The Meaning of Life

[Comrade Anarchist]

What is the meaning of life. My opinion is that there is no meaing to life and that all the meaings around us are just man made. I am i guess a nihilist in a way because i think life lacks all purpose. In my opinion we are nothing but smart animals and animals have no purpose except to reproduce and die.

Where do you stand and what is your meaning in life?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Life and happiness are the meaning of life. If life can be said to have any objective meaning in the first place.

[Bilan]

Life has no meaning a priori... It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.

[h0lmes]

The meaning of life is not objective, it is subjective. One persons meaning of life is no more or less "true" than another persons. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.

[Redheart]

Life means what we want it to. It's up to us to give it meaning and worth.

[butterfly]

If your nihilistic you're in the wrong place and because your in the wrong place your not nihilistic. Welcome to the existential club.

[ev]

Humanism

[Taboo Tongue]

42
;)

[Enragé]

My belief on the meaning of life is best described as Idontgiveafuck-ism. Because frankly, i don't give a fuck.

[Kassad]

To be the eyes and ears and consciousness of the Creator of the Universe, you fool. (Quote never fails.)

We exist to evolve. We exist to continue. We exist to replace once unknown voids with knowledge and understanding.

[Hit The North]

I've voted for humanism.

Everything I understand, every meaning I have, is bound up with other human beings and my community with them.

The end goal is to create the most humane society in history: one that secures the fullest development possible of every individual human being.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As SoB says, life has no a priori meaning. But that fact does not prevent us from imprinting our own meaning onto existance.

For me, that meaning is to maximise intelligence and spread it throughout the universe. The ultimate goal is to have every elementary particle, every atom, every planet, every star and every galaxy thrumming with sapience and purpose, overlaid with interacting, self-sustaining systems coursing with intelligence at every level from the sub-atomic to the universal.

In short - to remake the universe in the image of sapient beings. Civilisation, intention, self-awareness, thought - all these things are noble but dim candles in the Great Dark. Let us light up the entirety of existance!

[Dóchas]

i dont think there is any definite meaning of life. life is like a blank canvas and it is up to you to paint your meaning of life on it. you make it what you want it to be

[Hit The North]

life is like a blank canvas and it is up to you to paint your meaning of life on it. you make it what you want it to be



http://www.moonbattery.com/starving_african_child.jpg
LIFE IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT???

Let's not forget that around one billion human beings suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Not much chance to paint your canvas in these conditions.

[Pogue]

Class struggle.

[butterfly]

BTB, ooi, isn't humanism a choice made through existential thought?

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm an amateur existentialist

[autotrophic]

I'm closer to existentialism I guess. Life is full of meaning, as meaning is something that arises out of relationships. So it is completely subjective and man-made, which is a good thing.

Heres a quote by sartre that pretty much sums it up:
"We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself."

[Holden Caulfield]

Heres a quote by sartre that pretty much sums it up

The one that has been my sig for a month or so now:)

[Hit The North]

BTB, ooi, isn't humanism a choice made through existential thought?

I'm not sure into what conclusions existentialist philosophies resolve themselves. Humanism pre-dates existentialism, I think. I see Marxism as a form of humanism, but one which makes important critiques of bourgeois humanism.

[Apeiron]

I don't feel comfortable with any of those, but I suppose my position would be most closely 'existentialist.' I just have too many problems with the 'tradition' of existentialism (most notably with Sartre) to refer to myself as such. At this point I would postulate that meaning is generated in relation and action with the world qua world of others.

I take a non-humanist (if not anti-humanist) reading of Marxism, but that's neither here nor there.

[Redheart]

As SoB says, life has no a priori meaning. But that fact does not prevent us from imprinting our own meaning onto existance.

For me, that meaning is to maximise intelligence and spread it throughout the universe. The ultimate goal is to have every elementary particle, every atom, every planet, every star and every galaxy thrumming with sapience and purpose, overlaid with interacting, self-sustaining systems coursing with intelligence at every level from the sub-atomic to the universal.

In short - to remake the universe in the image of sapient beings. Civilisation, intention, self-awareness, thought - all these things are noble but dim candles in the Great Dark. Let us light up the entirety of existance!

Damn, I wish I had said that ;)

But yes, we give life the meaning that we want - and we want to give it such noble meanings and worth as this.

Otherwise, we evolve towards nothing - and devolve towards savagery.

To basically make the world a better place - no better meaning of life I can think of :hammersickle:

[casper]

(some #) tons of flax
42
to be the eyes and ears of the universe
or make your own meaning

those all sound valid to me :)

[Glorious Union]

LIFE IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT???

Let's not forget that around one billion human beings suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Not much chance to paint your canvas in these conditions.

Somebody stole their paints, and the canvas remains empty.

[Ephydriad]

I personally believe that the meaning of life is just to be happy and to spread happiness. I don't think that we are working towards any sort of goal (like the concept of 'heaven'), so your stint from birth to death is all you get. And in some amount of time, the Earth will be destroyed anyway, so no matter how much money you made or how big your company was, in the end it doesn't matter. This is part of the reason that I'm a socialist.
You get put here, you have your run, and it's over. Thus you should try to just be happy with your time (since it's pointless otherwise) and make it as easy as possible for others to be happy with theirs. So that when it's over, at least you had fun.:)

[Dharma]

There is no objective. Capitalism has made the objective that you must first go to school then college then get a job then retire then die.

[Coggeh]

If your nihilistic you're in the wrong place and because your in the wrong place your not nihilistic. Welcome to the existential club.
:D

[Ephydriad]

There is no objective. Capitalism has made the objective that you must first go to school then college then get a job then retire then die.

Have you read "Self-Determination" by Ralph Waldo Emerson? It directly addresses that concept. And Emerson rocks :)

[Brother No. 1]

Lifes meaning differs from person to person.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Here is my point of view, as an Aristotelian:
-Life is sight, sight is the sense produces cognition in us and reveals many distinguishing features of things .
-Life is learning, mankind lives by his skill, calculations, imagination and recollections. From memory that men derive experience, i.e. for many recollections of the same thing perform the function of a single experience. Learning is reserved for those that in addition to memory also have the sense of hearings. Those animals which have memory are more intelligent and capable of learning than those that are not capable of remembering,whereas those that are not able to hear sounds are intelligent without being able to learn.
-Life is to attain wisdom, the knowledge of universal and inaccessible truths, knowledge of superior exactitude thus has the ability to teach others.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Life has no meaning a priori... It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.
this is golden:wub:

[INDK]

Personally I find no real importance in questions like, 'how are we here', 'what is the meaning of life', what does it really matter anyway? Fuck, we're here now so we might as well live for now, however you got here you are here and you don't need to ask why because you're still going to be here. I don't give a fuck how we got here and I don't give a fuck what happens after I die, I live in the United States and according to statistics I have a 77 year average life expectancy so I'm just going to do what I want with my respective more or less 77 years. Personally, I'm making it fun, maybe even productive. Give it my own damn meaning. I just think questions like this might be interesting to ponder but are materially trivial.

