03:41#480790 likes
"The meaning of life is to fuck as much as possible then die" is not a very elevated meaning. Some severe cases sound like that is what they think the meaning of life is. Maybe for sewer rats, it is. I think they could aim higher for people. The Chinese adage that "Getting rich is glorious" as a meaning for life isn't very elevated either.
They arn't sources of meaning for ones life because they are circular.
"The meaning of life is to fuck as much as possible then die"
Why fuck? To procreate
Why procreate? To keep species alive
Why keep species alive? So that we can FUCK... Yeeaaah!
My point is that a meaning for existence has to have reason behind it and can not be self-justified in the process of doing that action itself alone.
intrapersonaJanuary 19, 2017 at 03:49#480810 likes
Life is ultimately inexplicable, therefore ultimately meaningless, as long as it is assumed that appearances (rather than life) are real. Appearances are deceiving, life is true.
Since life has inherent meaning, it is unchangeable. Therefore, it is not up to you to give your life meaning, but rather to discover the (unchanging) meaning of life.
How can you prove life is ultimately meaningless? Granted sensory perception does not accurately reflect reality and our interpretations are also flawed but who is to say ultimate meaning is not attainable?
I like you spin on the interpretation of the quote in the op that it is up to you to discover the (unchanging) meaning of life. But isn't this task ultimately fruitless if that is impossible to do as you said in your first paragraph? I also believe life has inherent meaning outside of brains and interpretations but discovering that seems like a hamster wheel race unless we are to talk of something beyond reason like buddhist meditation (samadhi etc).
I don't believe that ultimate meaning is unattainable. I'm just saying that the complete meaning of life, or complete Truth, is dependent on being aware of the totality of the opposite of life, which is falseness and appearance.
Consider a person blind from birth, who was never told that they were blind. Such a person could say "I am blind!", yet while this statement is factual, it is all but meaningless coming from them, for they do not have a memory of sight with which to compare their blindness. Alternately, if a sighted person were to suddenly become blind, the exclamation "I am blind!" would have enormous meaning to them, since they know full well the gravity of their loss.
In the same way that the blind person can state a meaningless sentence while they do not know the opposite state of blindness, so too can a person feel that life is ultimately meaningless if they assume that all which exists is appearance. I claim that nothingness is true, and something(ness) is false, yet for someone who believes that things, or appearances, are true, life lacks ultimate meaning. They look around and see a world of things, and believe that they themselves are one thing among these things. There is no contrast in such a world, no place of separation or division where a dichotomy may exist. They are merely one collection of particles interacting with a much greater collection of particles. There is some definition to be had here, but it is extremely limited. However, if they did not assume that they were a collection of particles, but were rather Life (nothingness) itself, then they would begin to make some progress in finding meaning. Note that this isn't a substance duality, since I am merely illustrating the difference between something and nothing.
There is infinite meaning in the difference between something and nothing. Something has dimension, it changes, it is complex, it has form, it has weight, it is limited, etc. Nothing, however, is dimensionless, unchanging, simple, formless, weightless, limitless, etc. This is why I say that Truth is unchanging; because it is nothingness. But notice that the words dimensionless, unchanging, formless, etc are dependent on things for their meaning. I must be aware of dimension if I am to comprehend its absence, for example.
This brings me back to the supposedly unattainable meaning of life. Since life (nothingness) is without limitations, it can actually be aware of infinite falseness, and in so doing, have a complete definition of Truth, also known as life. For this it would have to abandon all limitations, all mere appearances, so it wouldn't be merely human. It may in fact be something akin to the omnipotence and omniscience of what religions call God, of which the human mind is only a tiny part. All of this probably sounds quite Buddhist.
It is only a small directional purpose of how that farmer is to conduct his time until he
A) finds some absolute purpose or meaning for that matter
B) Dies
Purpose, meaning...
If the farmer's life is given meaning by tilling his crops until he dies, why should you complain? I said I didn't think there was any god-ordained meaning to life. There is no "intrapersona-ordained meaning" either. We all do the best we can to get through life, birth to the grave. There will be a mix of meanings from high to low, practical to abstract.
You don't know what an "absolute purpose or meaning is" any more than anyone else does, so why expect this farmer to come up with one?
