Essence

I looked up life in the dictionary, and it turns out it actually has SIX different meanings.

really.

Well there you go people. Proof at last.

I think most people agree life is not only meaningful, but unequivocally so. But the question of the "meaning of life" is unfortunately rooted in metaphysics and/or theology.

That is, the traditional debate is over the definitions of "meaning" which state: To have as a purpose or an intention; to design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end; and these beg the question of "higher" meaning and purpose.

That's where all your "meaning of life" problems come from. Unless you're a complete idiot or failure, no one thinks life is "meaningless." It's whether or not it has any "higher" meaning.

Good point Nietzche. I'm undecided on this higher meaning issue, what do you think?

Oh, what's the existentialist view on this?

No doubt, Nietzsche, we all feel that life is meaningful. We are cultural beings who have been raised to share with our fellows certain conventional understandings. That is no problem. I'm certainly glad that I was not a feral child raised by wolves. Raised by humans, I have a language; I have an inherited worldview; I have deeply ingrained presuppositions about the nature of reality, including ideas of reality, truth, time, space, gender, and so on. But I do not phlosophically accept all these meanings as essential and absolute things. They are social constructions, artifacts of culture, fine for everyday use, as in the epistemology of naive realism, but philosophically problematical. Good thing for most people they are not philosophical.

Anyone who has got a child will have trouble saying that existence is meaningless. But what if the child dies? The search for meaning in our lives is often so egotistically based that we fail to see true.

The rule becomes that life has meaning when your ego is satisfied. When satisfaction goes away, then suddenly life is meaningless?

Most people seem well capable of understanding the meaning of something they consider good for them. But when the tables are turned the story is another. Then they feel wronged. Even when they know why they're being punished.

To sum it up, I am with you ray. But I also believe that if you don't understand love, you have no clue at life.

Cryacuz, let me press my point about the social (or cultural) construction of meaning. You agree, I'm sure, that we humans ascribe meaning to the events, situations and objects of our experience. Life does not come to us with its meaning apriori. To argue that meaning is objective rather than cultural (inter-subjective) reminds me of the farmer who said to the astronomer, "I really appreciate what astronomy has achieved. But I can't imagine how you guys discovered the names of all those planets and star systems."

Ray, do you feel that if it is the case that meaning is our creation life is itself essentially meaningless?
I feel that because we create our world (our meaningful world) we should give ourselves credit for our creations. We are, in a sense, our own God.

Well, as I alluded to above, there's an interesting duality central in this question: first, things only truly "matter" when there's people involved; and since there's virtually always people involved in our decisions, virtually everything we do matters. But second, in the view, for example, that the human race (and eventually the entire planet) will cease to exist - can we really say any of it matters?

I tend to lean toward the former outlook insofar as pessimism would hold us to the view that our lives are simply our own personal time here to do pretty much whatever we like, or at least whatever we can. I mention pessimism in the sense that it's difficult to fathom truly "making a difference" on any global or historical level - so what am I really doing here? Just playing along while my time lasts.

Do I believe in an afterlife? No. So that pretty much precludes my ascribing any "higher" meaning (that is, "divine" meaning) to life short of human life heading in a direction of perpetual progress; i.e. avoiding degeneration at all cost.



I've found existentialism in general contends all meaning and value is of human (and moreover individual) origin. That is, no matter what your view, absorb it to the fullest degree and live your life accordingly. But existentialism is also plagued by widely distributed opinions - from Kierkegaard's devout Christianity to Sarte's avowed atheism - and as such, I'm not aware of any single view "existentialism" holds on the matter.

Yeah, I see what you mean about existentialism. If I were to choose an existentialist whom I can relate to the most it's Sartre. I haven't touched Nietzche much because of some confusion regarding how his writing had been interpreted, but I have a hunch that I would find a lot of disagreement with his work.



I think most people have this certain angst. I'm tired of pessimism. I think that what matters is who exist now. Do I care about the Earth? Not as much as people. The planet might cease one day, but I don't know if the human race would. There is a lot of uncertainty about the future, yet even if there is an end, I think that working toward the betterment and appreciation of life in general is a noble and worthwhile task. Life in general is the most meaningful thing, the only thing of meaning in-itself one could say.

I'm with Sartre in that we should do things for humanity, meaning we should be responsible.

I call for a realistic optimism.

As to the significance of our actions, in the end, I believe that it all matters. Every action we make shape the world, and will mark a presence in time. Idealistic? Maybe, maybe not.

JLNobody wrote:


While I do agree with the statement that "we humans ascribe meaning to the events, situations and objects of our experience", I cannot agree with the statement I've quoted you on.

Everything you know and understand is taught to you by life. Knowledge may have come in the form of a book or a mentor, or you may have studied some part of nature and gained an understanding. But when it comes down to it, I'd say the very puzzle is that life does seem to come to us with it's meaning apriori.

Wether meaning is objective or cultural is beside the point. If the matter is pressing the culture will have a meaning about it. In that sense it is objective. No one, no matter how their culture works, can say that to eat is meaningless. But what to eat is highly debatable, and we see that the solution to a common problem resulted in a wide variety of dishes from all over the world.

Cyracuz

I think Nobody is right, except in the fact that he doesn't rely conceptual meaning to our experience conditions. Language was formed according to the ways of our presence in the world.

By the way: what is the national dish in Norway (not crude fish please)?

I am not sure what the main dish is val. Some say it is crude fish, others say sheepshead. Sheeps ribs is considered a delicacy, and there's something called "komla" wich is basically flour and water meshed to resemble meatballs (tastes nothing). Norway wasn't always a rich country, something wich is evident if you look at what people used to eat...

As for the rest, I see it as a sort of chicken and egg problem. I'm just trying to get my head around it