[black magick hustla]

its a nonsense question. we only feel compelled to answer it because bosses have always told us our life has to have some use, whether to serve the social order as cannon fodder, or glare at the altar in the sky while being miserable. that is why the ideologues of the ruling class, i.e. philosophers, felt compelled to tell us "how should we live". its a pseudoproblem. existentialism is nonsense because it tries to answer a question that is a pseudoproblem in the first place

[black magick hustla]

ethics are really important. it does not mean that the attraction we have to certain values is illegitimate. the illegitimacy arises from the discussion of these as if someoene can prove the other true or false.

[Comrade Corwin]

I agree with you. We are simply creatures with a highly developed ability to comprehend. Our instincts as animals are to search for a certain truth in order to establish a proper instinctual response to the world around us. This so called "truth" is merely perception and it changes as our ability to perceive changes (mostly through developments in technology). There really is a truth out there, but I'm sure we will be hunting for it, in whatever form it takes (probably mathematical) for millennia, if we survive as a race that long.

Meaning, in short, is created by our wondering minds. Logically we are only meant to survive long enough to reproduce and then die. However, because we are so heavily developed we have designed something called "progress" which is the blanket term for all meaning. I believe in creating a better society, because I think we as an advanced intellectual race has nothing else better to do. Whatever we can do to survive, reproduce and die better is all you should aim for.

If you have no purpose then why are you on this site? This is a philosophical forum. If you want to argue that point, don't bother. Nihilists shouldn't be on the internet. They should go live out their last remaining, meaningless years in a cave somewhere. This is a complex, meaningful media transfer system (internet) anyway, and so doesn't that kind of negate your beliefs to participate on this forum?

[Decolonize The Left]

Different answers to different questions.

Why are we here? Biologically speaking, to reproduce. The purpose of life is reproduction - further your genes, evolution continues, etc...

Why are we here? Philosophically speaking, this is determined by the individual (hopefully, though often imposed by society). The meaning of life is how an individual values their existence, and what they chose to do with themselves.

- August

[benhur]

Meaning of life would be valid, if this world were real. But since there's no proof that this world is real, why bother with its meaning? Illusionism, rather than nihilism, seems to be the answer.

[h0lmes]

Meaning of life would be valid, if this world were real. But since there's no proof that this world is real, why bother with its meaning? Illusionism, rather than nihilism, seems to be the answer.

What world are you referring to?

[Yazman]

The concept of a "meaning of life" is a religious or spiritual one that is seemingly an irrelevant question that I do not like to dignify with an answer. However, Noxion's post is pretty much exactly mine.

[punisa]

meaning of life is revolution :closedeyes:

[Comrade Corwin]

Good golly! If you feel this discussion is below you and you "do not like to dignify [the question] with an answer" than please humor us with you lack perticipation. Spare us your self rigteous all-knowingness!

[Rebel_Serigan]

The meaning of life? That is indeed an interesting question. For the sad masses of brainwashed righ-hand-path Christians thier meaning of life(from the Bible) is to serve God and die and go to heaven. If you ask me though I think the purpose of life is to better yourself and the area around you. Your goal is not to be a product of your environment but for your environment to be a product of you. in short The meaning of life is to make life have a meaning just for you.

[Akim]

I have no idea what these terms mean. I know a theist believes that god is the purpose of life and nihilist is somewhat synic.
I personally dont think there is a meaning to life. The meaning of life is life itself. So I am ether existentialist or humanist.

[Yazman]

Good golly! If you feel this discussion is below you and you "do not like to dignify [the question] with an answer" than please humor us with you lack perticipation. Spare us your self rigteous all-knowingness!

There is no "all-knowingness" or "self-righteousness" at all. I think its self-evident that you have to be religious or at the very least spiritual in order to think that "meaning of life" is a valid concept. I don't think that, in a materialist, atheist sense that there could ever be any sort of validity attached to this concept. Why do you think that life has a "meaning"? For life itself to have a "meaning" or "purpose" you really have to be in the frame of mind that there is something that "sets" the meaning or purpose. If you don't believe in such "otherness" or similar concepts of spirituality then there is really no reason to include such a concept in your worldview. I don't think that there is such a thing as a "meaning" for life. Life isn't an abstract concept or an argument; its just a part of the world in the same way that food, air, and gravity are. Asking what its meaning is, in my view, is like asking "what is the meaning/purpose of dirt?" It is a question or a concept that you could only really arrive at after spiritual or religious thought. "Meaning" or "purpose" is something that I would only ever attach to a concept or an argument.

[Comrade Corwin]

Akim, allow me to be of some assistance.

An EXISTENTIALIST is someone who believes that philosophy cannot connect properly to true life experiences. Ironically this theory was derived mostly by several nineteenth century PHILOSOPHERS. The belief also tends to describe the human race as being trapped in quandary of confusion from which it cannot escape logically.
A NIHILIST is a cynic, very good. They tend to view the world and their lives as being meaningless and that faith, progress and material gain are all delusions. It tends to be a very MISERABLE way of thinking, which led some in the late nineteenth century to create terrorist groups, and if they are an orthodox nihilist you will not find them posting on this site.
A THEIST is someone who believes there is a higher power that commands a strict mortal doctrine or controls our very lives. Monotheism, polytheism and some spiritualists fall under this category. Meaning of life is set by whatever higher power you WORSHIP.
A HUMANIST is most likely SECULAR, but there are some loosely religious groups that declare themselves to be humanists. However, the secular believe that meaning is created by the individual. It is very free belief system, but every humanist will have a moral code they must follow and a purpose in life.

Anyone can add to what I said, but I simply summarized what I've studied and heard.

Yazman:
I understand what you are saying, but you must take this question into your own context. Meaning can be translated as a purpose or maybe even a role something or someone plays. Like a niche. Meaning in life can be completely secular. I believe that everyone should derive their own goal in life (or meaning) for themselves, but logically we should dedicate our lives to helping others, no matter your other goals.
Dirt plays its part too. Without it we would float off into space or drown in our planet's oceans. We too, as an advanced race, need our "dirt" or groundwork to walk on in order to achieve revolution and progress, do we not?

