Given that life in itself is meaningless, what do we have in mind when we talk about the "meaning of life"? Is it something we invent on the spot and discard it later if something new comes along, when a new situation appears? Or is it something more stable, something that transcends the here and now, the whims and moods of the moment?
Is there a structure that all our personal meanings of life have in common?
The following pattern comes to my mind: The naked, isolated "me" certainly is meaningless, until the "me" is linked to something larger: the family, my friends, my job, my country, the political cause I am engaged in, or even a supernatural order into which I can tap to receive a purpose "from above", aka "religion".
The common pattern is that meaning always comes from the outside. It is a common misconception that the meaning of life can come from within. Everything that is "inside" has its origins in the outside, without it, the "inside" is void and non-existent. We have to latch onto something other, something larger to fill this inner void, to have an "I" in the first place.
Life isn't meaningless just because there is no God and no real purpose for our existence by the standard of some higher intelligent creator.
Life's meaning is what you give it.
Too bad it takes serious self reflection to realize one’s own meaning.
The "meaning of life" is completely subjective. It's different things to different people.
As it should be.
@Matias I'm glad I am able to amuse you.
Btw, two things.
You seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to philosophize on things that are entirely subjective, but you're trying to make them "universal".
Sure, there is some collective thought, but by and large, most reasonably intelligent people are thinking for themselves and eschewing the "philosophies" of others.
Some, like myself, are actively rejecting the bulk of philosophy.
All it amounts to is simply what other people think/thought. Nothing more than their own opinions. No more or less valid than nearly everyone else's.
Case in point: "The ends justify the means."
Depending on which philosopher you agree with, you can get multiple "arguments" for whether the answer is "yes" or "no".
Kant held his opinion on this.
Machiavelli held his.
Huxley held his.
I have my own opinions on this particular topic, and yes, for the most
part, I think it's subjective.
In some cases, I do believe the ends justify the means, and in others,
they do not.
Call it situational ethics, or whatever you wish.
I don't believe there are many hard and fast rules for everything, and
people need to be adaptable to their circumstances.
Everything IS subjective.
The meaning of life is to find meaning
Out of an estimated range of from two million to two billion species alive on Earth today, apparently only one suffers because of a perceived lack of meaning in life. This suffering is clearly manufactured in the mind of that one species, and so the relief from this suffering is equally clearly to be found in that same mind.
What’s meaningful to all the other species is finding food, safety and suitable mates. Since none of these things are guaranteed for them, they have all the meaning they can handle.
H.sapiens figured out how to more or less automate the meeting of these needs so successfully that they have forgotten what it’s like to not have access to food for three weeks or human contact for a year. We don’t have a deficit of meaning; we have a mind-numbing surplus.
I think you make some good points. I would say that meaning is heavily driven by relationships. For instance, as a father, many of my reasons for doing things go back to my desire to provide for my daughter, nurture her, and protect her. Perhaps that goes back to biology.
But on top of that, I think human beings are able to cooperate on the basis of grand narratives, and to be part of something larger, as you say. The historian Yuval Noah Harari has made a lot of this point in his books. If you want a large population of people to cooperate in a particular direction, you have to get them to agree it is worth doing, and you do that by offering a compelling story of why it should be done.
Certainly religions have taken advantage of this a great deal, but so have governments, and also other emergent systems of thoughts with no single author (I'm thinking of things like democracy and money).
Meaning - what meaning.
This planet we call earth is just a dust speck in the universe and each and every one of us is just an assemblage of atoms that form a human.
Whether you are rich or poor, find a cure for cancer, or do nothing more than exist as a beer and pizza processing plant is irrelevant to the rest of the universe.
So each day find something to smile and laugh about, something to make the adrenalin pump, and enjoy whatever you can about being alive
One day you will cease to function and become a lump of meat. Your atoms will begin to recycle into other forms of life and whatever you were is forgotten.
Exactly. Well said.
I recall that the Delai Lama during one of visits here, at a TV broadcasted discussion, was asked a long waffley question about how we could tell the difference between "real meaning" and "false meaning" in life, and how we could find "real meaning" etc, and the big DL listened intently to this waffle and finally the audience waited, excitedly, for the great man's reply. He looked up and said, "I dunno!"
I feel the bit the same about this post.
Jackson Browne:
Somewhere between the time you arrive
And the time you go,
May lie the reason you were alive,
But you'll never know.
Yes, I can see what you mean. If we lived indoors in isolation from birth and were deprived of sensory stimulus, with no contact with other living things, either human or animal, then it would be very difficult in seeing any meaning to our lives, but that, of course, would never happen. Because we have the stimulus of interaction with nature and other humans, our lives take on meaning. This meaning by definition must differ from individual to individual, but we can never know how meaningful another’s life is, only our own. I believe the more we interact with other humans, and enjoy man’s endeavours in the fields of art , music and science, along with the beauty of the natural world and it’s flora and fauna, the more meaningful our lives become,
This has been said 2300 years ago by Epicurus. He said just enjoy life as much as you can, have a beautiful fragrant garden and don't worry about any afterlife, because there is none.
