What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is only that subjective purpose or subjective meaning must be synonyms for delusion. For if they actually corresponded
to anything intrinsically true or valuable in reality itself they would no longer be merely subjective but would be morally obligatory
for the person in question and hence objective

There are two problems with this

Firstly just because something is intrinsically true or valuable does not mean human beings are compelled to do it as
that would be a denial of free will. Human beings should do good because they want to and not because they have to

It depends on what one means by "obligatory." If we mean, "has no choice but to do," then you would be correct. But I do not mean that. I mean "has no choice but to do IF one is hoping to achieve one's objective purpose or have objective meaning in one's life." A man may, of course, do has he wishes: but he may thereby contradict the true meaning of his existence (assuming such exists) and fail to achieve the true purpose of his existence (assuming such exists).

So the belief in free will is not upset by that claim. It's possible for a person to be quite free, and at the same time, for there to actually be an objective purpose or meaning -- it simply means a man doesn't automatically always achieve these.

After all, that's the way we humans talk about objective meaning and purpose, don't we? Some of us worry over whether or not we've "found" the meaning of life, and we sometimes fret over whether or not we've achieved our true "purpose." But our fretting and worrying is only because we think we still have free will, and could possibly miss these things.

Secondly there are many things that are intrinsically true or valuable not just one as you seem to imply. So again human
beings can exercise their free will and decide which intrinsically true or valuable thing [ or things ] it is they want to do

But "intrinsically" would mean "whether or not someone outside of the thing decides otherwise." So the value of the "valuable" thing would no longer then be subjective at all. And the assessor's "subjective" valuation would be no more than either an agreeing with the "intrinsic" value of the thing, or a failure to recognize the "intrinsic" value.

But the value of an "intrinsically-valuable" thing is intrinsic...that is, it's "in itself," as the word implies, not extrinsic to that thing, and thus not merely determined by the the subjectivity of the observer.

But I would be very interested to see what you would regard as "intrinsically true and valuable." You say there are "many" such things. Then it seems that it should not be difficult to list a couple...can you name one?

[surreptitious57]

But I would be very interested to see what you would regard as intrinsically true and valuable. You say there are many such things
Then it seems that it should not be difficult to list a couple ... can you name one

When I said that I meant it from a subjective perspective and not an objective one. You say that intrinsic pertains to a thing itself and
it does but deciding whether or not something has that quality is a value judgement and therefore cannot be objective. What someone
thinks is intrinsically true is not necessarily what everyone else thinks is intrinsically true and so there is no consensus of opinion on this

[Immanuel Can]

...deciding whether or not something has that quality is a value judgement and therefore cannot be objective.

The judgment itself is a "subjective" act, it's true; for all human "judgments" are, by definition, subjective, in that a "subject" performs them. But a subjective action can conform to objective truth, or can fail to do so. A value judgment can judge an intrinsic value rightly or wrongly, if such exist. So to insist all judgments were noting but subjective, you would first have to show that no objective value can possibly exist.

But you just said that there are some "intrinsically valuable" things, though you didn't say what they were yet. If there are some, then our fallible, human judgments about them can be right or wrong.

So subjective judgments can be objectively correct, or objectively false.

What someone thinks is intrinsically true is not necessarily what everyone else thinks is intrinsically true and so there is no consensus of opinion on this

Well, you'll realize of course that consensus is not an indicator of truth. Lack of consensus does not imply falsehood. To suppose so would be bandwagon fallacy.

Some people's subjective judgments may be wrong, and some may be right, or all may be wrong. The only thing we know for certain is that if they are mutually contradictory, then at least some subjective judgments are errant or wrong.

But this is only to say the same thing I said above.

[davidm]

But unless I miss my guess ...

You miss your guess.

But as children eventually learn, reality does not particularly care what one wants. Reality offers only what it offers, and does not offer what it does not. .

Amazing how you do not spot the irony of this statement.

Interestingly, you have nothing of substance to offer by way of refutation. That I do "spot."

But I have responded -- repeatedly and in detail -- to your claims about morality, and how an atheist conceives of moral behavior. Dear me, I am sure I have responded in far more detail to you on this subject than your other interlocutors. You have never refuted anything I have said but like a broken record keep going back to repeating the same old things over and over. Why respond further? The irony, of course, is that reality does not and cannot offer a big Sky Daddy, which you have simply invented.