[Anonymous]

Absurdism for me.

[Yazman]

Yazman:
I understand what you are saying, but you must take this question into your own context. Meaning can be translated as a purpose or maybe even a role something or someone plays. Like a niche. Meaning in life can be completely secular. I believe that everyone should derive their own goal in life (or meaning) for themselves, but logically we should dedicate our lives to helping others, no matter your other goals.

A goal though is something that you came up with that was not inherent, its just something that you apply to yourself. "Meaning" or "Purpose" implies something inherent to me. Deriving goals in life doesn't really have anything to do with 'meaning', because that is something applied on the world by you.



Dirt plays its part too. Without it we would float off into space or drown in our planet's oceans. We too, as an advanced race, need our "dirt" or groundwork to walk on in order to achieve revolution and progress, do we not?

It plays its part of course but it doesn't "exist for that purpose", that we walk on it is not the reason its there. Its there because reactions between particles allowed it to be. "Allowing humans to walk" or "preventing humans from drowning" is not some sort of inherent value to dirt. Dirt is just there. That it prevents us from drowning and allows us to walk is just a fact.

[dmcauliffe09]

I'm a theistic existentialist. I believe in God but I don't believe that we have to surrender our being to satisfy him, and I don't believe we have to deny ourselves the pleasures of this world in order to go to heaven. Also, I find the idea that we have made God in our own image interesting, because we have imagined God in our human image, when in reality, he is something beyond anything we as humans can comprehend.

[african postman]

I cannot in all honesty say that I know the purpose or meaning of life, maybe the purpose is to find out the meaning. If that makes any sense at all!!

But having said that I do know that it's not to be oppressed by others and that freedom is a necessary prerequisite for me to reach MY CONCLUSTION and that freedom is desired by all living conscious beings

So until then, I’ll make it my purpose to stand up against oppression, in whatever shape or form it may present itself, politically, economically or mentally.

Fuck the state,fuck the elitist and fuck ignorance

[Janine Melnitz]

It's weird that everyone here (except Bob) who (rightly) states that meaning is produced by humans assumes that this means it's "subjective", where the "subject" is always a (bourgeois) individual. Meaning is objective, guys. This sentence's meaning isn't whatever you want it to be (or for that matter whatever I want it to be); it's what history dictates. Of course meaning, like everything in the universe, is "in constant flux and rife with contradiction" etc., and of course individuals participate in its production and transformation, but we don't do this by arbitrary exercises of Will; we work meaning like custom car enthusiasts work their machines; meanwhile, meaning's been working us like potter's clay since the day we were born. (In Soviet Russia), language speaks you, before you've even learned a word of it.

[magicSpoons]

I disagree with what you say, as I think you take it too far.


It's weird that everyone here (except Bob) who (rightly) states that meaning is produced by humans assumes that this means it's "subjective", where the "subject" is always a (bourgeois) individual. Meaning is objective, guys. This sentence's meaning isn't whatever you want it to be (or for that matter whatever I want it to be); it's what history dictates.

A sentence is what you make it, it isn't determined by history. I agree with you to the extent that each word in a language has a historically determined meaning, even though that meaning can often change with the context of the situation. The meaning of what I am writing now is what I want to commune to you, not because it was dictated by history.


Of course meaning, like everything in the universe, is "in constant flux and rife with contradiction" etc., and of course individuals participate in its production and transformation, but we don't do this by arbitrary exercises of Will; we work meaning like custom car enthusiasts work their machines; meanwhile, meaning's been working us like potter's clay since the day we were born. (In Soviet Russia), language speaks you, before you've even learned a word of it.

What you say here contradicts itself, you initially say that meaning is in flux and can be changed by human input but then go onto say that meaning dictates us and our actions. I don't follow.

[Pawn Power]

I voted existentialism. Though there is no 'inherent' meaning to life as far as I can see.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Dunno. Love.

[Louise Michel]

Meaning is objective, guys. This sentence's meaning isn't whatever you want it to be (or for that matter whatever I want it to be); it's what history dictates.

Meaning is human surely. It may be collectively produced and certainly changes over time but it's not objective in the sense that it exists outside of our heads. If something is objective it's out there somewhere, open to scientific scrutiny.

Language and the meaning of sentences are dictated by communities. If I want to learn a new language I accept the rules and meaning laid down by native speakers but the meaning is not objective otherwise how could language evolve and change as dramatically as it does? Nowadays the English of Chaucer has no meaning except in the heads of a few scholars.

Also, in terms of life having a meaning, there are always multiple versions floating around - a revolutionary does give a meaning to his or her life but it is ultimately subjective, historically conditioned sure, but nonethless confined to the head of the revolutionary.

Even at the level of a single sentence we can still haggle over the meaning without either of us being able to prove the "truth" of our interpretation.

[Janine Melnitz]

What you say here contradicts itself, you initially say that meaning is in flux and can be changed by human input but then go onto say that meaning dictates us and our actions. I don't follow.
There's no contradiction in saying "A and B mutually act on each other, and A's effect on B is greater than vice-versa". "Potter's clay" might have been an overstatement; I don't actually think a human being is purely a product of language. But even if I did, I'm not convinced there's any contradiction.

Meaning is human surely. It may be collectively produced and certainly changes over time but it's not objective in the sense that it exists outside of our heads.
I think the greater part of human psychology does take place outside of our heads. Thought requires a brain obviously, but it also requires extracranial interactions between body and environment; I think it's in these that most thought takes place.

Language and the meaning of sentences are dictated by communities. If I want to learn a new language I accept the rules and meaning laid down by native speakers but the meaning is not objective otherwise how could language evolve and change as dramatically as it does?
Huh? Nothing prone to dramatic change is objective? That is silly, and I'm not sure where you'd get an idea like that. Maybe an idealist notion of the subject as active, and the object as inert? In that case you'll have to chalk up all the dynamism and instability of the physical world to God's will.

Nowadays the English of Chaucer has no meaning except in the heads of a few scholars.
But those scholars didn't just, like, make those meanings up; the meanings have a historical reality which the scholars entered into a relationship with.

Even at the level of a single sentence we can still haggle over the meaning without either of us being able to prove the "truth" of our interpretation.
We can disagree, certainly, on a sentence's meaning, but people are capable of disagreeing on anything; that doesn't make all phenomena subjective. And while meaning is slippery, I don't actually think it's as hard to demonstrate as you claim; if it were, communication would be impossible.