?Bitter Crank What I was trying to point out is that there seems to be an ethical element to assigning meaning. The meanings we assign to our lives don't exist in a vacuum; they affect other people. This is why there is an ethical constraint in play. And that to me is why ethics and meaning are aspects of the same thing. Which is why I don't think the notion that "there is no inherent meaning and we assign it ourselves" holds up. If meaning is subjective, then ethics are too; yet ethics are what constrain meaning.
I agree with you that there is an ethical element inherent in assigning meaning to our lives. Meaning is, most likely, at least somewhat subjective, and ethics are also somewhat subjective. Just because they are subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what they are, or whether meaning and ethics have no connection. I might say "For me, the meaning of my life is to live ethically." How could that not be subjective?
Terrapin StationJanuary 19, 2017 at 13:24#481540 likes
Well if that's true then ANYTHING can be a source of meaning for ones life, which plain ludicrous.
Whether it seems ludicrous to you or not, it's true.
Also, you seem to be conflating different senses of "meaning." The sense of "meaning" used in "the meaning of life" isn't the same as the sense of "meaning" used when we say "what is the meaning of 'sidereal time'?"
It is not life, that creates meaning. It is meaning, that creates life.
Therefore "The meaning of life, is to give life meaning" is most probably saying that
"nothing" didn't mean "anything", until there was "something",
"something" meant "nothing", until there was "anything", this all created "everything"
Don't look at it as if "life" is controlling word of the saying, it is "meaning" that has the true power.
I’m not optimistic this will go anywhere before everyone agrees on the definition of meaning.
That said, this seems simple to me. We have a naturalistic account of life which centers on reproduction. Get yourself some self-copying organic molecules and everything else follows. One end of it is human agency. We have (descriptively) rational goals, purposes, intentions or whatever. Some are built in, e.g. pleasure and survival. Finally, we have linguistic meaning, interpretation and narration, which is important for community and socially-derived sense of self.
Somewhere in the mixture of mortality and social instincts, we get the emotional drive for fulfillment we vaguely call meaning. I’m skeptical that it somehow transcends the ordinary varieties listed above.
I agree that to a certain extent it would be subjective. Like, for one person it may entail being a doctor, for another joining the Peace Corps, and for yet another writing and making music.
However, I don't think it's totally arbitrary. Seems to me there are a limited number of ways we as humans find meaning in life (though it may be a large number, and I am not sure what number exactly it is). Part of that is because we evolved to enjoy and strive for certain things. We're social beings, so many people derive meaning from caring about others. We're inventive creatures, so many of us derive meaning from creating new things.
It's not actually ludicrous to say that a person could derive meaning from bricks or apples. What if I made a career out of growing apples? What if I grow massive orchards that will sustain me and secure my children's future as well as provide healthful food to others? I may not be able to derive meaning from one single apple, but a single apple can be a metaphor to me about the rest of my life.
Interesting thing about our evolution towards finding meaning in certain things: humans fall into depression if they truly cannot find personal meaning in anything. It seems we are somehow wired to NEED meaning in life. I'm not saying you need meaning to live, but to be generally happy/content with living you do.
And I'm sure there are some nihilists out there who would disagree, but I have yet to meet one who had a happy life and wasn't somehow depressed. Maybe the exception would be some sort of psychopath?
The implication in the OP seems to be that there is no overarching meaning, and that we will find the most satisfaction in generating ever more novel, interesting and beautiful meanings. This is a creative endeavour, valued for its own sake as is the taste of different foods. And just as food is sustaining as well as tasteful, so is the creative evolution of new meaning. The pursuit is of beauty more than of truth (in the propositional sense at least).
One issue is conflicting values. One persons meaning can easily chronically conflict with anothers (for example religions vs atheism) (Capitalism vs communism) and so on and there is no way to resolve this kind of dispute.
This is one reason I think making meaning is dubious as opposed to discovering meaning. If there is an objective or inherent meaning it unlikely to lead to subjective value clashes.
I don't think enjoying something equals making meaning because I don't think we can choose what we enjoy. If you love your family and have meaningful relationships with them I don't see that as a choice but rather luck.
Finding meaning in Bach or Newton or Renoir I don't see as making meaning because you are being provided by meaning from someone else.
So in what sense is anyone making meaning as if from nothing or truly self generated?
To some extent I see emoting as an enemy to true meaning were emotional coercion is used to advocate the supremacy of ones meaning rather than reason.
