Thoughts on the Meaning of Life
Assume there is no creator/purpose to the world:
Then why does this world even exist? You would assume that no God and no purpose implies no universe, nothing. No creator implies nothingness. Therefore, our world and our lives just sort of "dangle" without any rationale or justification. Life and the universe are then just some sort of anomaly. In other words, Occam's Razor dictates that without a God, nothing should exist, and yet here we are alive, in existence, discussing this very issue.. Something therefore seems wrong with this notion...
OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Then what do our experiences mean? We all have one fleeting moment after another and then we simply die. Each moment exists for only a fraction of a second. Even a long 'chain' of moments disappears into nothingness. Therefore, under these circumstances, how do our lives have meaning, as whatever we find meaningful is fleeting and only exists for a fraction of a second? Even for yourself, look down the road at what the future holds; at some point, every single one of those moments will be gone and you will be gone as well. This is of course true for all of us. This implies that life is meaningless and seems like a scary proposition to me...
Then why does this world even exist? You would assume that no God and no purpose implies no universe, nothing. No creator implies nothingness. Therefore, our world and our lives just sort of "dangle" without any rationale or justification. Life and the universe are then just some sort of anomaly. In other words, Occam's Razor dictates that without a God, nothing should exist, and yet here we are alive, in existence, discussing this very issue.. Something therefore seems wrong with this notion...
OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Then what do our experiences mean? We all have one fleeting moment after another and then we simply die. Each moment exists for only a fraction of a second. Even a long 'chain' of moments disappears into nothingness. Therefore, under these circumstances, how do our lives have meaning, as whatever we find meaningful is fleeting and only exists for a fraction of a second? Even for yourself, look down the road at what the future holds; at some point, every single one of those moments will be gone and you will be gone as well. This is of course true for all of us. This implies that life is meaningless and seems like a scary proposition to me...
Comments (46)
Including -
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14165/fear-of-death/
I'm an atheist who enjoys life and has many types of meaning to engage with. I don't believe that humans have access to capital 'T' truth or 'ultimate reality' or that this is even a thing. For me meaning and values are human made. They don't come from outside us, encountered mysteriously, like some form of enlightenment. They come through history and culture and community and through kingship and friendship and experience.
I am not at the vanguard of theoretical physics, like most people, so the origin of the universe is not my subject - and nor do I much care. That said, I don't think anyone can demonstrate that there was ever 'nothing'. The need to invent a magic man as maker of all things seems to be one of our many meaning making stories. It helps some people to settle their generalised anxiety, even if it simultaneously fails to actually explain anything. Gods have no explanatory power. Goddidit is not an answer.
Experiences have their own powerful meanings - as sex, food, death, art, politics, conversation, relationships and work will soon demonstrate. But it's true that some people seem incapable of experiencing pleasure in life and some people's disadvantage is a huge barrier to experience. There's almost too much meaning and value out there to choose from, so for me the problem is the opposite of yours. It never occurred to me that we need eternity or gods to provide any significance.
I've never understood why the mere fact of being created by God confers any meaning on this universe, whether It created it or not.
There's another issue that is raised by the second question in the post:-
Quoting jasonm
The implication is that meaning must be enduring - preferably life-long if not permanent. I don't buy this. There are some things in my life that I would call meaningful and have endured. There are other things that haven't. But that doesn't make them meaningless. I'm glad they happened, I shall treasure them as long as I have a memory. Moments that people treasure are part of life. That they are moments does not detract from their meaningfulness.
At least, that's true by my understanding of meaningfulness. In a sentence, something is meaningful if it is intrinsically valuable. That is, I don't feel any need to find any further justification for it. The arts provide many examples, but so do the sciences and even philosophy; one can find other examples everywhere in life. There's no problem with finding it, if one is looking for it - but not too hard because that spoils the effect. Asking whether something is meaningful is a good way of wrecking it as well.
No creator does not mean no creation.
No purpose does not mean meaninglessness.
One theory is that humans take the world as a stage for heroism. I'd frame the existential angst of my youth, in retrospect, for the fear that there was no genuinely heroic role to enact. We were all going to die and most people were sentimentally refusing to face it. Unless I could pile up something permanent, it was all futile. Now I see that the hopelessness and futility and risk and creativity is part of what makes living heroic. It might be comfortable in videogame created by God (maybe I'd still choose a good version of this), but it's not heroic. Only the damned are grand.