You know, in the first three centuries there more people were into Epicurus than Christ. It wasn't until Emperor Constantine IMPOSED Christianity on the Roman Empire that changed everything. He was a fratricide y'know and Christianity was the only religion that would forgive him. He fucked up human history more than anything.
@Matias Au contraire. Epicurus was the rival of Xeno.. The latter taught his disciples from a porch called a stoa. He claimed that pain and self-sacrifice were good and should be endured and accepted. Military and authoritarian types like the Spartans, Christians, and the U.S. military thought this was great. No pain, no gain.
Epicurus taught his disciples in his garden and said that happiness was attained by cherishing the little pleasures of life, like a beautiful sunset, the fragrance of a gardenia, or the song of a nightingale. Christianity eventually displaced Epicurus because the powerful wanted their surfs to believe that pain, sacrifice and hard work led the way to heaven.
@Aristopus Epicurus was so right! I believe completely in that philosophy.
@Aristopus, @Matias I think Epicurus did get it right, It may have applied to a certain class who had the leisure time and privilege in his time, but Nature and art can be enjoyed today by those with limited means, because even a window box can produce beautiful flowers and public, libraries parks and art galleries are available free to most of us. We may not be able to travel to see great wonders of the world, but most can see them on their TV in their own living room. The joy of great music is also accessible to all but the deaf, and the smells and sights of the natural world are just a short bus ride away for even city dwellers. We have never been more able to enjoy all these sensory delights, most of them free.
@Marionville Thanks for the comment. He lived to his 70s and even tough sick with arthritis felt he was happy because of the wonderful advise he gave his friends and followers. Later Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Jefferson would declare themselves Epicureans. There's a lot more to the philosophy than just good food. He said we shouldn't be worrying about the afterlife because we won't exist anymore.
@Aristopus I herewith declare myself an Epicurean too! I also do enjoy good food and wine...so in all senses then!
@Marionville Wonderful. There's more into on YouTube, just search on "Epicurus'". It was the Emperor Constantine that did him in. After the Council of Nicaea around 325 AD the bishops had all Europe at the feet. Pagan temples got burnt down, thousands killed. Another bad character is St. Augustine of Hippo with that stoical nonsense. He wrote that if a monk as much as eyed or stared at the lovely lady in church he should be reported and forced to do stern penance. Carl Sagan said that St Augustine brought on the Dark Ages. I live in Florida about an hour ride from a city actually named after that asshole.
@Aristopus Thank you, I read about Epicurus a long time ago when I studied a bit about the Greeks and Romans at school, but it was never in depth. I did of course, know about his refined tastes in food and the finer things of life, but I must actually read about him in greater depth.
Astute observations. Yes, the substance that comes to comprise our personal "meaning" comes from the outside. As Jean Piaget pointed out, we are biological organisms in constant interaction or exchange with our environment. We are constantly taking inputs from that environment, and, just as we build cellular structures to incorporate and use those inputs, we do so with our minds. We are constantly taking (passively or intentionally) from the our environment and building them into cognitive structures and schema (patterns of action) which we use to build cognitive structures which constitute our sense of "Meaning."
"Something larger"? How about a tall guy that makes me laugh? Your attempts to "subtly" try & make me think "spiritually" are laughable, and about as subtle as an anvil falling on my foot.
I think it's a mistake to try to find some "meaning" or "purpose" to life. Life is to be lived. We are meant to simply try to enjoy living. By this, I don't mean a constant, mindless pursuit of pleasure, but rather the point of existence is essentially to try to enjoy it. If one is perpetually unhappy or miserable, that seems to me to take much of the point of living away. Just a thought.
I'd like to add that I do realize that individuals do need purpose or meaning in their lives. But I consider purpose to be something that each individual needs to discover for him/herself. I don't think there's any overall grand meaning that is the same for everyone.
LIfe is potential. It has no meaning beyond what we can make and understand of it. We are born, we live, we suffer, we die. To believe there's meaning is to suggest systems of rewards and sanctions: eternal life and damnation, or reincarnation. The former are dreadful, the latter is boring.
I find life as an atheist hopeful, joyous, and meaningful.
The chemical process that we call life has no value IMO. Blind, robotic mechanistic events with no awareness and no free will certainly can’t be valuable, and sure enough, we see that organic bodies live only for awhile and then they die. Sometimes they die en masse. And while they are alive they are prone to hardships and suffering.
I see two ways of looking at it. You can consider all organisms collectively as a river of life, a single entity that goes on flowing even though individual organisms are temporary. If I think of myself as the river instead of as an individual body then in my mind at least I become something more enduring and substantive. I hunt mammoths—I invent airplanes—I travel in space—I make love with sexy women.
But there is something else—something intriguing. Many people seem to think that conscious awareness springs only from brain activity—from the firing of neurons. To save my life I cannot fathom such a thing. For me the fact that we have conscious awareness gives life immense meaning and value. The meaning might be a mystery but meaning there is. The fact that we can have this conversation shows me there is value. The meaning of reality is cloaked in darkness but it is a dazzling darkness, full of joy and hope!