[Harbal]

Given your willingness to face facts as Camus perceived them to be, he'd have probably slapped you on the back and said, "Good lad"; but he'd have had nothing but contempt for any Atheist who said that in spite of their accidental origins, the happenstances of life and the impending extinction at death, they still could have objective meaning and purpose. He would regard that as a stupefying delusion.

I'm not really sure why you are measuring my view against that of this Camus fellow. I would have been more interested in your thoughts than his. There is one thing I really would like to know: What exactly is this objective meaning and purpose that some people suppose they have?

[Immanuel Can]

But I have responded...

I grant that you have talked a lot about a different topic. But to this argument, you haven't yet offered any response.

Are you willing to defend "subjective meaning" and "subjective purpose"?

Please, go ahead.

[davidm]

But I have responded...

I grant that you have talked a lot about a different topic. But to this argument, you haven't yet offered any response.

Are you willing to defend "subjective meaning" and "subjective purpose"?

Please, go ahead.

We've had this discussion in other threads and I've already explained my views.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not really sure why you are measuring my view against that of this Camus fellow.

Only because he's an intelligent and articulate spokesperson for a view of life I don't believe. He is more logical in developing the implications of Atheism for "purpose" and "meaning" than practically anyone since Nietzsche; much more courageous about it than I have found most modern Atheists want to be.

And I think Camus and I agree on many of the rational implications of Atheism, in this regard. So he makes a good discourse partner.

I would have been more interested in your thoughts than his.

I appreciate that. However, as a spokesman for Atheism, he is a better choice than I am, since he actually believes in Atheism. So when I speak of the logical consequences of Atheism, it would be more charitable for me to present the view of one of their greater spokespersons, rather than of the lesser contemporaries, wouldn't you suppose?

The problem, you see, is that I find many of the modern Atheists live inconsistently and incoherently -- believing in and acting according to values and beliefs that their worldview gives them no reason to suppose are even possible. In short, they inhabit ill-considered premises.

Camus thinks more deeply than they tend to. So if one ever wants to look at where the logic of Atheism leads, Camus, Sartre or Nietzsche are really good places to start. (Hume has his uses too.) I could have referred to any of them, really, and been more fair thereby than by merely referring to Atheism's less-able spokespeople.

There is one thing I really would like to know: What exactly is this objective meaning and purpose that some people suppose they have?

Such a thing is only possible if our being here is not an accident, but is a product of a deliberate personal Creator. For only then can we say that our existence has a "purpose," and only then can we coherently talk about anyone "meaning" anything by us being here. For one thing we all agree on: "meaning" must be perceived by a living, conscious agent (be it human or God), and "purpose" (at least in a type-1 sense) is only possible to speak of in regard to a world that has a teleology or goal, some outcome toward which its creation was the first step.

Since we are not "self-created" beings, we can no more be our own ultimate purpose and meaning than a man can pull himself off the ground by tugging on his own shoelaces.

Our ultimate purpose, then, is to know and love God. We are created for relationship with our Creator. And the meaning of our lives is to be actualized as the sorts of creatures who are capable, in potential, of entering into such a relationship.

[Immanuel Can]

We've had this discussion in other threads and I've already explained my views.

Well, we've no agreement on morality, which we discussed elsewhere; but we haven't discussed meaning or purpose, the topic of this OP. So no, you've not "explained your views" already.

However, I can well understand why you don't want to touch this argument with a ten-foot pole. You're probably well aware that as an equal alternative to "objective meaning," "subjective meaning" is completely rationally indefensible. So I wouldn't want to try to defend it either.

[Nick_A]

IC

Our ultimate purpose, then, is to know and love God. We are created for relationship with our Creator. And the meaning of our lives is to be actualized as the sorts of creatures who are capable, in potential, of entering into such a relationship.

Einstein wrote:

“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

Simone Weil wrote:

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Do you feel that your thoughts in any way contradict what Einstein and Simone Weil believed? Could human purpose be more than just loving God but also serving God’s will within a universal rather than earthly perspective we are not yet collectively willing to understand? Is there any reason why this purpose cannot become respected by science in the future?

[davidm]

Do you feel that your thoughts in any way contradict what Einstein and Simone Weil believed?

Einstein did not believe in a personal god. Has very explicit about this. He was using "spirit" in a metaphorical or an analogical sense. Trying to hijack Einstein for your own worldview is not honest.