What do you mean by mean? It can signify various things.
Under one definition, meaning is created when two people agree on the significance of a sign or symbol. For instance, the meaning of a red traffic light is to stop and wait until it turns green before proceeding. Notice, in this case mean doesnt inhere in the red light itself; it is only our agreement that creates the meaning of a red traffic light.
With this definition, there can be no meaning to my life if I havent already agreed on what the meaning is.
Meaning is also used to mean purpose, but the two concepts are distinct. The meaning of the red traffic light is to stop; the purpose is to regulate traffic and prevent accidents.
So, what do you mean by meaning of life?
Instead of defining meaning, another way to address the question is to give a few sample answers, not answers you necessarily want to defend, just answers that give a hint as to what you mean by the meaning of life. For instance, the meaning of life is to love; the meaning of life is to attain salvation and spend eternity with Jesus; etc.
The world exists because there is a fundamental universal entity, principle or phenomenon with rules/or that is a rule, that involves change/transformation.
This is energy. Energy is not energy unless it does work. If energy is the only existant, then it can only "work on itself". Ie. Change the nature or characteristics of itself.
If this is a rule, then existence absolutely must exist/happen because:
energy =matter (e=mc2). And with both objects (matter-unfree/locked up energy) and actions (free energy) the universe can continue to "do stuff" and so does stuff.
And the stuff it did lead, through evolution (constant change due to persistence of change that continues over changes that don't/are dead ends), to more arrangements and interactions (new stuff). Emergent phenomena. Because nothing can stay the same as before (energy must do work) therefore emergence of novel existants is the only way forward.
Because the first stuff is simple. A single rule or premise. Then the only thing it can do is to complexify. More variations, more interactions, more options thus more complex and sophisticated interactions/systems - dynamics and relationships.
This emergent sophistication is what we call life, agency and awareness. Humans are great at obeying the law of change. Because imagination is a great way to conceive of, do and implement stuff (exert/manifest change).
Imagination is fast, spontaneous, effective and reformulatory in nature - the human equivalent of the "creative force" at work. New thoughts, new ideas, new songs, poetry, fictions, books, films, new emergent phenomena/existants.
We are just doing what energy has always done. Create from itself: reproduction, natural selection, invention, reinvention, change, culture, evolution, "improvement" of the changeable nature of energy.
Onwards and upwards.
Entropy - or the tendency of energy to become more chaotic and disordered, requires the creation of more and more variables for which to "disorder" or jumble up. More and more existants. More and more change. More and more things.
First it was elements, then that stabilised in place of more and more molecules and compounds (combinations of elements) then that stabilised in place of more and more replicators (combinations of compounds) then that stabilised in place of more and more genes/dna (combinations of replicators) , then that stabilised in place of more and more speciation (combinations of genes and dna) , and then that stabilised in place of more and more awareness and agency (combinations of the best/workable aspects of all species - through trial and error) , and thats how humans evolved.
Now it is our mental space and inventions that occupy the subject of energy to encourage change. Every more rapid and fast paced.
The next level will likely be what we create - artificial entities and their products and inventions.
All of it is energy doing what it does best. Change. Creation.
You are making the cosmological argument again, with all its implicit logical flaws, but replacing god with a vacillation between energy and law, as if the existence of either of those were any better understood than the existence of the world.
And you dress this in the language of pseudo-science.
Doing philosophy is not making up just-so stories. While science may tell us how things are, it says nothing about why things are. And the reason for that is that the why is not something found in the world, but consists in what we do in the world. Meaning isn't found, it is constructed by us.
@Benj96 @Gnomon @Wayfarer et al
:up:
It would be kind of these constructors of meaning to share with us inadequate philosophers the meaning they have constructed, but perhaps they have none to spare, or perhaps it is a fragile substance that cannot be transferred from one mind to another.
The best I can offer is a word, 'love', and a method, poverty. A life full of meaning is one that is given to others. Whatever you do for another will enrich your life with meaning, and whatever you do for yourself will impoverish its meaning.
And therefore in truth I reject this constructed meaning as mere glamour; the fools gold of fame, fortune and temporary self-satisfaction. Speak a kind word, because there is no meaning in unkind words.
Quoting Banno
So making a best attempt rational story/explanation isn't doing something in the world? You contradict yourself a bit here.