[Trystan]

I'm an amateur existentialist

I'm a professional existentialist.

Existentialism - the meaning of life is to be found in chain smoking, wearing a beret and listening to Django Reinhardt in Parisian jazz clubs.:thumbup:

[ibn Bruce]

Life in this realm of deception is defined by struggle.

Our life is an ultimately doomed battle with entropy.

[Louise Michel]

I think the greater part of human psychology does take place outside of our heads. Thought requires a brain obviously, but it also requires extracranial interactions between body and environment; I think it's in these that most thought takes place.


Perception requires something to perceive external to itself of course. But all perception and the process of perception takes place within the brain. Vision, for example, how you see the physical world, is constructed and organised by the brain.

The coordination of sound and vision are subjective constructs - just sit in a cinema and "hear" the sound coming from the mouths of the flickering images. Your brain creates an illusion for you without which movies would be much less enjoyable!

Much of the material for human psychology exists outside our heads but how can human psychology actually take place outside of a person.

Could you please give an example or two?


Huh? Nothing prone to dramatic change is objective? That is silly, and I'm not sure where you'd get an idea like that. Maybe an idealist notion of the subject as active, and the object as inert? In that case you'll have to chalk up all the dynamism and instability of the physical world to God's will.

Things can change and be objective of course. The difference with language is that we make the changes. We can alter the meaning of words and create new ones (in a godlike way! these are our creations!)but we can't affect the laws of physics one way or another.

If we were to disappear off the face of the earth language, the meaning we ascribe to it, any meaning we ascribe to our lives would go with us because they are subjective human constructs. Everything else would continue on as though nothing had happened.


But those scholars didn't just, like, make those meanings up; the meanings have a historical reality which the scholars entered into a relationship with.

Sometimes they may have made it up but generally not. The meanings though only have a historical reality because we say, or said, it is so.

It's a bit like asking would the tree make a noise if it fell and there's nobody around to hear it. I would answer yes to this question because the energy associated with noise exists independently of our perception. The meaning of language, or life, however does not.

[Louise Michel]

Existentialism - the meaning of life is to be found in chain smoking, wearing a beret and listening to Django Reinhardt in Parisian jazz clubs.

many a truth is told in jest :lol:

[Janine Melnitz]

The coordination of sound and vision are subjective constructs - just sit in a cinema and "hear" the sound coming from the mouths of the flickering images. Your brain creates an illusion for you without which movies would be much less enjoyable!
Well, yes, most things would be less enjoyable if nobody existed to enjoy them. But I've already granted the obvious, that thought requires at least one brain. I've also acknowledged that a lot of thought does happen "inside the head", so this example doesn't really mean anything.

Much of the material for human psychology exists outside our heads but how can human psychology actually take place outside of a person.

Could you please give an example or two?
Language is the best example, though I'm sure even dogs "think outside their bodies". Why is it sensible to identify thought with neurochemical states alone, and outlandish to count letter-writing, body language, social organization etc. as forms of cogitation?

Things can change and be objective of course. The difference with language is that we make the changes. We can alter the meaning of words and create new ones (in a godlike way! these are our creations!)but we can't affect the laws of physics one way or another.
Godlike? Try posting from now on solely in your own invented language, see how that goes.

If we were to disappear off the face of the earth language, the meaning we ascribe to it, any meaning we ascribe to our lives would go with us because they are subjective human constructs. Everything else would continue on as though nothing had happened.
If the sun vanished from space, all life on earth would disappear. Does it follow that we are inside the sun? In your scenario, it's conceivable that aliens could happen upon our planet and, analyzing debris, make correct observations about our culture; where would those observations come from? The aliens? The debris? Obviously it would be both; one couldn't say our ideas had vanished entirely.

Sometimes they may have made it up but generally not. The meanings though only have a historical reality because we say, or said, it is so.
It's definitely "said" in this case, and yeah, "we": not individual subjects, but a historical community.

It's a bit like asking would the tree make a noise if it fell and there's nobody around to hear it. I would answer yes to this question because the energy associated with noise exists independently of our perception.
The standard counterargument is that these vibrations aren't "sounds" until they hit our ears; you are using the exact same argument against the material reality of writing, speech etc.

[Louise Michel]

Well, yes, most things would be less enjoyable if nobody existed to enjoy them. But I've already granted the obvious, that thought requires at least one brain. I've also acknowledged that a lot of thought does happen "inside the head", so this example doesn't really mean anything.



The point here is not the enjoyment but that the sound is not actually coming from the screen, it's coming from the cinema sound system, behind you, in front of you, from all around, but not from the screen. It's an example of how the brain interprets and organizes sense data.

But, 'a lot of thought does happen inside the head' !!! What are you saying here - where else but inside the head does thought happen?


Language is the best example, though I'm sure even dogs "think outside their bodies". Why is it sensible to identify thought with neurochemical states alone, and outlandish to count letter-writing, body language, social organization etc. as forms of cogitation?

How is language an example of "thinking outside the body"? We think inside our bodies and communicate our thoughts via language, gestures writing and so on. The thought process is communicated outside the body but it doesn't actually take place outside.

Do dogs actually think?


Godlike? Try posting from now on solely in your own invented language, see how that goes.


I've said a number of times that the construction of language is communal. I don't see how that suggests that the meaning we ascribe to it is objective.


If the sun vanished from space, all life on earth would disappear. Does it follow that we are inside the sun? In your scenario, it's conceivable that aliens could happen upon our planet and, analyzing debris, make correct observations about our culture; where would those observations come from? The aliens? The debris? Obviously it would be both; one couldn't say our ideas had vanished entirely.


If all the works of literature were left behind and we disappeared all you would have is a pile of paper and ink. The meaning of literature, not its physical existence, is a human cultural construction that cannot exist without humans.

As for the aliens, well who knows, they could look at the books and the system of writing and if their own culture was close enough to ours maybe they could give the symbols a meaning that was close to ours. Maybe they'd give it a completely different meaning. There's not a single 'meaning' there waiting to be discovered like the laws of physics.


It's definitely "said" in this case, and yeah, "we": not individual subjects, but a historical community.

Well, we agree on this, but I don't see how this makes the meaning of words objective any more than a collective interpretation of a piece of abstract art has an objective existence.



The standard counterargument is that these vibrations aren't "sounds" until they hit our ears; you are using the exact same argument against the material reality of writing, speech etc.


I'm not arguing against the material reality of writing and speech I'm arguing against the material reality of meaning.

For most of human existence the vast majority of humans have believed in a God or Gods. Does this collective belief also have an objective existence outside the heads of the believers? If so how? In the holy scriptures?

