Even with subjective meaning bestowal, whereby the meaning of one’s life is wholly the meaning one gives to it, I don’t think many of its adherents would agree that becoming a mass-murder qualifies as leading a meaningful life, even if one finds leading such a life psychologically rewarding. I think for ‘meaningful’ to mean anything, it needs some degree of positive objective value. Even with trivial pursuits, like if someone finds it rewarding to count the grains of sand on the beach, I have a hard time qualifying as leading a meaningful life.

It seems to me that individual meaning is a certain validation of something that isn't necessarily valid. And that we can see this if we decide to deny responsibility for any individual meaning we feel might be valid.

Thinking along the lines of "I know god has a purpose for me, but I'm not going to live it out (honor it). And furthermore, in heaven (and for eternity) I am not going to validate God when I am questioned on why not."

If we can search the depths of that direction, of never again validating any responsibility towards meaning, we eradicate any purpose it might have.

I'd suggest then either we are not able to do this, or any individual meaning has no crucial purpose.

I don't think this argument can defeat our responsibility to the whole of humanity though because we cannot disprove that it is conditioning from our individualistic belief thats suggests addressing the whole is not our purpose.

my point exactly. Therefore, with objective meaning bestowal, you only find meaning in it in the cases where you already bestow (positive) meaning yourself.
If you dont find the bestowed meaning meaningful, then it means nothing to you that god has decreed your meaning.

( too many "meanings" in that sentence)

I'd be interested to hear how many people here believe that god has given them a purpose in life and if they know what that purpose is and live their life trying to achieve it.

This might interest some: "Rhinoceros" by Eugene Ionesco, Theatre of the Absurd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_%28play%29

Also "Theatre of the Absurd" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_Absurd

It’s not merely a positive meaning to oneself. As I said, for meaningfulness to mean anything at all, it seems it must carry the connotation of a positive objective value that is appropriable to all. And that applies to atheistic schemas like Buddhism as well, not just theism. With Buddhism, the purpose of life is the cessation of suffering, and that’s a positive objective value appropriable to all. So in that sense, Buddhism doesn’t differ from theism in that both agree there is an absolute mandate to human striving, and hence, an objective meaning and purpose to life. That said mandates are derived from a creator on the one hand, and the nature of reality on the other, seems incidental to the point.

From the above it is gleaned that the ancient Egyptians looked to the cosmos and in their astronomy perceived the inner connection of astronomy to their social culture. the Babylonian or Chaldean scientists did not see the heavens as abstract mathematical strings but in the nature of the time realized the inner aspect of the starry heavens.

In our time the cosmos are in some way directly related mathematically and mechanically which is in keeping with the evolution of Man. the evolution of the human soul, perforce, during Egyptian times gleaned the inner aspect or the relationship of Man to the cosmos. In esoteric correspondence we have "as above, so below" or the microcosm as a reconciliation of the macrocosm. In religious terms. Man as an Image of the Godhead.

Things change and mankind will look upon this strict mathematical/mechanical picture of the universe as at best an error but necessary for the evolution if the individual human being.

If that wasn't bad enough, back to Camus. the ancient Greeks and Romans had their pantheon of Zeus, Apollo, Minerva, etc.. which in reality was a "memory picture" of a previous age or specifically the Atlantean. During that age mankind did indeed sup with the gods or beings of Zeus or Apollo or Odin or Thor, etc.., a time of Man's existence in which the sensory that we know of was marginal , or better yet developing. At the beginning of the Atlantean age , if it were possible to travel to that time, Man would be more of a "floating jellyfish" to which he did not develop into appendages of legs, feet or stand directly on the earth until the latter half of Atlantis. The Greek gods as an Atlantean remnant, still experienced but in a more nebulous way, more dream like, so to speak.

Likewise when Camus sees the incongruity or absurdity of the cosmos that are silent you can that he was calling forth his inner Egyptian. Its absurd because he knew that this cannot be, the mathematical shroud of the cosmos as pictured by his times, lost in the evolution of the individual Man. As with Kepler below

"It is most interesting to witness, how in the astronomical world-picture above all, mankind gets free of the outer reality. And in perceiving this, my dear Friends, we also gain a truer estimate of the returning pathway, — for in a wider sense we must return. Yet how? Kepler still had a feeling of it. I have often quoted his rather melodramatic saying, to the effect: "I have stolen the sacred vessels of the Egyptian Temples to bring them back again to modern man." Kepler's planetary system, as you know, grew from a highly romantic conception of how the Universe is built. In deed he feels it like a renewal of the ancient heliocentric system. Yet the truth is, the ancient heliocentric system was derived, not from a mere looking outward with the eyes, but from an inner awareness, an inner feeling of what was living in the stars."

Likewise Darwin with his association of Man with the animal kingdom brings forth the ancient Egyptian's pictures of "animal gods" which are in reality presentations of the evolution of Man at the time of the animal evolution; not the worshiping of animals.

The above three men, Camus, Kepler and Darwin affected by an ancient Egyptian memory picture which needs to be created anew. I know this has been aphoristic to an amazing extent but I'll add one thing which may bring matters together.