Ultimately if the "Why" everything is the way it is cannot be found out there - in the real world, then the only place left for it to reside is in our minds.
And the only way minds tend to agree on what the "Why" is through debate and reasoning.
I offered my description as I understand, as thousands of people before me have and equally thousands after will do again. They are all stories or reasonings or "whys" we offer to one another regarding the nature of things.
Whether my logic meets the criterion for your logic (accordance) depends on whether we reason identically or in opposition.
Quoting Banno
If they are implicit, pray tell what they are. WHAT. from your personal reasoning or logical paradigm, are the flaws in the explanation I gave can you and why?
Its not enough to say something is flawed and leave it at that whilst offering zero alternative.
No one tend to blindly go oh okay sure without an explanation of your own backing up the errors in need of correction.
I don't understand how "just-so" stories are any worse than "just No" stories without a beginning, with no reasoning nor conclusion found at all, endlessly aimless and unresolved, no answer ever satisfying enough, never sufficient, never absolute.
Conclusion or mystery, making a choice/determination or living in skepticism of everything, either can be accepted as equally reasonable way of living and philosophising.
In fact the description I offered would have the implication that the story can never stay "just-so". It must evolve/change, be forgotten or redefined, but that isn't to say the "ability to change" isn't a constant, a stable, consistent property and thus the reason for my conclusion based story. Or "just-so" story. The constancy of change. Oxymoronic right?
Quoting Banno
Not well understood? Because that's what energy is. it's "definition" and it's "action" are synonymous. It "is" the existant that "does".
Unlike me for example: I "am" a human that "does" the laundry. Two separate existant things that aren't simultaneous nor identical in nature. My doing and being can be separated.
I am not doing laundry for the entirety of my human existence, nor does me being human depend on doing laundry, nor am I the same as laundry.
Energy is/does identically. A single phenomenon that can be divided into "is" (being pent up in the form of matter) and does (not being pent up, pushing it's pent up parts around).
It's premise and conclusion or the reason why and the because is entirely self contained/circular. It is because it can and it can because it is.
It is a unique existant in that sense. And a fundamental one.
In the following metaphor we have 2 philosophies analogised as geometry:
The Circular argument can be seen as irrational and unsatisfying from the point of view of an A to B linear argument. Where's the beginning? What's the reason. Where is the "Why?"
The linear argument however is faced with it's own dilemma, an infinity (endless regress in search of a base "why" ).
The circular argument solves this by looping the line into itself, still infinite, but not in an endless regressive style but a more self satisfying one revolving around a fixed reason/point/axis or purpose. In that sense, all the reasons and whys required are contained and sufficient.
So we can think linearly. Or circularly. Or choose to practise both methods in balance/harmony for their individual strengths and weaknesses.
That's up to us.
But thought obeys geometry of the physical dimensions in which it occupies, that is not up to us. So we must choose what stories to tell. And the reason why.
What story do you want to tell yourself about reality Banno? A "just-so" (circular) story or a "just-no" (linear) story?
Also a neat little side note: the circumpunct - a circle with a dot in the center, is an old glyph that has been used around the world in various contexts to refer to monism - the absolute (Pythagoreans), to consciousness as well as in many religions. I believe this is based on circular argument and it's importance/ persistence in human philosophical and spiritual pursuits thoughout the eons.
Then again it may not be connected at all. Just a curious find.
"Just-no" stories are honest? They admit "I don't know".
Quoting Benj96
All you have done is replace notions of spirt with energy, making a pseudo-physics.
Energy isn't pseudo physics. It's the base of physics.
Just-so stories are also honest. For the converse reason that we also do know things. We understand logic/reasoning. It is how we bind phenomena together/make sensible relationships.
How to rationalise things in a way that reflects what they do/ are expected to do.
You say "just no" stories are honest as it admits one doesn't know. What if someone else does know? Or cones to know in the future? You'd just say they're being dishonest because your "just no" story is more honest.
Essentially then, "Just no" approach (the linear argument that must always have a previous cause in a chronological cause-effect chain) says there can't be ever be an answer.
A fundamental. An origin.
Because if there was, that answer would be "just so" - cause without a previous cause. Or a self fulfilling cycle. A finite and self sustaining, self verifying, self proving answer. A circular argument.
