The Meaning of Life

[PsychoSarah]

The meaning of life is discovered once you reach enlightenment. For some it doesn't take much, for others, it will take their whole lives. Just remember that there is always light at the end of the tunnel and that's something to look forward to.

For all you know that light at the end of your tunnel is just certain cells in the brain firing wonky signals as they die.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Only because the question wasn't specific enough

42.

42 is 6 x 7. Seven is the number of divine perfection, 6 is the number of humanity. So the union of the divine with human is the meaning of life.

What else could it possibly be?

 

[PsychoSarah]

42.

42 is 6 x 7. Seven is the number of divine perfection, 6 is the number of humanity. So the union of the divine with human is the meaning of life.

What else could it possibly be?

73

 

[Strivax]

Personally, I think life has whatever meaning you give it. I don't agree with concepts such as fate or even purpose when it comes to such things, we have life, it exists with whatever meaning we give it.

Yes, I sympathise with this view. But I suggest, those disparate meanings we assign or deploy might have radically different consequences in respect of the quality of lives we might enjoy.

So, if one person decides the meaning of his life is to be the hatred of Jews (for example) and another decides her meaning will be the love of humanity, then guess who is to have the better life?

In this way, I think we can distinguish qualitative differences between individually assigned 'meanings of live', and with and all due respect to both utilitarians and virtue ethicists, we can propose that the best of lives is one that flourishes in happiness, and that the values so conducive to such a result and meaning for life are entirely superior to other values that aren't.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Emmy]

Dear Received. We are here for a purpose, and God gave Mankind enough time to realise, what is wanted from us. Jesus told us in Matthew 22: 35-40:
The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. The second is like it: Love our neighbour as we love ourselves." Jesus also told us: " On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." We know that God wants our Love. We also know that we can " ask and ye shall receive." ( Matthew 7: 7-10 Then we thank God and share all Love and Joy with our neighbour: all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends.
The Bible tells us: " Repent," and also "Be Born Again." we have to change from always wanting what We want, to treat our neighbour as we would love to be treated. Love is very catching, and we will find that it CAN BE DONE, if we truly try: God will not force us, we must have the WILL TO BE LOVING AND CARING. God will help us whenever we ask for help and guidance.
We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on loving and caring. We have much time to get better and better with
Loving God with all our beings, and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves:
and God will know our hearts and He will know whether we Love God enough to follow these two Commandments to Love. Jesus our Saviour will help and guide us: JESUS IS THE WAY. In Matthew 5: 48: Jesus tells us: " be ye therefore perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect." The meaning of life?
To become as God wants us to become. I say this with love, Received.
Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I sympathise with this view. But I suggest, those disparate meanings we assign or deploy might have radically different consequences in respect of the quality of lives we might enjoy.

Totally agreed.

So, if one person decides the meaning of his life is to be the hatred of Jews (for example) and another decides her meaning will be the love of humanity, then guess who is to have the better life?

Which criteria are you having in mind when saying "better life"?

In this way, I think we can distinguish qualitative differences between individually assigned 'meanings of live', and with and all due respect to both utilitarians and virtue ethicists, we can propose that the best of lives is one that flourishes in happiness, and that the values so conducive to such a result and meaning for life are entirely superior to other values that aren't.

Now, I have my idea of happiness. I´m not sure I am in the position to generalize or dictate others what should make them happy, based on this my idea.

 

[poolerboy0077]

You're presupposing meaning and then asking what it is. Is there reason to think there is meaning to begin with?

 

[Received]

You're presupposing meaning and then asking what it is. Is there reason to think there is meaning to begin with?

Me?

You can presuppose the thing from whose structure you work within.

And sure, asking about meaning is asking about something that connects where you are with a future-related goal. To have a telos is to have meaning. It's an open question of what the best types of meanings are there for human beings, and that puts us in ethical and aesthetic territory: e.g., should we be virtuous or follow rules, live for pleasure or happiness, etc.

 

[bhsmte]

We all define our own meaning in life. Some people look inside to determine the meaning, others look for external sources to help them define their meaning.

It is a personal thing and well it should be.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Me?

You can presuppose the thing from whose structure you work within.

And sure, asking about meaning is asking about something that connects where you are with a future-related goal. To have a telos is to have meaning. It's an open question of what the best types of meanings are there for human beings, and that puts us in ethical and aesthetic territory: e.g., should we be virtuous or follow rules, live for pleasure or happiness, etc.

What I'm saying is that when you ask what the meaning of something is, you're assuming there's a meaning there to be discovered to begin with. Maybe the first question should be is there any meaning whatsoever so as to not be so presumptuous.

 

[Hetta]

Anchovies.

 

[Received]

What I'm saying is that when you ask what the meaning of something is, you're assuming there's a meaning there to be discovered to begin with. Maybe the first question should be is there any meaning whatsoever so as to not be so presumptuous.

Interesting.

Maybe we could also say that because meaning is by definition subjective, by asking whether there is a meaning we're simultaneously creating the foundation on which this question can be asked. So there's really no such thing as lack of meaning, but the quality of meaning. People commit suicide not because of nihilism (that position is self-negating, given that to claim that life has no meaning is itself a meaningful statement), but because the meanings they're given aren't good enough, too shallow.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Maybe we could also say that because meaning is by definition subjective, by asking whether there is a meaning we're simultaneously creating the foundation on which this question can be asked.

How so?

 

[quatona]

Interesting.

Maybe we could also say that because meaning is by definition subjective, by asking whether there is a meaning we're simultaneously creating the foundation on which this question can be asked.