[Janine Melnitz]

The point here is not the enjoyment but that the sound is not actually coming from the screen, it's coming from the cinema sound system, behind you, in front of you, from all around, but not from the screen. It's an example of how the brain interprets and organizes sense data.
No sher, shitlock.

But, 'a lot of thought does happen inside the head' !!! What are you saying here - where else but inside the head does thought happen?
Gassssssppp!!!!!!! An assertion of the very position this entire conversation has been about?? Shocking!!!

How is language an example of "thinking outside the body"? We think inside our bodies and communicate our thoughts via language, gestures writing and so on. The thought process is communicated outside the body but it doesn't actually take place outside.
The tedious circularity of this conversation is largely, I think, due to you dodging a few of my points. Here's one I've made a few times now: how does this "communication" occur if meaning never escapes the skulls of the individuals involved?

I've said a number of times that the construction of language is communal. I don't see how that suggests that the meaning we ascribe to it is objective.
Yeah. When a child is learning its native language, it uses its godlike creative powers as a free subject to simply "ascribe" whatever meaning it wishes to whatever sounds it hears. The appearance of "communication" is purely illusory: because we use the same gestures, sounds and graphical marks, we fool ourselves into thinking that we mean the same things; the real meanings, of course, are in the private and impenetrable thoughts of individuals. If you read a scientific text, it's absurd to wonder what it "means"; you are engaged in a godlike creative act, and the text's significance is whatever you ascribe to it.

Is this your position? If not, how do you avoid it?

If all the works of literature were left behind and we disappeared all you would have is a pile of paper and ink. The meaning of literature, not its physical existence, is a human cultural construction that cannot exist without humans.
This is what I mean by "tedious". You keep repeating the incredibly obvious point that thought requires brains, as if it had anything to do with my position -- as if I hadn't in fact asserted this before you ever did. I'm pretty much through with this. If your next post is more of the same, I probably won't respond.


It's definitely "said" in this case, and yeah, "we": not individual subjects, but a historical community.Well, we agree on this, but I don't see how this makes the meaning of words objective any more than a collective interpretation of a piece of abstract art has an objective existence.
So do you think communities are "subjects" in the same sense that individuals are often said to be? In some other sense? Do they have experiences and inner lives? If not, how can anything communal be subjective?

I'm arguing against the material reality of meaning.
There are two ways to interpret this. You could be saying that meaning has no reality at all; this is absurd, and as far as I can tell is not your position. So you're probably saying that that meaning has a reality that is not material; this is a form of idealism.

For most of human existence the vast majority of humans have believed in a God or Gods. Does this collective belief also have an objective existence outside the heads of the believers? If so how? In the holy scriptures?
Scripture, rituals, customs, architecture and social practices generally are the backbone of religious belief. Thanks for offering a great example of extracranial thought!

[Louise Michel]

The tedious circularity of this conversation is largely, I think, due to you dodging a few of my points. Here's one I've made a few times now: how does this "communication" occur if meaning never escapes the skulls of the individuals involved?

Okay, well, you've obviously given up trying to debate seriously so I'll be brief. I asked you to define your terms like "thinking outside the body". You haven't done so and now you're falling back on sarcasm. For example I asked you your opinion about whether or not religious belief was "objective" - how do you reply? See above.

You seem to believe that a thing called "meaning" passes through the ether from one individual to another. As far as I can tell this is "thinking outside the body" Is this correct?

Discussion sometimes takes time and yes, via the medium of a message board, communication is difficult. It's very easy to write impatient dismissive posts, much more difficult to explain your position concretely so those, who don't view the world as you do, can understand what you mean.

[Hit The North]

You seem to believe that a thing called "meaning" passes through the ether from one individual to another. As far as I can tell this is "thinking outside the body" Is this correct? Perhaps the problem is when "meaning" is reduced to a mere thought in the head of individuals, rather than understanding it as a social relation between individuals. Meaning is produced through shared social practice, not a thought locked in the brain of isolated individuals.

[Verix]

To make change...

[Louise Michel]

Perhaps the problem is when "meaning" is reduced to a mere thought in the head of individuals, rather than understanding it as a social relation between individuals. Meaning is produced through shared social practice, not a thought locked in the brain of isolated individuals.

I understand what you mean though I would qualify it to say that meaning is a result of social relations between people rather than being a social relation itself.

Maybe I'm wrong but for me something that is objective exists outside of the needs, wishes, desires etc of the human race. An equivilant to meaning is perhaps the price of a commodity. Price is the result of a social relation. Is price objective? I would say not, it changes and fluctuates, it's not fixed or even predictable. (I know there's an argument about the LTV behind this but this is a philopsophy thread and not economics :cool:)

[Hit The North]

Maybe I'm wrong but for me something that is objective exists outside of the needs, wishes, desires etc of the human race. Perhaps this is the case, and I would prefer to use the term "inter-subjective reality" referring to things which are dependent on human activity but not reducible to individual subjectivity. It's the realm which social science should concern itself with.



An equivilant to meaning is perhaps the price of a commodity. Price is the result of a social relation. Is price objective? I would say not, it changes and fluctuates, it's not fixed or even predictable. (I know there's an argument about the LTV behind this but this is a philopsophy thread and not economics :cool:) The weather also changes and fluctuates and is often unpredicatable. Does this mean it's not an objective phenomenon?

[Louise Michel]

Perhaps this is the case, and I would prefer to use the term "inter-subjective reality" referring to things which are dependent on human activity but not reducible to individual subjectivity. It's the realm which social science should concern itself with.

I can go along with this ... (yaaay) :thumbup1:

The biggest problem I have with the "meaning is objective" argument is that you effectively eliminate the distinction between subjective and objective reality. If meaning is objective in the sense that the weather (!! see below) is objective then so too are a range of beliefs including religious and political dogmas, interpretations of history, definitions of art and so on all of which are historically conditioned products of social relations - there is of course an exception if you believe there is a scientific view of social reality in the sense that Engels argued for. I don't, different argument.


The weather also changes and fluctuates and is often unpredicatable. Does this mean it's not an objective phenomenon?

While our activities can apparently affect the weather its fluctuations are not inextricably tied to what we do or don't do or how we perceive reality - this is not true of price. Weather is not a product of our social relations/consciousness. Price is.

Price is interesting here because if you accept the LTV then value is objective and price, which supposedly fluctuates around value, must also in a sense be objective. I don't accept the LTV because the value/price of a product can collapse to zero - effectively disappear - which indicates to me that there's no intrinsic value just what we are prepared/able to pay under certain circumstances.