Whether you accept any given "story" or explanation as an answer is up to each indivudual and their personal criterion for what seems logical, rational, moral or acceptable for whatever personal bias they have. What they are expecting the answer to be.
But denying the quality/validity of answers because they are not what you expected them to be, or because they don't answer you the way you wanted them to answer you, is ironically also circular.
Ones prejudice dictating the answer they receive
Look, Ben, you attempted to argue that the universe exists because energy exists. But all this does is move the question on step further back - instead of asking why the universe exists, we ask why energy exists...
Physics can't provide an answer to questions of meaning, of purpose, because such questions are not about physics. They are about intent. it's a different type of question, with different language and presumptions.
That's fine we can discuss this now if you'd like. I also have thought about that a lot. Why energy exists.
Quoting Banno
Of course they can. Meaning is how we understand the physical world.
What's the meaning of speed? Physics: "it means the distance travelled per unit time." Thanks physics!
I think you're conflating meaning with subjective feelings and emotions and the notion of purpose/intent. That's only one side of meaning.
There is objective meaning too. Otherwise we couldn't use language to communicate any of the natural sciences.
Quoting Banno
You're right physics can't answer the emotional, purpose and self identity aspects of meaning.
Yet I believe the origin, prime mover, first substance, must be able to satisfy both the emergence of the objective meaning of the world (the purview of physics) as well as the subjective meaning of the world (consciousness and it's content).
Therefore the most rational way to approach the qualities or behaviour of such a primary existant that gives rise to all of these things, is from a combination of descriptors for physics and descriptors for the mind, observation/perception etc.
As both exist as a direct result of it. And have to have a relationship/overlap with one another. The physical world and the mind can't originate and exist completely in isolation if one another.
There is interaction and there is conversion between the two.
So an academic discipline that can unify concepts from physics and metaphysics is what I believe must be better than either individually in their natural restrictions/bias by definition. Their individual dogmas.
Rather I am trying to have you see the difference between saying how something is and saying how it ought be. Physics is about how things are. It is silent as to what we might do about it.
There's a whole aspect of life, concerning our actions and our responses to how things are, that is left out of mere physics.
I didn't explain what anything ought to be. What I have described thus far is what I believe it "is". And what I believe it "is" is what you think I'm saying it "ought to be" because you believe it "isn't".
That's a fairly rational axis. If we don't agree. Then you perceive me to be suggesting fiction, whilst I believe I am suggesting fact/reason and vice versa.
What I have been trying to explain exhaustively all this time, is that if one wants to pursue a fundamental of reality. A singular thing. A "monad". One explanatory reason or concept.
Then it stands to reason that getting yourself worked up into a know over classifications of argument is not going to help you. Because a physics argument by itself is not going to explain a spiritual one, a metaphysical one, an economic one, etc.
Not are any of those goï g to explain the physics one.
These categories of approach to reality deny one another to selectively pursue their own methodology.
I'm trying to highlight that it's probably more sensible to unify things if you want a unified answer. Not discriminate and dissect them.
So I ask you Banno, to really exercise your "unifying" abilities, and play the "match-making game".
What are all the similarities between entities or concepts in physics, concepts in metaphysics, concepts in religion/spirituality, concepts in psychology, in economics. Literally pick any topic you want to make analogies between.
Because we get it. These disciplines are not the same. Everyone knows they are categorically different. That horse is well flogged to death. So why don't we for arguments sake do an exercise in proper comparison, find the compromise, the middle man, the center between the biases.
I didn't just make assertions. i pointed out that
Quoting Banno
The cosmological argument is that the world depends on something else for it's creation, usually a theistic god. The argument has been shown wanting. You make the same argument, replacing god with energy; you claimed that the world is dependent on energy, or on rules, or on some combination - exactly which is left ambiguous. And you add, in treating this as answer to the OP, the non sequitur that this somehow gives us a meaning for life.
Meh. I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.
Yeah, in the largest scope and longest run, "energy" (as you describe it, Ben) seems quite meaningless and purposeless since it cannot not do what it's doing.
It's not left ambiguous you just gave up as outlined below:
Quoting Banno
Even though I offered to discuss it further specifically regarding energy as a fundamental see below:
Quoting Benj96
And yet you don't seem to be bothered. That's up to you. But I hadn't given up or exhausted my means of explaining the point of view.