In esoteric lore our cultural epoch which is the fifth (5th) post Atlantean is a recapitulation of the third (3rd) which was the times of the great Babylonian/Chaldean scientists etc. only to be created, through and by Man to a higher level; not a return to the past but the creative future.

We really should distinguish, at least conceptually, between purpose and meaning. So, the purpose of a hammer is to hammer nails into objects to connect them together. The meaning of a hammer is various--for instance, some hammer can be significant to me as a special gift from my father, or as a hammer that I used to build my home, etc.

The reason why LemonZest is treating them as effectively the same is because he thinks that the meaning of human life comes from the purpose of human life. So, most Christians believe that the purpose of human life (as of all creation) is to bring glory to God. Thus, human actions have significance and meaning insofar as they accomplish that purpose.

However, naturalists who reject this claim about the purpose of human life will (obviously) also reject it as explaining the meaning or significance of human life. Instead, in a similar way to how various hammers can acquire specific meanings based on their history, a person's history can make various different things acquire meaning to someone on the naturalistic picture. It is however true that most naturalists will not think that humans were created with a specific purpose in mind and so

Now, this seems trivially obvious to me--we all would I think acknowledge that the hammer can acquire a special meaning to us based on our history with it, so why can't our own experience of life also come to matter to us? Furthermore, there is nothing illusory about this mattering. So why does it seem so obvious to LemonZest, even self-evidently true, that the naturalistic life is without meaning?

One possibility is that he thinks that in order for something to have meaning it must have a purpose. After all, he identifies the meaning of human life with its purpose, so maybe he thinks this is a necessary component of meaning.

If so, I would reject this view. In fact, I think that this seems like to reject the possibility of a genuine love for others. Kant says that the basis of morality can be summed up in the claim that we should treat others as ends rather than means. If we viewed the value of other people as solely deriving from their purpose (i.e. the goal towards which they are the means), then we would be going against this idea. Instead, I think we can value other people for themselves, as an independent object worthy of being valued or loved for its own sake.

Another possibility is that he thinks that in order for humans to have meaning this meaning must be something external and objective about them. Now, this one confuses me. I am including it because so many Christians frame the debate in these terms (e.g. duffee's post). However, for most Christians, who view the meaning of life as being found in God's purpose for our lives--it seems like this would actually still be subjective, just subjective in God's rather our own minds. So I don't see how this works.

Some Christians will say that God's mind is fundamentally different from ours--that it is Intellect or Mind, not just an instance of an intellect or a mind. Thus, the purposes and thoughts of this Mind are universal in way that ours are not. Mostly here I respond by rejecting this kind of platonism and more importantly, pointing out that there is no reason here to think that our more subjective reasons aren't good reasons.

Finally, I suspect that what is really going on here is a fear of death and desire for immortality. If you press hard enough, Christians will often say that the real problem is not that human life under naturalism doesn't have any meaning, but that the subjective meaning it does have is, when compared to the size and duration of the cosmos without significance. Yes, I care about my friend getting a good job--it matters to me--but when placed against the universe who cares? Viewed from the perspective of the universe, nothing humans do seem to matter as we'll all eventually end up in the same place anyway.

This last one is not really, in my view, a purely philosophical critique, but more an existential one. Thus, I would say that in fact, I do feel the significance of my life to me. I don't accept the perspective of eternity as being the correct way to view my own life's meaning. Why should I? Mattering and caring is something done by minds, not universes. So of course it doesn't matter or care to the universe. That still doesn't remove the fact that it matters to me.

At the end of the day, I think nihilism of the sort described by these Christians is self-defeating. If it were truly the case that our lives didn't matter, it wouldn't matter to us that our lives are without significance and so the argument wouldn't actually matter anyway. But it does matter to us because we are able to care about our lives--thus giving them meaning.

Slow-ponied, damn.

Jokes. Great summary OrP.

Addition to my above post; none of this grips reality unless reincarnation is at least give some consideration. Camus, Kepler and Darwin brought forth their concepts as in a Egyptian memory as having lived during that age. As the above , we have lived at least one if not two lives during these ancient cultural ages. Each culture is imbued within the development of the individual man and if you must consider any meaning at all prior planning is inextricably involved prior to earthly birth/conception.

An important aside is that the individual soul does desire and plan what we on the earth would call the most painful experiences. While in the life between death and rebirth it is seen what one's further regeneration could well be suffering, the human soul will not be denied. Not all of course, to allay those who ask about certain heinous acts of man to man this would have to be considered individually and I am incapable of doing that.

Appropriate and timely: I just found Tim Minchin's recent acceptance speech for an honorary doctorate, it's a little long (tho his talk is only the first 12 mins) and its a bit "atheist/skeptic 101", but he is such a witty and sharp individual, and his topic happened to be the absurdity of humans looking for meaning.