Finally it seems wrong to create children and then put the onus on them to validate their existence. It is a cop out for parents who failed to make a child's life meaningful.
Adam TownsendDecember 06, 2019 at 17:39#3596920 likes
There’s no such thing as objective meaning, only relative meaning, hence any meaning we hold true is inherently aligned with our internal view, as we see it from a perspective that removes all doubt. Discovering our own meaning to our life and seeing the absolute truth in that is entirely fulfilling, but it’s simplicity makes it one of the most complex ideas to comprehend. Even generally accepted ‘meanings’ are still entirely individualistic, as mentioned with the example of what it is to be blind. The signature of our own essence is present in every experience and interaction we’ll ever face, as we only ever perceive through the filter of our own mind and past experience, which in itself is our essence. That essence is life and it’s that life that applies meaning, so in the act of life asking what is the meaning of life, the meaning of life would be to give life meaning.
Comments (40)
You're probably reading it too literally, rather than understanding the spirit it was meant in.
The quote can be put into syllogism format if you wish.
P: The meaning of life exists
P: We can give our own life meaning by ourselves alone
C: Therefore, The meaning of life is to give life meaning.
What I don't like about the quote is that it assumes there is a meaning or meaning/s that you can place on life if you choose to do so, when in actuality nobody has any meaning to place on an explanation of existence at all (your kids and wife don't fucking count).
I understand the spirit it was meant in, almost as if to say "you control your own destiny, you can make life great if you choose etc." but I wanted to actually analyze it logically to see if it holds up. If an explanation of life doesn't hold up to reason then it is worthless.
I wouldn't say that your suggestion for a logical argument version of the quote at all captures what the quote expresses.
First, the quote exploits some wordplay ambiguity. On one level, it's saying that the only sort of x to be had is this specific sort of x, where that works rhetorically as it does because there's irony in it due to misconceptions about x. On another level, it's equivocating the term it's focusing on (where that's not a flaw--again, we're dealing with wordplay) to note that the one overarching drive or goal that people have in common, when there's some overarching drive or goal present to consciousness, is to frame things in a way so that they have a lot of significance for one, so that one has guiding goals/credos/etc., and so on.
I've said that. Life has no inherent meaning, no meaning ordained by God. The universe doesn't provide us meaning. If we didn't exist, meaninglessness would not be a problem. We do, however, exist and we need meaning. Therefore, if there is to be meaning, we create it. We give life meaning.
^ This
I agree with everything Bitter Crank said there.
But what is this meaning that is self-created? It seems that anyone can pick up an object, even a brick, and call it the meaning of their own life. How can we tell what is valid as a self-chosen meaning of which we give our lives? Why is "helping people" any more valid than "a brick" or "a statue" or "my bicycle"? I don't see how "helping people" can be a meaning for existence. Verily, it is a reason of how to act in existence, but a meaning for it? If someone asked you what is the meaning of an apple and you responded "to help people", isn't that a bit ridiculous? So if the meaning you place on life isn't "helping people" what is it? To love your wife and kids? To enjoy pleasures? It just seems like a nonsensical pattern of misplacing objects/processes as a source explanation for larger things in existence/existence itself.
Apples don't ask themselves why they exist, for what purpose, or in what meaningful sense. The same can be said for bricks. They don't ask. They exist.
"Helping people" might be a good meaning for life. "I am here to help people." You could do worse. Or, "Finding pleasurable experiences gives the meaning of life." Or "Learning about the natural world makes life meaningful," Or "Becoming an expert in Anthropology makes life meaningful." Or "Fixing up old cars is the meaning of my life." Or "Growing oats for horses and oatmeal is the thing that makes my life meaningful." and so on. People are the only creatures that ask and answer this question. The rest of creation gets off scot free. They can just exist to their hearts content. So could you, of course, but you would find it more difficult to merely exist than a pear on a tree would.
The "Meaning of Life" is a theoretical overlay which we place on top of our animal existence. We can do that. Bears, pears, and mares can not. There are, of course, ready made meaning-of-life overlays on the shelf. You can go into the closet and look through the available models and try one out. If you don't find it satisfactory, you can try a different one.
Vestis virum reddit, sed homo vestimenta sua. Clothes make the man, but man makes his
clothes. Acerba Vectem, famous Latin Philosopher.
