The Search for Meaning

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

In their 1983 film The Meaning of Life, Monty Python took their departing shot at the movie-going public, and simultaneously at philosophical aspirations. With their customary combination of profundity and profanity they systematically skewered the idea that any meaning at all can be derived from the pell-mell absurdity of human life.

Meaning what?

Really, there's no getting around the fact that our lives are bursting at the seams with meaning. But that's not the point. Well, not mine anyway. Instead, the point seems to be that in regard to value judgments there does not appear to be a way in which to reconcile all the conflicting assessments such that in regard to moral and political interactions the optimal, deontological meaning can be ascertained.

In other words, not just up in the theoretical clouds.

Tracking Shakespeare’s ‘Seven Ages of Man’, the film derided every scheme by which humankind tries to assign purpose to the universe. It culminated in the following pronouncement:

Lady Presenter: Well, that’s the end of the film. Now, here’s the meaning of life.
[Receives an envelope]
Lady Presenter: Thank you, Brigitte.
[Opens envelope, reads what’s inside]
Lady Presenter: Hmm. Well, it’s nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations…

What I call a "general description intellectual contraption". The point isn't to embrace those goals so much as it is to come up with a way in which reconfigure those theoretical assessments into actual social, political and economic policy.

If we could take them seriously, it would seem that the meaning of life came down to no more than one or two unctuous platitudes served cold.

That's often what the moral objectivists among us will go about serving up as well. Technical points they may or may not be able to instantiate existentially.

But of course they didn’t intend us to believe them. Long before the film’s release, they made it clear that despite the promise in the title, there would be no meaning forthcoming. The promotional poster depicts the hand of God using a screwdriver to screw each of the six members of the comedy troupe into the ground. “If we want meaning,” they seem to be saying, “we’re all screwed anyway.”

Of course, in reality it doesn't work like that at all. Instead, the vast majority of men and women around the globe are indoctrinated as children to embrace one or another One True Path. And though some change course as adults, it's usually only to shift gears to yet another One True Path.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

The Context of the Question

We were two-thirds the way through a unit on metaphysics [in his high school philosophy class] when we ran into a chapter bearing the ambitious title ‘A Meaning for Existence’. The text then plunged into the various views on God: Theism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism…

There are a few more as well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Of course, some of them do challenge the idea that mere mortals have access to an essential meaning. Well, perhaps, not counting those who argue that in fact this is the essential meaning of human interactions.

This seemed a bit of an arbitrary association, so we paused to question the value of the question of the meaning of life itself, breaking it down it to see if it made any sense, and to see whether or not there was another direction to take on the issue not offered by the text.

Which of course reflects my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment. If only in regard to the is/ought world far, far, far more than the either/or world.

On the other hand, what could possibly be more indicative of human social, political and economic relationships? It just comes down [for most of us] to whether or not we are then inclined to insist as well that others are either "one of us" or "one of them".

In questioning the question, we chose to proceed through analytic rather than synthetic means. For those unfamiliar with this distinction, an analytic procedure asks questions about the meaning of words themselves, trying to see what is assumed in their use. By contrast, a synthetic procedure is one which takes certain basic concepts or their definitions for granted, in order to open up the possibility of generating additional ideas. It sees what the implications are of assuming the initial meanings to be true.

So, which one makes the most sense to you? Then, given a particular set of circumstances, note how, in your view, one is different from the other "for all practical purposes."

In other words, we can say that in analytical statements, the information can be known to be true or false by analysing the meaning of the words in the statement, whereas for synthetic statements we would need to know more than the meaning of the words themselves.

Then the part where one way or another any number of philosophers are eager to insist that it's "my way or the highway".

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

An illustration may help. ‘Apples are red’ is a synthetic judgment, because apples can also be green, or yellow, or brownish, or whatever. On the other hand, when we say ‘Apples are fruit’, we are not attributing to apples a thing which is optional like their particular colour, but rather we are specifying a property intrinsic to the meaning of the word ‘apple’. Thus, the statement ‘Apples are fruit’ is an analytic statement: no one who genuinely understands what we are referring to by the words can avoid conceding that an apple is necessarily a fruit – unless they want to refer to a different concept altogether, such as ‘a picture of an apple’ or an ‘Apple computer’. To proceed analytically, then, is to discern the definition of the concept itself, not to posit some changeable or contingent quality of it.