The objective/subjective distinction is important mainly, I think, because of what Marx called alienation and our tendency to give our own creations, particularly wealth, a power over us that they don't actually have. But that as they say is another subject.

[Hit The North]

Price is interesting here because if you accept the LTV then value is objective and price, which supposedly fluctuates around value, must also in a sense be objective. I don't accept the LTV because the value/price of a product can collapse to zero - effectively disappear - which indicates to me that there's no intrinsic value just what we are prepared/able to pay under certain circumstances. Without spending too much time on this here in the Philosophy forum: the price of a commodity can be affected by a number of different factors; however, the further it digresses from the actual value embodied in it, the more sure will be the extinction of that commodity in the market place.


The objective/subjective distinction is important mainly, I think, because of what Marx called alienation and our tendency to give our own creations, particularly wealth, a power over us that they don't actually have. But that as they say is another subject. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif
And an interesting one.

I understand your concern here, but at the same time I think you actually want to preserve some notion of a realm which exists independently of human being - but I say who cares? Because it is not a realm that exists for us. I mean, there is no picture of nature without us in it, that is remotely relevant to us. We're here, like it or not, and because we are, as Marx says, an objective creature, the objective realm and the subjective realm co-exist and co-mingle in human sensuous activity.

This means that the 'weather' is as much as creation of our social relations as it is an objective phenomenon. Weather means something.

[Louise Michel]

I understand your concern here, but at the same time I think you actually want to preserve some notion of a realm which exists independently of human being - but I say who cares? Because it is not a realm that exists for us. I mean, there is no picture of nature without us in it, that is remotely relevant to us. We're here, like it or not, and because we are, as Marx says, an objective creature, the objective realm and the subjective realm co-exist and co-mingle in human sensuous activity.

I think it's important to know what we can change. Society is so complex that purely human matters (recession for example) often appear, or are portrayed, as though they are natural disasters. Reactionary beliefs and practices are peddled as natural. In fact much capitalist propaganda is predicated upon the notion that we are atomised individuals at the mercy of natural economic forces.

The subjective realm for me is that which we create, usually collectively (I mean social organization, beliefs, perceptions and so on rather than physical things) and therefore can change collectively. I'm not so much concerned with preserving a notion of a realm that exists independently of us as highlighting those things that are within our power to change.

As an aside, I'm not sure how much truly individual subjectivity actually exists since most if not every thought and feeling is connected to an event outside ourselves.



This means that the 'weather' is as much as creation of our social relations as it is an objective phenomenon. Weather means something.


Could you elaborate a little on this?

[Thunder]

Where does meaning come from, if anywhere?

[Louise Michel]

Where does meaning come from, if anywhere?

A very good question and my initial answer is it comes from us, human beings, who require explanations (for reasons I do not know) about our origins and purpose. Since there are no ready made answers we create our own in the form of myths and religion.

Meaning at the level of language I suppose derives from a more practical need to communicate in order to perform physical tasks efficiently though we also try to communicate feelings and emotional responses via language - I don't really know why since this almost always fails.

What's your feeling about where meaning comes from?

[Janine Melnitz]

You haven't done so and now you're falling back on sarcasm. For example I asked you your opinion about whether or not religious belief was "objective" - how do you reply? See above.
That wasn't even slightly a sarcastic reply. Why would you think it was?

If meaning is objective in the sense that the weather (!! see below) is objective then so too are a range of beliefs including religious and political dogmas, interpretations of history, definitions of art and so on all of which are historically conditioned products of social relations
Do you think that saying a belief has an objective existence (i.e. one outside of an individual's head) is the same as saying that its content is objectively "true", in the sense that it corresponds correctly to whatever state of affairs it references?

The subjective realm for me is that which we create, usually collectively (I mean social organization, beliefs, perceptions and so on rather than physical things)
And you see nothing problematic about this kind of dualism? Social organization is not a physical thing? Yet it exists; therefore by your reasoning there exists a non-physical realm. How does this realm come into being? How does it interact with the physical?

I'm not so much concerned with preserving a notion of a realm that exists independently of us as highlighting those things that are within our power to change.
The whole history of technological progress is one of expanding the range of "things that are within our power to change." Why the need for dualism? We're capable of effecting changes in biology, geography, chemistry etc. as well as in our social organizations and personal beliefs. There is no "natural realm" in the sense of an inviolable order that we can't, in principle, touch or alter.

[commyrebel]

the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life(when found we will have the knowledge of the universe and essentially have no meaning till another point in our evolution happens)

[Louise Michel]

That wasn't even slightly a sarcastic reply. Why would you think it was?



Well, I think the elongated gasp, the no sher shitlock, plus the fact that I had asked a question and was expecting a reply rather than a cheap attempt at a put-down all contributed.


Do you think that saying a belief has an objective existence (i.e. one outside of an individual's head) is the same as saying that its content is objectively "true", in the sense that it corresponds correctly to whatever state of affairs it references?


No, but an objective existence implies it is somehow out there in the world independent of human cognition.

My question here: what constitutes subjectivity? What thoughts and feelings do we have that are confined to a single person? Give me an example of a truly isolated human thought, idea or feeling, ie of true subjectivity in your view.


And you see nothing problematic about this kind of dualism? Social organization is not a physical thing? Yet it exists; therefore by your reasoning there exists a non-physical realm. How does this realm come into being? How does it interact with the physical?

In the physical realm I was thinking of buildings and airplanes and so on. Social organization is of course manifested in physical things but the relationship between buyer and seller, employer and worker, or indeed man and wife is a concept or an idea embodied in social relations. It's not so mysterious. If you like, these ideas also take a physical form in the bio-chemistry of those that accept them.


The whole history of technological progress is one of expanding the range of "things that are within our power to change." Why the need for dualism? We're capable of effecting changes in biology, geography, chemistry etc. as well as in our social organizations and personal beliefs. There is no "natural realm" in the sense of an inviolable order that we can't, in principle, touch or alter.

Of course, but we can't change the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, we can only work within them and the limitations they impose. I'm hardly creating a new dualism here, I'm simply pointing out that there are things that we create directly and we can change just as directly. And those are essentially our social relations and ideology. This, it seems to me, is the whole point of social revolution.

[Decolonize The Left]

the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life(when found we will have the knowledge of the universe and essentially have no meaning till another point in our evolution happens)

There is no "meaning" to find.

All meaning is created. The question of "meaning of life" is the question: What does your life mean to you? And what will you make of it?