[davidm]

delete duplicate post

[Harbal]

He is more logical in developing the implications of Atheism for "purpose" and "meaning" than practically anyone since Nietzsche; much more courageous about it than I have found most modern Atheists want to be.

I don't think Mr. Camus is really relevant as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe in God, I've never believed in God, living a life without believing in God, or even thinking about the absence of God, is just normal for me, I am not conscious of any implications arising from this state of affairs.

However, as a spokesman for Atheism,

With all due respect to Camus, I don't really want him speaking on my behalf, not least because I don't think there's really anything to be said. For a theist, I'm sure the subject of God is a big deal, that's understandable, but for someone who doesn't believe in God it isn't an issue of any sort, or at least to me it isn't.

he is a better choice than I am, since he actually believes in Atheism.

Yet even more reason for me not to want him as a spokesman. I don't believe in atheism, just in the same way as the fact that I don't wear a hat doesn't mean I don't believe in wearing hats. I'm fine with other people wearing hats and I'm fine with other people being theists. I just don't wear a hat, it's as simple as that.

So when I speak of the logical consequences of Atheism

Although I can see that atheism is a significant thing for you, to me, the "consequences of Atheism" have no more significance than the consequences of stamp collecting or the consequences of liking romantic comedies.

The problem, you see, is that I find many of the modern Atheists live inconsistently and incoherently -- believing in and acting according to values and beliefs that their worldview gives them no reason to suppose are even possible. In short, they inhabit ill-considered premises.

They, presumably, think they have a reason to suppose them possible, whatever they are. I'm sure many an atheist would say your premises are ill considered but I'm sure that wouldn't stop you continuing to consider them. And, if it all works for you, why should you stop, and why should they?

Such a thing is only possible if our being here is not an accident, but is a product of a deliberate personal Creator. For only then can we say that our existence has a "purpose," and only then can we coherently talk about anyone "meaning" anything by us being here. For one thing we all agree on: "meaning" must be perceived by a living, conscious agent (be it human or God), and "purpose" (at least in a type-1 sense) is only possible to speak of in regard to a world that has a teleology or goal, some outcome toward which its creation was the first step.

Well, as I said, I don't believe in type-1 objective purpose. I do believe in the value of subjective purpose, even though I lack it, I can see how it could enrich ones life and I see no reason to think it feels any less fulfilling than objective purpose, although I can only speculate about that.

Our ultimate purpose, then, is to know and love God. We are created for relationship with our Creator. And the meaning of our lives is to be actualized as the sorts of creatures who are capable, in potential, of entering into such a relationship.

I honestly don't mean this in a disrespectful or dismissive way, IC, but that doesn't seem like much of a purpose to me. God created us so we can have a relationship with him, I just don't get it.

[davidm]

We've had this discussion in other threads and I've already explained my views.

Well, we've no agreement on morality, which we discussed elsewhere; but we haven't discussed meaning or purpose, the topic of this OP. So no, you've not "explained your views" already.

Morality is tied up with meaning and purpose.

However, I can well understand why you don't want to touch this argument with a ten-foot pole. You're probably well aware that as an equal alternative to "objective meaning," "subjective meaning" is completely rationally indefensible. So I wouldn't want to try to defend it either.

I've touched on it in this very thread, without even using a pole of any length. Meaning and purpose are subjective. They come from within. My purpose at this board, for example, seems to have become to defend rational thinking against superstition (I would have preferred to do more than that, but the necessary interlocutors seem to be lacking). You purpose is to promote superstition. See? We have different purposes. Ergo, purpose is subjective. I hardly can understand why this should even be controversial, much less "completely rationally indefensible."

I think that the existential angst of people like Camus stems from the fact that they really would have liked for there to be an objective ground to existence, and finding that ground absent, it causes then distress. Perhaps the real lesson you ought to take from Camus is that there is no god. However, I do not share the angst of Camus.

[Nick_A]

Do you feel that your thoughts in any way contradict what Einstein and Simone Weil believed?

Einstein did not believe in a personal god. Has very explicit about this. He was using "spirit" in a metaphorical or an analogical sense. Trying to hijack Einstein for your own worldview is not honest.

You only allow yourself two choices: a personal god or no god. Einstein is referring to pure consciousness that for some reason manifests the laws which comprise our universe. If true, it is logical that humanity has an objective purpose within this creation which explains the meaning of life..