So why, presumably, would "killing people" not be a good meaning to give to life? The problem for me with the idea that meaning is only something we assign to life is that I think meaning and ethics are aspects of one metaphysical reality (for lack of a better term), and so they can't be separated. For us to assign life a meaning, the meaning has to pass some sort of general consensus of being a decent choice. There's still an ethical litmus test at play. That's not at all to say that we don't assign our own meanings to our lives. We certainly do. I would even go so far as to agree that at least almost any meaning we ascribe to our lives is just "a theoretical overlay" as you say, but the problem here for me is that we create an unnecessary dichotomy between subjective and objective. It's true that we subjectively project meaning unto our lives, but this in no way excludes the possibility of a transcendent meaning also existing. The reason I think we do this is because, historically, for most religions, a transcendent meaning was assumed, and now the idea that we project meaning has historically grown out of the old understanding. A teenager may wake up one day and realize she doesn't have to follow her parents rules. She very well has the capacity to do as she likes, she can, in a sense, make her own set of rules for herself. The parents may punish her for this, she may disobey in secret, or the parents might just not care, but regardless, she now has this power. And she may, years later, realize that at least some of her parents rules would have been beneficial to follow. In my view, the whole process is necessary: the initial rules that govern the raising of a child, the rebellion from the rules, and the closure of looking back and seeing value in some, not all of the rules she rebelled against. And with a mature view, she can also realize the benefit of her rebellion as well.
Yes, one's "meaning of life" could be anything. None of them are more or less "valid." Validity is a category error for this.Quoting intrapersona
It would be ridiculous because non-sentient objects do not have meanings in this sense of that term.
Prove it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Prove it.
Prove that he should prove it.
Although we are not born into life with divinely assigned meaning, we are not blank slates either. By the time we are old enough to think about the question of life's meaning, our basic human nature has been formed, and (perhaps surprisingly) "killing people" is not what most people reach for first when they cast about for life's fundamental meaning. A few do find some sort of satisfaction in killing people -- some psychopaths for instance. Psychopaths are people who do not feel guilt, people who are not warmed by the milk of human kindness. They do not "cathect" with other people (bond, make connection with).
Of course people will kill. They will kill out of rage, out of greed, and if they are in the army, out of need. But, you know, they come home from the war and they go back to being carpenters, clerks, engineers, and teachers.
I don't know much about "transcendent" meaning. Religion is in itself an overlay that is quite rooted in this world and doesn't transcend anything. That doesn't mean it's not good. Lots of stuff in the religious overlays are quite worthwhile.
Lambda, dear, you know damn well there is no proving or disproving these kinds of statements. If you think God ordains meaning, fine. Stick with that. I was stating what I think, and I'm sticking with it. Neither of us can prove God exists, or doesn't, and even less can either of us prove what God thinks.
The important issue isn't whether God provides meaning, or whether you cook up a meaning yourself. What is important is the quality of meaning that you think life has. "The meaning of life is to fuck as much as possible then die" is not a very elevated meaning. Some severe cases sound like that is what they think the meaning of life is. Maybe for sewer rats, it is. I think they could aim higher for people. The Chinese adage that "Getting rich is glorious" as a meaning for life isn't very elevated either. One would think the ideological descendants of Karl Marx could come up with something higher and deeper than that.
However, meaning is not always known. In fact, life begins in an apparently meaningless sea of appearances. Life is ultimately inexplicable, therefore ultimately meaningless, as long as it is assumed that appearances (rather than life) are real. Appearances are deceiving, life is true.
Since life has inherent meaning, it is unchangeable. Therefore, it is not up to you to give your life meaning, but rather to discover the (unchanging) meaning of life.
But if meaning is unchangeable or static, how can freedom exist? Again, to me these dichotomies between subjective and objective meaning are unnecessary. It's perfectly plausible for mankind, endowed with freedom of will, to dynamically create or cause meaning, which we subjectively experience, which at the same time could teleologically evolve into a unified transcendent meaning.
Freedom is a somewhat different issue, in that it exists when imagination exists. Imagination is the opposite of assumptions, for if you just assume certain things to be true, you will not think, not imagine ways in which things could be different. If you look at life from a variety of viewpoints, then you have greater experience, and therefore greater meaning in your life. In fact, freedom increases with knowledge of the unchangeable meaning of life. Nobody can have the full meaning of life, since it is as infinite as the number of possible experiences one can have, but the more you find this meaning, the more it is synonymous with freedom.