"‘The analytic/synthetic distinction’ refers to a distinction between two kinds of truth. Synthetic truths are true both because of what they mean and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone. ‘Snow is white,’ for example, is synthetic, because it is true partly because of what it means and partly because snow has a certain color. All bachelors are unmarried,’ by contrast, is often claimed to be true regardless of the way the world is; it is true in virtue of meaning,’ or analytic. oxford bibliographies

Again, this is the part where, in my view, meaning revolves around things that we are almost always able to actually verify. And then agree on. An apple is an apple around the globe. You merely have to go further in your description…variety, color, taste, cost, etc.

On the other hand, no one is able to demonstrate that, for example, apples taste better than any other fruit. Instead, these subjective assessments are rooted more in the arguments I make regarding value judgments and conflicting goods.

If “I” do say so myself. Though, even then, only here and now.

Thus, analytic judgments are true by definition, as Christine Korsgaard says in her introduction to Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. She does not mean that they always lead to perfect truth, but that they expose definitions so that we can see whether they are any good.

And then back to the part where for thousands of years now the definitions given have never been such that philosophers in regard to value judgments and conflicting goods now all agree on the optimal assessment?

And given any context?

We can always abandon a concept we’ve been using if analysis shows it to be incoherent. Synthetic statements are always inherently questionable, since they add aspects or characteristics to a concept that are not necessarily inherent in it.

This is the part where I ask others here if they agree with this distinction. And, if so, would they please note how it is applicable given their own interactions with others. What parts are synthetic and what parts are analytic.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

The Question of Meaning

What my students were interested in was whether or not there was a meaningful sense in which we could ask, ‘Does existence have any meaning?’

Consider...

What does it mean to go grocery shopping?
What does it mean to graduate from high school?
What does it mean to win the lottery?
What does it mean to submit posts here?
What does it mean to have an abortion?
What does it mean to have a brain tumor?
What does it mean to commit suicide?

And on and on and on with questions that, in any number of cases, are clearly [and often indisputably] meaningful to all rational men and women.

In other words, the quandary here revolves far more around the extent to which we can actually demonstrate that what we do find meaningful encompasses a completely rational -- virtuous? -- frame of mind. Which always brings me back around to human interactions in the either/or world vs. human interactions in the world of conflicting goods.

if there was any sense in which we could talk about life having a meaning: their lives, my life, all human lives, and ultimately, the ‘life’ of the universe itself, perhaps. That is to say, they wanted to know if they were reasonable to hope that their lives might be governed by some purpose or fundamental justification.

More to the point [mine] are all those who are not only entirely convinced that their own life's "purpose and justification" reflects the best of all possible worlds, but insist, as well, it is the only possible world for those who wish to be thought of as either enlightened or eligible for immortality and salvation.

While I might fairly easily have found a way to deflect my students, I chose instead to honour their curiosity. So we embarked on our analysis of the meaning of meaning, asking ourselves what someone could expect when he or she supposes that life could have a meaning, and what sort of answer would respect his or her aspirations.

Come on, let's be blunt. Conflicts erupt daily around the globe precisely because assessments of meaning and morality emerge from those on the extreme right all the way to those on the extreme left.

And what is human history to date if not a constant barrage of those who embrace "my way or the highway...or else"?

[Belinda]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

The Question of Meaning

What my students were interested in was whether or not there was a meaningful sense in which we could ask, ‘Does existence have any meaning?’

Consider...

What does it mean to go grocery shopping?
What does it mean to graduate from high school?
What does it mean to win the lottery?
What does it mean to submit posts here?
What does it mean to have an abortion?
What does it mean to have a brain tumor?
What does it mean to commit suicide?

And on and on and on with questions that, in any number of cases, are clearly [and often indisputably] meaningful to all rational men and women.

In other words, the quandary here revolves far more around the extent to which we can actually demonstrate that what we do find meaningful encompasses a completely rational -- virtuous? -- frame of mind. Which always brings me back around to human interactions in the either/or world vs. human interactions in the world of conflicting goods.

if there was any sense in which we could talk about life having a meaning: their lives, my life, all human lives, and ultimately, the ‘life’ of the universe itself, perhaps. That is to say, they wanted to know if they were reasonable to hope that their lives might be governed by some purpose or fundamental justification.

