What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Nick_A]

Meaning for a car is defined by its service to man. Without it, a car is just a collection of parts.

Meaning for Man as i understand it is defined by the process it serves. Without this process, man has no objective meaning. The problem is that we are largely ignorant of the process. This makes process theology a meaningful line of research. When we understand the process, we will understand the meaning of life.

That's the problem, essentially. You've hit it.

If we (mankind) are here by pure accident, then it's absurd to talk about us "having a purpose." Nobody "purposed" anything by our creation or by placing us here. So we can neither achieve nor miss our "purpose." And most certainly, we cannot be "authentic" to a purpose we quite simply don't have.

So we can talk about us "imagining" one, "inventing" one, or "desiring" one, and especially about us "deluding ourselves into thinking we have one"...but not of us actually "having" or "finding" our purpose, because there's nothing to "find," and nothing to be "had," if we're just a product of cosmic accident.

If you don't think we're a cosmic accident that's fine, you can live your life accordingly. I happen to think we are a cosmic accident and being badgered about it by the Nicks of this world gets right up my nose. He doesn't even know what he's advocating, it's all just a fuzzy, warm something that he thinks he's caught a glimpse of but can't make out the details. He doesn't even have his own words to describe his fantasy, it's all a cobbled together mess of utterings from long since dead characters.

Some people are closer to remembering than others. They have a part in them, a seed of a soul, more mature. Those dead characters you refer to aid in remembering leading to recognition of the process Man serves and the meaning of life.

Meno's Paradox and the Immortality of Soul: how will you know what you are looking for if you first don't already know it (and thus have no reason to go looking for it)? But why look for something you already have? This is the paradox raised in Plato's dialogue called the Meno. In answer to "Meno's Paradox," Plato suggests that before we were born we existed in another realm of being (the realm of the Forms). The shock of being born makes us forget what we knew in that realm. But when we are asked the right questions or have certain experiences, we remember or "recollect" innate (inborn) truths. So if we existed before our births, there is every reason to think that we will continue to exist after our deaths.

[Harbal]

Some people are closer to remembering than others. They have a part in them, a seed of a soul, more mature. Those dead characters you refer to aid in remembering leading to recognition of the process Man serves and the meaning of life.

If it works for you, great, but why do you have to annoy the rest of us with it? I mean it's not like you're going to persuade anybody.

[Immanuel Can]

I happen to think we are a cosmic accident and being badgered about it by the Nicks of this world gets right up my nose.

And you can. No problem.

Naturally, all that good philosophy requires of one is that one believes consistently what one claims one believes...no more. But once one has said "we're an accident," then all talk of that same person existing for a "purpose" is manifestly inconsistent. Nothing says one is not allowed to be irrational, either; but that's not what philosophy tries to achieve.

One can choose to believe we're a cosmic accident, of course. But beliefs have consequences, rationally speaking. The consequence is that to apply terms like "meaning" and "purpose" to an essentially accidental existence becomes absurd.

[Harbal]

The consequence is that to apply terms like "meaning" and "purpose" to an essentially accidental existence becomes absurd.

Why is inventing your own purpose absurd yet being given one by a "higher power" not absurd?

[Immanuel Can]

The consequence is that to apply terms like "meaning" and "purpose" to an essentially accidental existence becomes absurd.

Why is inventing your own purpose absurd yet being given one by a "higher power" not absurd?

Okay: before I respond to your response, perhaps we need to clear up a possible misunderstanding that could ensue. We use the word "purpose" two ways: one, the actual function or intention of a thing, and the other, merely the wish or desire of an agent. The first is primarily a noun, and the second is primarily a verb. But they're not quite the same concept. The second is a thing human beings happen do; but the first is a real thing that (if it exists) would exist even if human beings failed to know it. In other words, the first is objective, and the second is merely subjective.

So a person can decide what she will "purpose" (sense 2) to do in her life, without that implying that there is any ultimate "purpose" (sense 1) in her life, or that she has a destiny to which she must be "authentic," or a "meaning". Plenty of people make up things they want (or "purpose," sense 2) to do, or even imagine they have an ultimate "purpose" (sense 1): but the one thing they cannot have, if they are only here by cosmic accident, is a genuine type 1 purpose. Because, they don't actually exist for any reason, by definition of what an "accident" means.