You just decided you don't want to hear them.
All the best in that case. Enjoy your philosophisings
Well it creates dichotomies doesn't it?
You can't have one side of something without the opposite.
So we can see something as "futile", "pointless" or "purposeless" because it always has an opposite exerting action against it.
Or we can see it as balanced. As a "justified" equation. That everything sorts itself out/self corrects and comes into balance eventually.
But that is a matter of perspective and personal choice right?
I suspect for every person that thinks the whole thing is pointless or futile. The nihilists. There are an equal amount of people who believe life and existence is full of meaning and purpose.
If I had to choose between the two, I prefer to operate in the optimistic, meaningful side. Because pointlessness seems like a good source of depression/suffering.
And why on earth would I want that for myself or other people. Thus I never try to actively convince people of pointlessness/futility or at least not to focus on that side of a dichotomy between nihilism and existentialism.
Sometimes people may interpret what I say as justification for feelings of pointlessness. But that is aside from my "intent".
My intent would be to elucidate through discussion fascinations, insights, and curiosities regarding existing. To imbue curiosity/passion for learning and wondering why, and if I'm lucky inherit a bit of wisdom for which to help others that are struggling with rectifying the "futility/pointlessness" side of the dichotomy.
I'm sure I'll meet resistance to persuasion along the way. Hence the need for discussion. Philosophising. I would love to hone my reasoning skills to overcome people's reasoning for promoting bad things. What greater purpose in life would I want?
That indeed may all be true 180Proof.
And finally, in conclusion. How does that make you feel?
Do you suffer because of that rationalisation, or does it make life light, playful, free of serious burdens?
For me, whether we are here completely by accident, as a mere pointless blip in the universe with absolutely no impact, or we are here as the product of the universes process of self evaluation/self perception, and our philosophical abilities are the ability to appreciate the entirety from a tiny speck, for me they're neither here nor there.
For me, I enjoy the process whatever it is. Tiny pointless speck or not. What about you?
Why might 2 people have the same belief, but for one it makes them happy, and for the other it makes them sad. How would you explain that dynamic coming about?
If existence (e.g. "energy") has a Meaning / Purpose that we haven't created, then we are nothing but prostrate slaves before that alien Meaning/Purpose. I think our freedom as individual and collective agencies consist in us having to create, or make, our lives as meaningful / purposeful for ourselves and each other as we are able to day to day. Existence is a blank page or canvas; how will we fill it with poetry, theorems, blueprints, musical scores, epic hero journeys, doodles, painted scenes, family histories & photos, philosophical treatises, pastoral sermons, political speeches, love letters, pornography, fashion designs, ambitious plans for explorations of distant planets & moons, or make intricate orgami figures ... or leave it blank? Or just splatter our brains all over it ... Non serviam, my friend. Amor fati.
:death: :flower:
I think again as I discussed with Banno. There are different levels of meaning. There is the innate objective "meanings" or descriptions/associations/relationships between things that happens.
For example a big asteroid hitting the moon "means" a plume of moon dust will occur. These understandings are innate. Regardless of whether we say the asteroid is a rock or a simulation or a god etc - applied (subjective) meanings.
So we are slaves to the rules of physics. What physics "means" - what happens/will happen.
Just as we are slaves to climate change, we either fix it, or adapt to it. There is no other choice to live with it.
But we also create our own meaning of course: music poetry etc. This is not innate but personal and societal.
So we are in a way "Happy slaves" distracted from the servitude (obedience to universal laws) imposed on us by nature with all of our meaning making entertainment. Distracted to existential threat and the frailty of our bodies by a good song or an interesting film.
So long as we understand and obey universal laws, physics, we can make as much art, music, poetry, food and porn as we like and our continuity of existence will continue.
If we violate the masterplans/blueprint (universe set up), that violation is simultaneously our trajectory towards death/self destruction.
Energy creates and destroys. Physics is the understanding of how and whys of this ongoing process.
No we're not. We as a species made those "rules". What do you think our scientific progress (i.e. paradigm shifts) consists in? We govern ourselves exercise freedom to the degree we live adaptively by the rules which we make. That's not "slavery"; it's principled and/or lawful responsibility. C'mon, man, you're just rationalizing nonsense. If you need some Meaning / Purpose From On High, then just say you're espousing a religious worldview and defend that explicitly. What you seem to be saying, however, is unwarranted and nonsensical outside of a religious context. :roll:
For me, the happening itself has inherent meaning. It is only use that put that meaning into a communicable language (equations, formulas, speech)
But that meaning is particular is at its most basic - information. Data. Interaction.