Or, to put it simpler, we could say that meaning is not discovered but created/invented.
IOW, the question "What´s the meaning of life?" calls for the response "To whom?".

So there's really no such thing as lack of meaning, but the quality of meaning. People commit suicide not because of nihilism (that position is self-negating, given that to claim that life has no meaning is itself a meaningful statement), but because the meanings they're given aren't good enough, too shallow.

I don´t think that people usually commit suicide over a philosophical question, to begin with.

Also, I don´t know what you mean by "meaning they are given").

Thirdly, I suspect that (once we assume that "meaning in life" is somewhat connected to a person´s suicide) more often than the meaning they have given their lives is "not good enough, too shallow" the meaning is too huge, too ambitious, impossible to actualize.

Finally, the bolded part is, of course, just based on a false equivocation of the word meaning ("meaning of/in life" - "meaningful statement"). That there is no inherent or externally given meaning of life doesn´t conflict that a statement can be meaningful. This fallacy ("self refuting, because [insert false equivocation]" annoys me to no end, so I´ll leave it at that.

 

[Received]

How so?

In that the asking itself creates meaning. A person who thinks he has no meaning in his life might be right, but the moment he asks, "what's the meaning to my life?" he's already on the road to meaning, already even created a meaning for himself. By asking he begins to search for possibilities. You might at the least call this "premeaning". But my point with the foundation is that, if meaning is the stuff of subjectivity, then subjectivity really can't help but make everything meaningful. It then becomes a matter of the quality of meaning.

 

[Received]

Or, to put it simpler, we could say that meaning is not discovered but created/invented.
IOW, the question "What´s the meaning of life?" calls for the response "To whom?".

I think meaning is created, but the materials from which this meaning is created are partly objective. You can't have a good, firm meaning with just your own subjectivity; you also have to have a world that's responsive to you, that fits you.

I don´t think that people usually commit suicide over a philosophical question, to begin with.

Also, I don´t know what you mean by "meaning they are given").

I didn't say they commit suicide over a philosophical position, nihilism. I mean they don't commit suicide because of *their* nihilism, lack of meaning.

Thirdly, I suspect that (once we assume that "meaning in life" is somewhat connected to a person´s suicide) more often than the meaning they have given their lives is "not good enough, too shallow" the meaning is too huge, too ambitious, impossible to actualize.

For some people, sure. Kierkegaard distinguished between what he called "spiritlessness" and despair involving "weakness," the former of which he meant that the human being basically has no sense of what he should become as a self (no meaning consciousness), and the latter involving the realization of what he should become but despairs over his ability to fulfill it.

Finally, the bolded part is, of course, just based on a false equivocation of the word meaning ("meaning of/in life" - "meaningful statement"). That there is no inherent or externally given meaning of life doesn´t conflict that a statement can be meaningful. This fallacy ("self refuting, because [insert false equivocation]" annoys me to no end, so I´ll leave it at that.

Yeah, it annoys you, but we've reached an impasse on the matter at the most, haven't we?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

"To transform 'It was' into 'Thus I willed it'; that alone do I call redemption."

Hence the 'godness' of the atheist....?

For me I suppose the meaning of life is to seek truth, to the extent kindling is able to seek the fire. Coming to some understanding of the truth and finding we loathe and fear as well as yearn for it, what's left is to operate by the truth standards we're able to attain to, looking forward to the day we'll be made one with it.

 

[quatona]

I think meaning is created, but the materials from which this meaning is created are partly objective. You can't have a good, firm meaning with just your own subjectivity; you also have to have a world that's responsive to you, that fits you.

I don´t know that meaning is created from "materials".
Since I am convinced that those parts of our reality that are relevant for the way we create meaning are our individual constructs as well, there isn´t much of a problem with these parts of reality being responsive to the meaning I create.

I didn't say they commit suicide over a philosophical position, nihilism. I mean they don't commit suicide because of *their* nihilism, lack of meaning.

I can´t seem to follow. Piling negations on negations makes me all confused. So what is the reason for people to commit suicide, in your opinion?

For some people, sure. Kierkegaard distinguished between what he called "spiritlessness" and despair involving "weakness," the former of which he meant that the human being basically has no sense of what he should become as a self (no meaning consciousness), and the latter involving the realization of what he should become but despairs over his ability to fulfill it.

Yes, there is a huge variety of problems people can have. These are two of them.

Yeah, it annoys you, but we've reached an impasse on the matter at the most, haven't we?

No. I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your line of reasoning. That´s not an "impasse we have reached".

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Consider "worshipping God." Ok. Well, you can only worship him for so long before this becomes fantastically boring.

I disagree.

 

[Received]

I don´t know that meaning is created from "materials".
Since I am convinced that those parts of our reality that are relevant for the way we create meaning are our individual constructs as well, there isn´t much of a problem with these parts of reality being responsive to the meaning I create.

Right, but the constructs aren't just purely created abstractions without roots in the concrete objective world beyond our subjectivity.

I can´t seem to follow. Piling negations on negations makes me all confused. So what is the reason for people to commit suicide, in your opinion?

Sorry, I put one too many negations there. Should've read:

"I didn't say they commit suicide over a philosophical position, nihilism. I mean they commit suicide because of *their* nihilism, lack of meaning."

To me, pure and simple, the biggest reason for suicide -- probably at heart the only reason -- is hopelessness, and this much has been pointed out by the research again and again. Hopelessness means having no meaning toward which your life can be directed.

No. I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your line of reasoning. That´s not an "impasse we have reached".

What's the false equivocation again?