- August

[Janine Melnitz]

That wasn't even slightly a sarcastic reply. Why would you think it was?Well, I think the elongated gasp, the no sher shitlock, plus the fact that I had asked a question and was expecting a reply rather than a cheap attempt at a put-down all contributed.
Yeah, those responses were sarcastic, but none of them were to any substantial point you made, or to your question about religion.


Do you think that saying a belief has an objective existence (i.e. one outside of an individual's head) is the same as saying that its content is objectively "true", in the sense that it corresponds correctly to whatever state of affairs it references? No, but an objective existence implies it is somehow out there in the world independent of human cognition.
Oh. Well I've already made it clear that I don't think ideas are independent of human cognition; obviously, they're identical with it. (We do seem to disagree about whether dogs etc. are also capable of cognition; on this I could accuse you of Cartesianism once again, but it's not an important point.) This doesn't have anything to do with my contention that "human cognition" largely takes place outside of any individual's head (I also think that most cognition that does take place inside one's head is mostly independent of any conscious awareness -- "conscious awareness" being, traditionally, the defining characteristic of a "subject").

My question here: what constitutes subjectivity? What thoughts and feelings do we have that are confined to a single person? Give me an example of a truly isolated human thought, idea or feeling, ie of true subjectivity in your view.
You got me here; I don't believe in "true subjectivity" in the sense of something "truly isolated" from any environmental context. We have thoughts that don't escape our heads, but these are produced by and dependent upon things outside of our heads. Check out how quickly and dramatically brains stop producing anything coherent during sensory deprivation.


And you see nothing problematic about this kind of dualism? Social organization is not a physical thing? Yet it exists; therefore by your reasoning there exists a non-physical realm. How does this realm come into being? How does it interact with the physical? In the physical realm I was thinking of buildings and airplanes and so on. Social organization is of course manifested in physical things
But this phrase still implies dualism. Why not say that social organization simply is a physical thing?

but the relationship between buyer and seller, employer and worker, or indeed man and wife is a concept or an idea embodied in social relations.
In social relations, rather than in the heads of individuals? But this is exactly my argument.


The whole history of technological progress is one of expanding the range of "things that are within our power to change." Why the need for dualism? We're capable of effecting changes in biology, geography, chemistry etc. as well as in our social organizations and personal beliefs. There is no "natural realm" in the sense of an inviolable order that we can't, in principle, touch or alter. Of course, but we can't change the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, we can only work within them and the limitations they impose.
Let's assume that the physical universe has inviolable "laws"; it seems reasonable enough. Are you saying that their immutability make them more "objective" than a DNA sequence? Again, you seem to be using a pretty ancient definition of "objectivity", where it implies stasis etc. as opposed to the active and transforming Subject. This is a basically theological idea.

I'm hardly creating a new dualism here
No, it's a pretty familiar one.

[Comrade Corwin]

I despise when people constantly quote people. It makes it so hard to follow... Can someone please explain where this discussion has gone?

[Louise Michel]

I despise when people constantly quote people. It makes it so hard to follow... Can someone please explain where this discussion has gone?

Sorry to quote you, I know it's hard to follow, maybe at the end it'll be possible to summarize but right now I'm not sure what this discussion is about either!


Let's assume that the physical universe has inviolable "laws"; it seems reasonable enough. Are you saying that their immutability make them more "objective" than a DNA sequence? Again, you seem to be using a pretty ancient definition of "objectivity", where it implies stasis etc. as opposed to the active and transforming Subject. This is a basically theological idea.

To be honest I'm struggling to understand the problems we're having communicating here but whatever ...

I'm not saying that the laws of physics (etc.) are inviolable simply that we as a part of the physical universe are subject to these laws.

I have read studies that say that the laws of physics seem to change over time (based for example on the behaviour of light in gas clouds at differening distances from the earth).

You can if you like project into the distant future and say that at some point we will be able, through science, to mould the laws of physics according to our collective will, at which point those laws, for me, could become an expression of human subjectivity ie an expression of what we want, need, desire etc because we are driven by our (collective) needs and desires - depending on whether or not the changes were linked to our consciousness (a development I'm not expecting in my lifetime).

But right now those laws exist completely independently of what we want - they have a separate objective existence.


We have thoughts that don't escape our heads

This somehow is close to the crux of the matter. For me none of our thoughts ever escape our heads. They are manifested in behaviour or language one way or another but thoughts are always communicated indirectly - you know the Vulcan mind-meld from Star Trek, that's thought being transmitted directly. We have a more round about method which is why this discussion is so convoluted.


But this phrase still implies dualism. Why not say that social organization simply is a physical thing?

I do have a dualist view. Is this so bad? Social organization is not just a physical thing, it is totally dependent upon our subjective say-so. If we build a house it then exists independently of us, objectively. But social organization is always, at every moment, dependent upon our subjective agreement or acquiesence. If there is a shift in belief or desire then you could be looking at a revolution. This, I repeat, is my point. What's yours?

[Comrade Corwin]

Ugh...

[Janine Melnitz]

Sorry Corwin :(


I do have a dualist view. Is this so bad?Not "bad" I guess, but a difference between us that could make this conversation interminable. I'd rather not rehash the past few centuries' arguments against dualism.

But social organization is always, at every moment, dependent upon our subjective agreement or acquiesence. If there is a shift in belief or desire then you could be looking at a revolution. This, I repeat, is my point. What's yours?I have to think we're both defining a "subject" as an individual here; if you're against Vulcan mind-melds, surely you're against social groups as conscious beings. How, then, can large-scale group phenomena be "subjective"? I don't deny the importance of "shifts in belief or desire" of course but I (really, really) hope it's obvious by now that I don't consider these (and especially not those on a large scale) "purely" subjective or acts of sheer creative Will, however involved subjects may be.

[-marx-]

I really don't think there is a purpose to life, I believe we make our own purposes and reasons to exist and that there is no underlying force dictating our existence.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Life has no meaning a priori... It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.



I think you are underestimating 42.

[Louise Michel]

I think you are underestimating 42.

It makes as much sense as anything else. :D

[NecroCommie]

Pol Pot is the meaning of life.

[Pinko Panther]

42
;)
That is not only the meaning of life, but the answer to the ultimate question (life, the universe and EVERYTHING).
But seriously, I think the meaning of life to to make the universe a little bit better than it was before you. Do what you can to change the world, no matter how small.

[Comrade Corwin]

Did someoen seriously throw out Pol Pot into the mix?

[Attila]

Life has no meaning.