More to the point [mine] are all those who are not only entirely convinced that their own life's "purpose and justification" reflects the best of all possible worlds, but insist, as well, it is the only possible world for those who wish to be thought of as either enlightened or eligible for immortality and salvation.

While I might fairly easily have found a way to deflect my students, I chose instead to honour their curiosity. So we embarked on our analysis of the meaning of meaning, asking ourselves what someone could expect when he or she supposes that life could have a meaning, and what sort of answer would respect his or her aspirations.

Come on, let's be blunt. Conflicts erupt daily around the globe precisely because assessments of meaning and morality emerge from those on the extreme right all the way to those on the extreme left.

And what is human history to date if not a constant barrage of those who embrace "my way or the highway...or else"?

Factors that stop an otherwise healthy man searching for his meaning/purpose are

* laziness
*indoctrination
*greed
*vanity
^ arrogance
^conceit

[Belinda]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

The Question of Meaning

What my students were interested in was whether or not there was a meaningful sense in which we could ask, ‘Does existence have any meaning?’

Consider...

What does it mean to go grocery shopping?
What does it mean to graduate from high school?
What does it mean to win the lottery?
What does it mean to submit posts here?
What does it mean to have an abortion?
What does it mean to have a brain tumor?
What does it mean to commit suicide?

And on and on and on with questions that, in any number of cases, are clearly [and often indisputably] meaningful to all rational men and women.

In other words, the quandary here revolves far more around the extent to which we can actually demonstrate that what we do find meaningful encompasses a completely rational -- virtuous? -- frame of mind. Which always brings me back around to human interactions in the either/or world vs. human interactions in the world of conflicting goods.

if there was any sense in which we could talk about life having a meaning: their lives, my life, all human lives, and ultimately, the ‘life’ of the universe itself, perhaps. That is to say, they wanted to know if they were reasonable to hope that their lives might be governed by some purpose or fundamental justification.

More to the point [mine] are all those who are not only entirely convinced that their own life's "purpose and justification" reflects the best of all possible worlds, but insist, as well, it is the only possible world for those who wish to be thought of as either enlightened or eligible for immortality and salvation.

While I might fairly easily have found a way to deflect my students, I chose instead to honour their curiosity. So we embarked on our analysis of the meaning of meaning, asking ourselves what someone could expect when he or she supposes that life could have a meaning, and what sort of answer would respect his or her aspirations.

Come on, let's be blunt. Conflicts erupt daily around the globe precisely because assessments of meaning and morality emerge from those on the extreme right all the way to those on the extreme left.

And what is human history to date if not a constant barrage of those who embrace "my way or the highway...or else"?

Factors that stop an otherwise healthy man searching for his meaning/purpose are

* laziness
*indoctrination
*greed
*vanity
*arrogance
*conceit

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

Meaning Beyond Personal Existence

On the other hand, since our own personal experiences can vary significantly, is it any wonder that, in regard to meaning, "failures to communicate" run rampant?

But this, in my view, revolves far more around conflicting value judgments rooted historically and culturally -- i.e. socially, politically and economically -- in any number of incompatible convictions regarding, among other things, the best of all possible worlds?

Pretty quickly, we arrived at a basic conclusion: that whatever the answer was, it would have to be something intelligible.

More to the point, however, regarding meaning and morality, there are hundreds and hundreds of objectivists "out there" who insist [sometimes brutally] that only their own "intelligible" assessment is acceptable. Either that or they have acquired the power to simply impose their own political agenda on citizens.

We decided that to refer to inarticulable feelings and impressions as a basis of meaning made no sense. A person might have such things, to be sure, and they might be a source of considerable personal satisfaction; but they seemed to us to fall far short of what we were expecting of a meaning to life, since they could be experienced without the experiencer being able to say anything at all about them.

Of course, "in reality" there does not appear to be a neat and tidy "one size fits all" understanding of where thinking/thoughts actually do give way to feelings/emotions. Besides, in my view, both [along with intuition] are rooted existentially in dasein.

And, as always, that crucial distinction between existential meaning derived from our day-to-day interactions with others, and an essential meaning said to be applicable to all of us.

We decided, then, that meaning implied some sort of rational predication about life: that meaning meant this or meant that, not merely that it ‘felt good’.

Yes, and this works well for many. In fact, it works so well for some, they then insist that it will work well for everyone.