Edwin Schrodinger:
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
@TCorCM Yes, and that depends on conscious awareness of the here and now, doesn’t it?
Hi William, you may not remember because it is unimportant but I have in the past disagreed with some of your comments, but I think that this one is great.
@Fernapple I remember that we had a few testy exchanges at first. Maybe we are evolving toward common ground or something like that.
Thanks for your response.
The meaning of life is split in my opinion. It is split into two categories logic and emotion. Logically it would be to reproduce and keep our species alive. Emotionally it is to LOVE. There are many forms of love and endless things to love. To live a happy and fulfilling life you must Love. You can bring both sides into balance by having a family and with that you bring more love into existence. It is a fractal effect and without it we will cease to exist.
What about the opposite case using a "Given that life is not meaningless...."
@Matias
“Does ‘X’have value” is only half a question. The other half is “to whom/what?” The word ‘value’ is meaningless without stipulation of potential benefactor of value. Nothing intrinsic in ballbearings is valuable to birds, but intrinsic ‘ballbearingness’ is of great value to humans. Asking if anything has inherent value, without stipulating for whom, is like asking if ‘need’ actually exists, independent of ‘needers.’ And of course it wouldn’t if there were no ‘needers’, but in fact needers do exist, therefore, so do needs... and values. And meaning.
I can agree with this. Facing it differently, too many people want to turn over their meaning in life to an imaginary being. This is because they have no meaning in life or have not realized that they themselves give their life meaning. Life is what you make it. Life itself has no meaning. When you bestow meaning upon life that is when you start making things up.
If by saying "life is meaningless" you mean "life has no inherent / given / found / bestowed meaning" then I'd agree with that. But then, it never has. Some people have just asserted without evidence that it has.
People have always decided what they care about and/or enjoy and then figured out how to manage hedonic tone around that and in this they find meaning and purpose for themselves. This however says nothing about the locus of where the meaning is coming "from". Meaning is an abstract idea, not a thing-in-itself. It's not "out there" or "in there" waiting to be discovered. Its (apparent) location is quite irrelevant.
Meaning is an emergent byproduct of interacting with your environment and your own thoughts and feelings and those of others and then being organically attracted to whatever mix of these things you find both compelling and doable, and that reinforces itself by being rewarding more often than not (and more often than other things).
In this it is, ironically, somewhat random. At a particular period in my life, for example, I was a rabid classic film collector. Many people don't find that interesting, let alone compelling. And my relationship to that has changed; today I find software design and development as both vocation and avocation more compelling and accessible for various reasons. In another decade it may well have shifted again.
I do not experience my inner life as a void that needs filling or some other form of remediation. I think some people do have that subjective experience but I never have, honestly. Nor have I felt dependent on other actors to feel complete. They can certainly be interesting and helpful and kind, but they can also be banal, vulgar, capricious and antagonistic. I accept what is offered me by others and my environment but don't count on it. I offer what others want that I'm able to provide out of any sort of personal overflow. I don't think it has to be more complicated than that.
If I feel disappointed, frustrated, or bored, then I take that as information that I need to change things up a bit. Maybe some activity or interest or relationship no longer serves me well or has become toxic or harmful in some way. Maybe I need more self awareness around my thoughts so I can better appreciate what I have rather than focus on what I don't. Maybe I need to change how I frame my thoughts or change certain habits. Maybe I need to let go of resistance or control in one or more areas.
I don't see how a greater purpose or higher self is a necessary entity to any of this. If anything, I've observed that people are subject to ego inflation around things like this. I don't need to be somebody, or be remembered, or appreciated in any overwrought sort of way, or part of some great scheme of things in order to find my life meaningful. I certainly used to feel more this way, but I have found such thoughts to be the product of operant conditioning, not some inherent property of reality.
Life is it's own meaning. Or, to live is meaning itself. To look beyond this is like an eye looking for itself.
Life does not need meaning to have value, if you understand that life itself has value then that understanding is all the meaning it needs.
Since life is all you have it matters not if it has meaning or not, since there is nothing more, and that applies even to the theist, since even if there is another life which is not entirely independent of this one, then you have nothing more than this one with which to affect the next life.
@Matias The value of gold is trade value, which is only one sort of value, not to be confused with any other. If I sit on a desert island all alone and think that a tuft of grass that grows in the sand is beautiful then I give that grass value, the value of appreciation and of being appreciated, and that comes from within and gives value and meaning both to the grass and to my life.
PS If I may quote your last post, you wrote. "No, nature is not intrinsically beautiful, because nothing is. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder."
To me, asking for the "meaning" of life is trying to attribute a value, ability, something that says "life" has purpose. The things that drive "life" , the need to survive, and the things that drive that need....don't really have a"meaning".
We depend all the responses of our senses to give us an idea what is going on outside ourselves. these things are only perception how we choose to perceive is clearly an internal mechanism. there are the those who Find the meaning of life and isolation.
there is no truth only perception
change your perception change your truth