So whatever they imagine, it's just a delusion. The deep truth is that there is no purpose, and their imaginary "purpose" is just a lullaby they're singing to themselves while they progress toward extinction.

Camus talks about the situation of such a self-deluded, purpose-imagining person as "intellectual suicide." They tell themselves they have purpose, because they're not courageous enough to be what he calls "the absurd hero," and to face up to the ultimate meaninglessness and purposeless of existence, he says.

And if there is no Creator, then Camus is right. Inventing a "purpose" or "meaning," is inauthentic, dishonest, and self-deluding, in that case, and will only form an illusionary barrier between the "condemned to be free" (Sartre) agent and the true reality he or she inhabits, limiting his or her ability to choose freely. It would be the opiate of the Atheist.

[Nick_A]

The consequence is that to apply terms like "meaning" and "purpose" to an essentially accidental existence becomes absurd.

Why is inventing your own purpose absurd yet being given one by a "higher power" not absurd?

Okay: before I respond to your response, perhaps we need to clear up a possible misunderstanding that could ensue. We use the word "purpose" two ways: one, the actual function or intention of a thing, and the other, merely the wish or desire of an agent. The first is primarily a noun, and the second is primarily a verb. But they're not quite the same concept. The second is a thing human beings happen do; but the first is a real thing that (if it exists) would exist even if human beings failed to know it. In other words, the first is objective, and the second is merely subjective.

So a person can decide what she will "purpose" (sense 2) to do in her life, without that implying that there is any ultimate "purpose" (sense 1) in her life, or that she has a destiny to which she must be "authentic," or a "meaning". Plenty of people make up things they want (or "purpose," sense 2) to do, or even imagine they have an ultimate "purpose" (sense 1): but the one thing they cannot have, if they are only here by cosmic accident, is a genuine type 1 purpose. Because, they don't actually exist for any reason, by definition of what an "accident" means.

So whatever they imagine, it's just a delusion. The deep truth is that there is no purpose, and their imaginary "purpose" is just a lullaby they're singing to themselves while they progress toward extinction.

Camus talks about the situation of such a self-deluded, purpose-imagining person as "intellectual suicide." They tell themselves they have purpose, because they're not courageous enough to be what he calls "the absurd hero," and to face up to the ultimate meaninglessness and purposeless of existence, he says.

And if there is no Creator, then Camus is right. Inventing a "purpose" or "meaning," is inauthentic, dishonest, and self-deluding, in that case, and will only form an illusionary barrier between the "condemned to be free" (Sartre) agent and the true reality he or she inhabits, limiting his or her ability to choose freely. It would be the opiate of the Atheist.

Well put IC, We can easily define subjective purposes for living which have nothing to do with objective universal purpose and the purpose of life and hence its meaning within this objective purpose. These speculations are an annoyance to some but really are at the core of both the attraction to philosophy and religion. Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

[Harbal]

We can easily define subjective purposes for living which have nothing to do with objective universal purpose and the purpose of life and hence its meaning within this objective purpose. These speculations are an annoyance to some but really are at the core of both the attraction to philosophy and religion. Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

Shut up, Nick, there's a serious discussion taking place now. You can look but please don't touch.

[Nick_A]

We can easily define subjective purposes for living which have nothing to do with objective universal purpose and the purpose of life and hence its meaning within this objective purpose. These speculations are an annoyance to some but really are at the core of both the attraction to philosophy and religion. Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

Shut up, Nick, there's a serious discussion taking place now. You can look but please don't touch.

An extraordinary expression of secular intolerance. Bravo!

There is a current discussion taking place on this board: "On Living Without Transcendence: A Homage to Camus" As we know, that most hated woman Simone Weil was called the greatest mind of the times by Albert Camus. Imagine the annoyance if i posted what they agreed upon. It would be too annoying to consider. You would have a severe attack if indigestion

[davidm]

Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

And here is your typical slander of people who don't believe as you do. EVERYONE asks these questions -- who am I? Why am I here? It's just that many of us don't agree with your answers to those questions.-- not that we ignore the questions and play with the remote. Rather, we don't delude ourselves into believing, as you and ICan do, that there is a Big Man in the Sky who justifies our existence. There isn't.