Or else.

This proved to be a very important step. There’s plenty of talk about life having a meaning which is bound up with wholly private experiences: but we decided that such talk has to be nonsense. It abuses the word ‘meaning’, since that word entails some property of life which can be made intelligible, even if only to the person him or herself. If nonsense syllables or irrational sensations are all there could be, then it seemed to us that the concept of meaning was itself simply out of court.

Okay, here we go again. Do you share this assessment? If so, then please note how it is applicable to the behaviors you choose given particular sets of circumstances. Behaviors revolving around both the either/or world and the is/ought world.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

Meaning Beyond Social Existence

At that point, we could see that a proper answer to the meaning of life question would be something everyone who could understand language could at least in principle understand (whether they chose to agree with it or not).

And how is agreeing with something "in principle" different from agreeing with something "theoretically"? Don't both revolve basically around agreeing with the definition and the meaning given to the words in the argument itself? On the other hand, "you do not yet know the details or know if it will be possible."

Like the religious folks here going on and on about the existence of God by quoting from one or another Scripture.

This is how communities of people get attached to particular meanings for existence, when they discuss it with each other, developing the philosophical implications of their answer. In fact, that looked very much like what philosophers always do. So far, so good.

On the other hand, language becomes entangled in historical and cultural contexts, in social, political and economic interactions ever and always unfolding in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

As for the philosophical implications, well, back to what I construe to be the clear limitations of language in regard to conflicting value judgments...conflicting goods.

But does the matter rest there?

Yes, in fact, it does. At least for the objectivists among us. The only limitations for them revolve basically around deciding what to do to those who refuse to become "one of us". Or for those of the wrong color or gender or sexual orientation or political convictions...? Let's note their fate given the history of human interactions to date.

More to the point [mine] is that philosophically "my way or the highway" still prevails among many of these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

If it does, it would seem that asking “Does existence have a meaning?” would be equivalent to asking, “Do communities of persons have shared meanings for existence?” Of course, they do: but so what?

And, I suspect, until the deontologists and ideologues among are able to pin down the One True Path to a truly enlightened moral philosophy...? Or a God, the God reveals Himself...?

We’re asking a question about existence, or perhaps life. To say that different people hold different views merely seemed to beg the question “Views of what?” In other words, it’s not enough to simply note that different communities have different views. We observe that communities committed to particular answers to the question of the meaning of life get into debates with other communities. We could ask, “What are they arguing about?”

Of course, I go beyond that. It's not what people are arguing about or what they've come to believe is true that seems most important to me. Instead, I'm far more fascinated with how, existentially, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, we come to acquire one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

Then the part where philosophers have been around for thousands of years now and yet in regard to conflicting goods ...?

You tell me.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

This led us to a new question: does meaning have to exist prior to our discovery of it, or could it be in some sense constructed – a product of personal reflection and social consensus?

Clearly, any number of things in our life are not only meaningful to us but meaningful in the same way to others. We come into this world hard-wired to either discover or to invent meaning. Meaning that is derived from material interactions embedded in the laws of nature. So, from the cradle to grave we come across things that are meaningful to us and to others. Only the meaning they give to it might be considerably at odds with the meaning you give to it. Then, depending on the context, a failure to communicate can result in any number of conflicts.

Human history to date, for example.

We decided that if it were the latter -- "a product of personal reflection and social consensus" -- it would be very hard to see how intercommunal discourse on the subject would be profitable, or even possible.

And yet "intercommunal discourse" between any particular community happens all the time. Especially in a modern world awash in mass communication technology. And now around the globe. The part where things are found essentially and objectively meaningful in the either/or world and the part where any number of folks on any number of one true paths are historically bent on insisting that only their own path actually counts. God or No God.

Would it not then be true, as our postmoderns love to affirm, that different communities of meaning would be locked into their own rational spaces, incapable of meaningful communication with rival communities?

Over and again: it depends on the context. And the extent to which some believe "in their head" that something is essentially true because, well, they believe that it is. As opposed to being able to actually demonstrate why what they believe all rational men and women are in fact obligated to believe in turn.

If so, it would be expedient to the collective peace that we eliminate the meaning question from public debate and simply agree to disagree.

Okay, but out in the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions this can only be manifested in communities that accept one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law. As opposed to those communities that are sustained given a "might makes right" mentality or a "right makes might" mentality.