If we define meaning as human values, traditions or norms they are not found anywhere in the universe. Instead, meaning is created by humans. Ideas are created by humans. There is no evidence that there is meaning outside of human experience, unless you believe in the supernatural.

For example, when Thomas Jefferson proposed in the Declaration of Independence that it was self-evident that all men are created equal... it was actually not self-evident!

With regards to social interaction, that develops throughout human growth and does not come fully developed at birth. You are not born with an idea about racism for example, or equality. That comes through education, whether by your parents or some other person.

So, what Jefferson was doing when he said that all men are created equal was proposing a way to interact with other people. Unless some supernatural being actually says that inequality is wrong, the only way you are ever going to encounter that kind of thinking is from another person, who seeing the suffering caused by inequality proposes an alternative way of life that is happier and more fulfilling, for instance.

Meaning is created, life does not come packed with meaning. There is nothing meaningful about the continental plates shifting or a lion eating its prey. That is outside of human cognition. There is a void in the universe, obviously. That is something for you to deal with. Now you must inject meaning into your life. You must make it meaningful.

I don't know what that makes me philosophically but I voted for humanism.

[Comrade Corwin]

I voted for Humanism as well. I agree with you completely, Attila.
You must remember that Thomas Jefferson also made references to God, so he might believed in some intervention of a greater being.

[Decolonize The Left]

Life has no meaning.

If we define meaning as human values, traditions or norms they are not found anywhere in the universe. Instead, meaning is created by humans. Ideas are created by humans. There is no evidence that there is meaning outside of human experience, unless you believe in the supernatural.

For example, when Thomas Jefferson proposed in the Declaration of Independence that it was self-evident that all men are created equal... it was actually not self-evident!

With regards to social interaction, that develops throughout human growth and does not come fully developed at birth. You are not born with an idea about racism for example, or equality. That comes through education, whether by your parents or some other person.

So, what Jefferson was doing when he said that all men are created equal was proposing a way to interact with other people. Unless some supernatural being actually says that inequality is wrong, the only way you are ever going to encounter that kind of thinking is from another person, who seeing the suffering caused by inequality proposes an alternative way of life that is happier and more fulfilling, for instance.

Meaning is created, life does not come packed with meaning. There is nothing meaningful about the continental plates shifting or a lion eating its prey. That is outside of human cognition. There is a void in the universe, obviously. That is something for you to deal with. Now you must inject meaning into your life. You must make it meaningful.

I don't know what that makes me philosophically but I voted for humanism.

Well, that's basically existentialism 101. So, given the statement provided, you would be an existentialist. The step from existentialism to humanism (some, such as Sartre, argued that they were one-and-the-same) is a simple move of value-application.

So, in short, you have the following in terms of value-application:
Nihilism (simple: there is no meaning)
Existentialism (there is no meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own meaning)
Humanism (there is no meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own meaning, and our existence has a moral character which revolves around rationality, human dignity, and agnosticism)
Theism (there is no meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own meaning, and our existence has a moral character which revolves around the supposed existence of a deity)

Nihilism is unacceptable because it is motionless, and stale.
Existentialism is the simplest of the three following nihilism, and most coherent philosophically speaking as it is fundamentally amoral.
Humanism is the most rational and logic value-system when moral application is taken into account.
Theism makes absolutely no sense, doesn't try to make sense, and avoids all attempts to make sense. You try and figure it out...

- August

[MilitantAnarchist]

Maybe the meaning of life is to live.... and that is simply it

[Pirate Utopian]

Nihilism is unacceptable because it is motionless, and stale.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Could you explain?

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Could you explain?

Nihilism is the belief that life is inherently meaningless. If one accepts this premise as the sole truth, and does not move beyond to create meaning in spite of this truth, then one remains stagnant.

Why act? Meaningless.
Why speak? Meaningless.
Why create? Meaningless.

We see nihilism everyday - it is the progressive destruction of meaning-structures within our various worldviews. It is the movement towards abject consumerism and rhetoric, whereby language carries no meaning (it is not meant to express, rather to engender some sort of response) and consumer durables fill the void of meaninglessness.

Some destruction is positive, but only that destruction which occurs with purpose for creation. Nihilism has no purpose - it has no positive - it has nothing. And hence, it is worthless.

- August

[Attila]

Humanism (there is no meaning, and it's up to each individual to create their own meaning, and our existence has a moral character which revolves around rationality, human dignity, and agnosticism)


If humanism accepts that there is no meaning in life, then how can it posit that life has a moral character? That is another thing I would say is conceptualized by people rather than discovered. Morals are based on sentiments, feelings, reinforced by habit and made into cultural or religious customs. Basically morality is as subjective as aesthetics. What matters on that front, I guess, is that the assumptions of people's morals are analyzed to the fullest and most honest extent. That's where ethics comes in.

[C.B.]

The meaning of life, hm. Well I believe it isn't the same for everyone. I have strong inclinations to say that the meaning of life is to reproduce. But that's far too dull for me. My thought on the meaning of my life is to live it and give it meaning, I suppose. To experience as much as possible.

I used to think for awhile that there wasn't a meaning or purpose, and perhaps there isn't. Unless you choose to make it so.

tl:dr, To live. Experience.

[Hoxhaist]

the improvement of life for all people and the advancement of the human race ought to be the meaning of life but the meaning only comes from what we add to life

[Purple]

I think in order for there to be "meaning", there must, by definition, be a final result that is the product of your accumulated labour/way of life that you have been conducting as so far. In the theist meaning, there is the emphasis on an elaborate "result". However, I believe that there is an error by definition, and the meaning of life lies in its content, not accumulated result.

But can easily answer the biological answer for the meaning of life: reproduction!

[Hoxhaist]

we can add meaning but the meaning isnt added in an accumulated result but in each moment. the animalistic, natural meaning of life is of course reproduction but we are capable of greater motivations and those are chosen by individuals

[gilhyle]

The meaning of life is reproduction, the rest is instrumental to that end.

[Code]

I agree with Hox. My personal reason for living are joy, balance, embrace of freedom, and of course leading other to these.

[KropotkinKomrade]

Attempting to objectively define the meaning of life is as pointless as praying to god. Each person should explore the possibilities life has to offer through personal experience. Experience preceeds meaning.

[redarmyfaction38]

What is the meaning of life. My opinion is that there is no meaing to life and that all the meaings around us are just man made. I am i guess a nihilist in a way because i think life lacks all purpose. In my opinion we are nothing but smart animals and animals have no purpose except to reproduce and die.

Where do you stand and what is your meaning in life?

42

hitch hikers guide to the galaxy