In short, the meaning of life isn't some tiny definition that boxes humans into their bodies and makes them unable to act - rather it illuminates the truth that bodies and the universe are merely appearances, and life transcends these appearances.
Ha, it sounds like a bunch of humans who realize they are in a meaningless existence and so therefore mistake processes and objects in their life to give their life meaning.
Maybe the word you are wanting to use here is "purpose" as in a farmer would say my weekly purpose is to sow my crops. But that would not be an absolute purpose for why humans exist in totality. It is only a small directional purpose of how that farmer is to conduct his time until he
A) finds some absolute purpose or meaning for that matter
B) Dies
But to say that the farmers life meaning is to sow crops is just ridiculous. You might as well say that the meaning of his life is to crunch sticks together and beat his left thumb for 15.4342 hours every day. In other words, that process just mentioned doesn't give any more meaning (description) to why he is alive.
You mistook what I said, I wasn't saying apples exist and therefore need to seek meaning. I was saying it is foolish to call an apple or a brick the source of meaning of ones life.
Well if that's true then ANYTHING can be a source of meaning for ones life, which plain ludicrous. Meaning comes from definition and explanation. Having 1500 barbie dolls in your room doesn't explain any more of why you exist than you stark naked in your room with nothing at all.
That is quite true but you won't deny we can have experiences that certainly transcend this world and can seem spiritual
They arn't sources of meaning for ones life because they are circular.
"The meaning of life is to fuck as much as possible then die"
Why fuck? To procreate
Why procreate? To keep species alive
Why keep species alive? So that we can FUCK... Yeeaaah!
My point is that a meaning for existence has to have reason behind it and can not be self-justified in the process of doing that action itself alone.
How can you prove life is ultimately meaningless? Granted sensory perception does not accurately reflect reality and our interpretations are also flawed but who is to say ultimate meaning is not attainable?
I like you spin on the interpretation of the quote in the op that it is up to you to discover the (unchanging) meaning of life. But isn't this task ultimately fruitless if that is impossible to do as you said in your first paragraph? I also believe life has inherent meaning outside of brains and interpretations but discovering that seems like a hamster wheel race unless we are to talk of something beyond reason like buddhist meditation (samadhi etc).
Consider a person blind from birth, who was never told that they were blind. Such a person could say "I am blind!", yet while this statement is factual, it is all but meaningless coming from them, for they do not have a memory of sight with which to compare their blindness. Alternately, if a sighted person were to suddenly become blind, the exclamation "I am blind!" would have enormous meaning to them, since they know full well the gravity of their loss.
In the same way that the blind person can state a meaningless sentence while they do not know the opposite state of blindness, so too can a person feel that life is ultimately meaningless if they assume that all which exists is appearance. I claim that nothingness is true, and something(ness) is false, yet for someone who believes that things, or appearances, are true, life lacks ultimate meaning. They look around and see a world of things, and believe that they themselves are one thing among these things. There is no contrast in such a world, no place of separation or division where a dichotomy may exist. They are merely one collection of particles interacting with a much greater collection of particles. There is some definition to be had here, but it is extremely limited. However, if they did not assume that they were a collection of particles, but were rather Life (nothingness) itself, then they would begin to make some progress in finding meaning. Note that this isn't a substance duality, since I am merely illustrating the difference between something and nothing.
There is infinite meaning in the difference between something and nothing. Something has dimension, it changes, it is complex, it has form, it has weight, it is limited, etc. Nothing, however, is dimensionless, unchanging, simple, formless, weightless, limitless, etc. This is why I say that Truth is unchanging; because it is nothingness. But notice that the words dimensionless, unchanging, formless, etc are dependent on things for their meaning. I must be aware of dimension if I am to comprehend its absence, for example.
This brings me back to the supposedly unattainable meaning of life. Since life (nothingness) is without limitations, it can actually be aware of infinite falseness, and in so doing, have a complete definition of Truth, also known as life. For this it would have to abandon all limitations, all mere appearances, so it wouldn't be merely human. It may in fact be something akin to the omnipotence and omniscience of what religions call God, of which the human mind is only a tiny part. All of this probably sounds quite Buddhist.
Purpose, meaning...