And in a world still bursting at the seams with any number of conflicting dogmas, how exactly would "we're right from our side you're right from your side" play itself out for all practical purposes given the part where conflicting moral philosophies have to be manifested politically in actual legal prescriptions and proscriptions.

Moreover, if we were to suppose that any of these strictly culturally-relative meanings were legitimate, how would we establish their legitimacy in the absence of reference to any universal, objective axioms?

They establish their legitimacy by commanding obedience [the blinder the better] or else.

On the other hand, there are always going to be those like Trump who may claim to be "draining the swamp" but the presence of all those billionaires around him suggests otherwise. And any number of his evangelic supporters are intent, as well, on embracing "prosperity gospel".

But if we were to suppose that meaning does exist independently of the community, and that different philosophical communities are actually attempting to approximate to the same pre-existing, overarching meaning, then it would be unreasonable to ask them to quit debating the meaning of existence, and we would believe there to be, at least in principle, some means of judging between them.

Make of this what you will. Only I suggest that what most will make of it revolves existentially around dasein. In other words, fuck things like "principle" and "ideals". Unless, of course, you are absolutely convinced that your own One True Path reflects them beyond all doubt.

Then dealing with those who do doubt it.

[Belinda]

Dasein refers to subjective interpretations, subjective perceptions of one's own life as it seems to oneself. The word 'Dasein' may become popularised so it loses its precision. So far this has not happened.

'Existence' has long since lost any precision it may ever have had. The word 'existence' therefore falls into the category of words where the meaning of a word is its (social) use.

We are supposed to be philosophers . Philosophers retain definable precise meanings e.g. of the word 'existence'. If we are to be philosophers we must first define our terms. Defining our terms is a well trodden path. Just read the books!

Meaning is itself a social construct; otherwise one believes in God.

But wait a minute! My social theory of language is itself a social construct! And so to post modernism.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

...philosophical and religious communities of meaning certainly seem to think they can debate each other: but that is merely an empirical observation, not an analytic judgment on the meaning of meaning.

Merely empirical observations? As though in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, analytical judgments take precedence? And of course those who come into conflict regarding meaning and morality can debate each other. It's just that these debates have been ongoing now for thousands of years.

Enough said?

Many different communities merely presume their own assessment of the human condition is either the optimal assessment or, in fact, is the one and the only rational assessment there can ever be.

More importantly, to merely say, “Different communities have different views” would have been patronizing and unhelpful. My students already knew that.

Here, however, is where I interject with my own subjective assumption that the focus should be less on what different communities say about "one of us" and "one of them" and more on how -- existentially, historically, culturally, experientially etc. -- they came to think and feel as they do in the first place.

In other words, the part where particular ethicists acknowledge this yet insist that using the philosophical tools at their disposal, they can provide mere mortals in a No God universe with a deontological meaning and morality. They're either still working at it or are already convinced they've found it given all of the One True Paths there are that do insist they've found it.

Thus...

They could remind me that the various communities holding to different views of ultimate meaning seem to feel pretty strongly that something bigger is at stake.

God or No God. But however strongly someone thinks and feels about something pertaining to meaning and morality, that's not the same as actually demonstrating why all other rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

All those of my ilk are left with is challenging/provoking the objectivists among us to at least attempt this.

They could also accuse me of evading a major analytical implication of their question – namely that the concept ‘meaning’ here referred to existence itself, not simply to any contingent communities.

Yeah, that's basically how I go about it myself. The distinction between existential meaning all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum, and essential or universal meaning in a No God world.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

...it seemed clear there was no way to do justice to the question “Does existence have a meaning?” without understanding ‘existence’ to imply some sort of universal meaning.

Then the part where any number men and women around the globe will embrace that wholeheartedly. But only, of course, if by universal, it all comes to revolve around "one of us" vs. "one of them".

Moreover, it would not be enough if this universal meaning were merely a product of human judgment, even if we could ever get the entire human race to agree on it, since a meaning accepted by the entire human race might be as arbitrary as a meaning propounded by an individual or a limited community.

In the interim, however, any number of objectivists among us already assume that what they champion on their very own One True Path need be as far as anyone goes if they wish to become enlightened. And, for others, saved.