Life is meaningless, thats why i play poker instead of helping sick babies

I doubt you’ll get most Christians to agree. I think for most Christians, if you press hard enough, it comes down to hope. I mean, even if one concludes that all the ‘isms that grant objective meaning and an eternal or cosmic significance to human life are incoherent, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that we may come up with one that isn’t, or that we may come to understand the current ‘isms differently so that they’re not incoherent. What naturalism does is nip hope or Augustine faith in the bud; because naturalism deems hope futile since it proclaims to have "the answer" which is incompatible with hope for such human meaning and significance.

Life is absurd. Having morals in a random universe is absurd. The strong thrive and when I mean strong those people who can manipulate the system/others, lie, cheat etc...but at the same time have this good social front of moral upstanding. That is to say to have the best of both worlds without being found out.

Science is utterly useless at answering anything meaningful to the ordinary man on the street. Quantum physics and the like don't figure much into peoples lives, the guy has a mortgage to pay and kids to feed, and there is no jobs and even if he gets a job its a job he hates, and science is incapable of answering questions on that level that actually help people out in the real world.

Sommerset,

It is a matter of perspective. The Gastrotrich can live up to 10 days in lab conditions. Do you think the life of a Gastrotrich matters? Why or why not?

Although this may be one strategy to thrive, I would imagine that coming up with a moral system that supports and helps the members of the group to all thrive and survive ( and then all the members of the group roughly sticking to the moral system) is also a viable strategy.


If you realise that life is meaningless, then you realise all of the above is also meaningless, and so doesnt apply in any meaningful way. Did you see my response to you in your motivation thread in SMP?

Originally posted by Neeeel
I think you are focusing on the subjective sense of meaning. What I find meaningful is not relevant from a design perspective.

If I was designed to rape and pillage then that is what my purpose is. How I feel about that is a different discussion.

**Something to consider though is that if I was designed to rape and pillage I might be made with some predisposition toward raping and pillaging?

ye, so as I keep pointing out, you only find meaning in objective meaning if you already agree that said meaning is meaningful. Otherwise, you dont find it meaningful, even if you accept that its your purpose.

It is the ultimate strategy it is GTO in a hostile environment competing for natural resources, wealth etc.... To give a silly quote from the Simpsons,

Science is in the business of finding out how. Science can actually answer hard questions where religion fails. IMO science doesn't answer questions that have an actually impact in peoples every day lives. People generally don't put building a rocket ship to the moon high on their priority list of things to do today, you know what I'm saying? I probably did read it neeeel but it probably didn't impact me much because I can't remember.

possibly.



Even so, it doesnt actually mean this, since everything is meaningless


lol you go on a site moaning about how you have no motivation and everything is meaningless, and then dont read the replies. I guess that makes sense...

Originally Posted by: Orp
They way you define "meaning" above is not the way I am using it. The reason I am treating "meaning" and "purpose" as effectively the same is because they are synonyms by definition.

Dictionary.com

mean·ing

1.
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2.
the end, purpose, or significance of something

pur·pose

1.
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

I should clarify that for the purposes of this thread I am leaving the theist v. atheist discussion at the door. My assumption is that we exist without any type of personal God which is how I understand MB's OP. My angle in this thread is not a "gotcha" v. the atheist perspective. I do think there is a possibility of life existing without a personal god and in this case we would all be in the same boat.

I do think that for something to matter it must have a purpose & meaning. What basis is there to say people are intrinsically valuable? Isn't this just an axiomatic point of view the same as my perspective?

Do you think animals also qualify as being objects that are independently valuable?
What about plant life? (serious q.)

I think for humans to have meaning they need to have a reason for existing. If we don't have a reason for existing then by definition our life is purposeless.

purpose  
1.
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used,

For us to originally exist for no reason and then later on arbitrary come up with a purpose/meaning for our lives doesn't make sense. I think the sense of self importance we feel is largely based on our evolutionary psychology. We "all" have a strong sense our lives matter and are important but I don't see good philosophical support.

to reiterate I am not intending to argue from a Christian perspective but I am not sure how much my bias betrays me... I do concur with the above. This is one way to look at it. How can life really matter when we all die after a brief period anyway?

Consider the gastrotrich example. Do you think the gastrotrich life has meaning? The only difference between man and a gastrotrich is a slightly different route in genealogy.

I would dispute the bolded. I'd say that many people believe their lives matter to them (obviously ) and to those close to them but also realise that this is temporal and not really important at all.

Really? Hard to believe. You must hang out with a lot of emo reflective types

For All,

Rick Roderick - talks about the self

Great drawl and interesting content
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wet...xXq8YfgMUM3-nO

Sigh...


Ok i should see the intrinsic meaning of the universe for humans as eternal life.

This means if there is a God what you said in your other post is not true. God, deist or not, does not give intrinsic meaning. Eternal life does with or without God.

I must say, although I find you nice to talk with, and I know this probably isn't your intention, you are coming across as quite stubborn in this exchange IMO. The reason for this is because you just keep repeating that something shouldn't matter if it will expire in time but you haven't said *Why* it shouldn't.

You say us creating our own meaning doesn't make sense but you haven't explained *why* it doesn't make sense.

I'll restate that the whole thing just seems like a big argument from incredulity. You can't imagine why something should be one way, so it must be the other.