If the farmer's life is given meaning by tilling his crops until he dies, why should you complain? I said I didn't think there was any god-ordained meaning to life. There is no "intrapersona-ordained meaning" either. We all do the best we can to get through life, birth to the grave. There will be a mix of meanings from high to low, practical to abstract.
You don't know what an "absolute purpose or meaning is" any more than anyone else does, so why expect this farmer to come up with one?
I agree with you that there is an ethical element inherent in assigning meaning to our lives. Meaning is, most likely, at least somewhat subjective, and ethics are also somewhat subjective. Just because they are subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what they are, or whether meaning and ethics have no connection. I might say "For me, the meaning of my life is to live ethically." How could that not be subjective?
Whether it seems ludicrous to you or not, it's true.
Also, you seem to be conflating different senses of "meaning." The sense of "meaning" used in "the meaning of life" isn't the same as the sense of "meaning" used when we say "what is the meaning of 'sidereal time'?"
Therefore "The meaning of life, is to give life meaning" is most probably saying that
"nothing" didn't mean "anything", until there was "something",
"something" meant "nothing", until there was "anything", this all created "everything"
Don't look at it as if "life" is controlling word of the saying, it is "meaning" that has the true power.
That said, this seems simple to me. We have a naturalistic account of life which centers on reproduction. Get yourself some self-copying organic molecules and everything else follows. One end of it is human agency. We have (descriptively) rational goals, purposes, intentions or whatever. Some are built in, e.g. pleasure and survival. Finally, we have linguistic meaning, interpretation and narration, which is important for community and socially-derived sense of self.
Somewhere in the mixture of mortality and social instincts, we get the emotional drive for fulfillment we vaguely call meaning. I’m skeptical that it somehow transcends the ordinary varieties listed above.
I agree that to a certain extent it would be subjective. Like, for one person it may entail being a doctor, for another joining the Peace Corps, and for yet another writing and making music.
However, I don't think it's totally arbitrary. Seems to me there are a limited number of ways we as humans find meaning in life (though it may be a large number, and I am not sure what number exactly it is). Part of that is because we evolved to enjoy and strive for certain things. We're social beings, so many people derive meaning from caring about others. We're inventive creatures, so many of us derive meaning from creating new things.
It's not actually ludicrous to say that a person could derive meaning from bricks or apples. What if I made a career out of growing apples? What if I grow massive orchards that will sustain me and secure my children's future as well as provide healthful food to others? I may not be able to derive meaning from one single apple, but a single apple can be a metaphor to me about the rest of my life.
Interesting thing about our evolution towards finding meaning in certain things: humans fall into depression if they truly cannot find personal meaning in anything. It seems we are somehow wired to NEED meaning in life. I'm not saying you need meaning to live, but to be generally happy/content with living you do.
And I'm sure there are some nihilists out there who would disagree, but I have yet to meet one who had a happy life and wasn't somehow depressed. Maybe the exception would be some sort of psychopath?
Well said!!!
I think that is the very definition, the essence, of living.
I think meaning has to equate to semantics where something meaningful is transmitted to the mind rather than just feelings.
If there is no purpose or meaning I don't think it something you can create by emoting over events with pseudo profundity.
Quite true.
"Making meaning" is a serious matter.
One issue is conflicting values. One persons meaning can easily chronically conflict with anothers (for example religions vs atheism) (Capitalism vs communism) and so on and there is no way to resolve this kind of dispute.
This is one reason I think making meaning is dubious as opposed to discovering meaning. If there is an objective or inherent meaning it unlikely to lead to subjective value clashes.
I don't think enjoying something equals making meaning because I don't think we can choose what we enjoy. If you love your family and have meaningful relationships with them I don't see that as a choice but rather luck.
Finding meaning in Bach or Newton or Renoir I don't see as making meaning because you are being provided by meaning from someone else.
So in what sense is anyone making meaning as if from nothing or truly self generated?
To some extent I see emoting as an enemy to true meaning were emotional coercion is used to advocate the supremacy of ones meaning rather than reason.
Finally it seems wrong to create children and then put the onus on them to validate their existence. It is a cop out for parents who failed to make a child's life meaningful.
So you get the sentence: The meaning of life is the desiring of life.
"De zin van het leven is zin in het leven."
This would be like saying I can have an enjoyable conversation with myself. It is possible. I think you'd need to imbibe in drugs though.