Nothing in the increase of numbers of an idea’s adherents guarantees its infallibility. In fact, it could be the case that there is no meaning to the universe at all, and that all ‘meanings’ are merely fictions by which we keep ourselves from facing the abyss.

I know: let's not go there?

On the other hand, while there may well be no essential meaning mere mortals in a No God world can agree on, existential meaning may well be better than no meaning at all. It has to be, doesn't it? At least until one or another God decides to reveal Himself or one or another philosopher/scientist is able to provide us with a deontology moral philosophy.

Their real question, then, was whether there is an independent, objective meaning to existence, not merely a universally-held attribution of meaning.

That may well be the real question here but what on Earth is the real answer? Then back to those who clamor to bring others around to their own way of thinking. In other words, to either enlighten or save them. Or both, of course.

The implications of this would be significant. Say goodbye to the Existentialist account of the meaning of existence, along with the Constructionist view and the Cultural Relativist view. All such answers are dismissals of the idea of an objective, ultimate meaning.

On the contrary, some suspect, any number of those who have come to embody the above frames of mind might insist their path already encompasses not only the idea of objective, ultimate meaning, but morally and politically and spiritually they, are acting this out given their interactions with others.

They would now only be different responses to the human need to invent some kind of meaning for an existence which, objectively, is random and meaningless. The question then is whether there exists a prior meaning to be discovered, not whether people happen to like imagining meanings for existence.

My own bottom line, as well. However, how do the objectivists among us obviate even the possibility of this? Well, they simply believe what they do about it "in their head" and that is what makes it true.

[Belinda]

By 'meaning' are we to understand a coherent system as opposed to chaos?

A coherent system is a system of which all parts are necessary, not contingent.
A contingency arises and ceases to exist without any disturbance to the system as a whole. Contingencies are impossible because both differentiated events and the system itself necessarily happened due to all events being caused events.

The coherent system itself, the Cosmos, necessarily happened whether or not there be minds, because nature is not only mental but also physical. There are possibly infinite ways to understand nature and the Cosmos. The mental way and the physical way are available to us and they harmonise with each other.

[puto]

Self-evident is true by meaning and needs not further proof or justification. To have knowledge, not an opinion doxa, or cognition katalepsis. Scepticism is, "Seek and keep an open mind." As Descartes wrote, if we can doubt, then not knowledge. Most posts' were 'arguments from ignorance', we cannot show knowledge of the external world. Challenging, the possibility of certain knowledge of the JTB.

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.

Meaning Beyond Universal Existence

But the issue of ‘ontological priority’ (existing beforehand and independently) implicit in the question raised a final difficult issue. We had not yet observed a very important analytic feature of the word meaning: it implies intention – someone has to mean something for something to have meaning. Or, for something to have a meaning there must be a ‘meaner’. But who or what could do the intending in the way required?

Intentions? Don't some tell us that the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions? And, from my frame of mind, intentions are no less embedded/embodied existentially in dasein. Then the part where the "meaner" either embraces might makes right or right makes might in order to make it clear that others had better come around to sharing that meaning as well. Or else.

That's why any number of us still cling to God as the mother/father of all "meaners". After all, with God and religion, the "or else" part can be particularly ominous. Also, for many Gods [and flocks of sheep] this is all backed up with omniscience and omnipotence.

It couldn’t be inanimate forces. We do not correctly say, “The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 meant to destroy the city” even though that was its effect.

That's the quandary for some. If natural disasters are but another inherent manifestation of the "brute facticity" embedded in a Godless universe -- a shit just happens universe -- then what? Better to take a leap of faith or to make a wager or to pray to one or another God capable of providing us with "ontological priorities". Not to mention "teleological priorities" encompassed in this One True Path to enlightenment, immortality and salvation.

Likewise, we cannot rightly say, “Chance meant for us to become the sorts of people we are today,” even though we have become what we are. These are mere anthropomorphisms, which assign intentions to things which cannot possibly have them.

Here though we are in the same boat. Given all of the many, many existential variables that come together [historically, culturally and experientially] to create a particular sense of identity, and given the manner in which the Benjamin Button Syndrome puts many of these variables beyond our either fully understanding or controlling, why should it surprise anyone that "failures to communicate" are ever piling up.

"I" just explore what I construe to be an important distinction here between an objective self in the either/or world and a considerably more problematic "self" in the is/ought world.