Now go play with your remote (shine box?)

[Nick_A]

Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

And here is your typical slander of people who don't believe as you do. EVERYONE asks these questions -- who am I? Why am I here? It's just that many of us don't agree with your answers to those questions.-- not that we ignore the questions and play with the remote. Rather, we don't delude ourselves into believing, as you and ICan do, that there is a Big Man in the Sky who justifies our existence. There isn't.

Now go play with your remote (shine box?)

What is the sense of asking the question if you've decided it has no answer? Just create your own reality. That is an Oprahism. Fine if it satisfies you. However there are sincere people who are not content with the escapism of creating their own reality

[davidm]

Who am I? Why am I here? These are annoying questions. Just play with your remote and don't bother us. The modern philosophical solution.

And here is your typical slander of people who don't believe as you do. EVERYONE asks these questions -- who am I? Why am I here? It's just that many of us don't agree with your answers to those questions.-- not that we ignore the questions and play with the remote. Rather, we don't delude ourselves into believing, as you and ICan do, that there is a Big Man in the Sky who justifies our existence. There isn't.

Now go play with your remote (shine box?)

What is the sense of asking the question if you've decided it has no answer? Just create your own reality. That is an Oprahism. Fine if it satisfies you. However there are sincere people who are not content with the escapism of creating their own reality

Why do you think the question has no answer unless it presupposes a Big Daddy in the Sky? That's called begging the question. People like you and ICan stack the deck by saying even to ask the question is to presuppose the answer. I say life can and does have meaning without need of a creator. Of course these meanings are subjective -- my meaning will differ from yours.

[Nick_A]

And here is your typical slander of people who don't believe as you do. EVERYONE asks these questions -- who am I? Why am I here? It's just that many of us don't agree with your answers to those questions.-- not that we ignore the questions and play with the remote. Rather, we don't delude ourselves into believing, as you and ICan do, that there is a Big Man in the Sky who justifies our existence. There isn't.

Now go play with your remote (shine box?)

What is the sense of asking the question if you've decided it has no answer? Just create your own reality. That is an Oprahism. Fine if it satisfies you. However there are sincere people who are not content with the escapism of creating their own reality

Why do you think the question has no answer unless it presupposes a Big Daddy in the Sky? That's called begging the question. People like you and ICan stack the deck by saying even to ask the question is to presuppose the answer. I say life can and does have meaning without need of a creator. Of course these meanings are subjective -- my meaning will differ from yours.

Are you suggesting that the universe has no objective purpose so you provide your idea of a subjective purpose which somehow replaces a universal purpose. If not, what is the objective purpose of life in the universe which gives the life of Man its objective meaning? What could provide it other than a conscious source?

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to consider that the only purpose of this vast universal machine has only purpose you, less than a speck within it, give it.

[davidm]

So what is the objective purpose of life in the universe which gives the life of Man its objective meaning?

The universe does not give the life of Man its objective meaning. That is the point. The universe is mindless. It does not care about us. And humans do not have an objective meaning. Our purposes and meanings, if we have them, are subjective.

What could provide it other than a conscious source?

There is no evidence of a conscious source or an objective meaning.

If the entire history of the earth (which is much younger than the universe) were compressed into a calendar year, modern humans make their first appearance at about a tenth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year, Dec. 31. That's how irrelevant we are. If you take into account the history of the universe as a whole, our first appearance on the timeline of the universe as a whole is almost incalculable -- probably a billionth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year.

[davidm]

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to consider that the only purpose of this vast universal machine has only purpose you, less than a speck within it, give it.

I don't give the universe purpose, and it does not give me purpose. I give myself purpose.

[Nick_A]

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to consider that the only purpose of this vast universal machine has only purpose you, less than a speck within it, give it.

I don't give the universe purpose, and it does not give me purpose. I give myself purpose.

Yes, you give yourself purpose and that is the only purpose within the great universe. Seems a bit egotistical