If you want to characterise meaning as "information according to a sentient being" then sure, there is no meaning without humans or an awareness as they cannot be untethered from one another.
But the universe precipitated the evolution/emergence of humanity which does have meaning. So if the universe doesn't have direct implicit meaning, it at least has meaning by proxy - by creating the concept of it through humanity.
Meaning does exists. The conditions by which it exists is up for debate.
Haha... and maybe as inevitable as a child asking why the sky is blue. Perhaps though instead of incoherent (with its connotations) one could substitute incomprehensible or mind-boggling.
Just a thought...
Quoting 180 Proof
Have meaning that one could even to begin grasping... with great difficulty. Like trying to eat a weeks worth of food in one bite. As incomprehensible as a novel is to a dog maybe.
Whenever I try to determine the exact meaning of even single a experience 10 years ago, I rarely can pin it down precisely. There usually are so many ramifications and consequences from EVEN ONE SINGLE EVENT that it soon overwhelms my mind. Total domino effect or ripple effect.
Your actual mileage may vary... (meaning that someone with more mental abilities might do quite easily what I find difficult lol).
Just an aside, but this post suggests Existentialism to me. I assume youre familiar. Maybe a deep drive back into it. (after a beer or doobie lol).
Hmm...
We as a species made those rules (of physics)... you say? Well, ok. Perhaps in a kinda nitpicky (quibbling?) way of saying that humans wrote down (or made) the formulations etc of the phenomenon of gravity, for example.
I hope you are not saying humans made / created / invented gravity itself!
Say it isnt so, Joe! lol.
That would be quite New Age-y, and something that even hardcore New Agers might quibble with. (Hardcore New Ager... is that a contradiction in terms? lol).
(I say this because I think this is what @Benj96 was getting at in that particular point. Please correct if mistaken!)
:up: Wonderfully and poetically put!
:up: Excellent! Thanks for writing and sharing that. Much food for thought.
You have the option of not following the laws of physics?
Quoting jasonm
Hello jasonm,
I would like to answer. One part of my answer will be to give different perspectives. The other will be a story from my life. I'll do both, as your OP is both theoretical and mentions your concrete fear as well. It therefore makes sense to me to acknowledge both. I hope this is in tune with your intentions for this thread.
1. Assume there is no creator/purpose to the world.
Different perspectives:
You ask why this world even exists without a creator or a purpose. The first thing that comes to mind would be that we or other conscious beings, have the potential to become gods in this world. Then we/conscious beings would fulfill your criteria for a justification for this world existing. It is still a potential, so on the road towards that end, living existences will still not be able to satisfy the criteria of giving the world purpose completely.
With regard to the purpose of the world, what I can mention is the possibility that the purpose for the world to exist, and the purpose for existences like us to exist, might not be the same.
2. OTOH, assume life does have meaning:
Similarly to the perspective above, if we open up to the possibility of there being a different purpose to our existence and to the world respectively, it would solve the issue as follows:
That part of our existence, which is connected to the Universe, might get broken down and in time be indistinguishable from any other form of matter/energy left - OTOH this might not be true for our existence. It is therefore fully possible to see our existence and the workings of the world as functioning under different premises. Life could be inherently meaningful and important.
The other perspective would be to just follow the claim you have already made. We assume that life has meaning, period. We might be able to add meaning to life, as well as subtract added meaning, but It will never reach zero. Life is meaningful, regardless of if you are personally able to add additional meaning to it or not.
Now the personal bit:
I grew up in churches, and for many years I would call myself a Christian. One aspect of it, that I realized much later, was that danger and also outer space, had this kind of safety-wool around it, which I wasn't consciously aware of.
When I got bouts of depression, and after a very hard and intense one, I struggled hard to make sense of it. I tried really hard to find a solution, reading books by Christian mystics and believing I was in a similar situation as Job (From the Old Testament - He lost everything, but got everything and more back.) but when people around me mentioned that I was becoming prodromal (meaning I might develop a psychosis) I was urged to stop reading the books as well as the Bible.
When I didn't read the Bible every day, the intensity in my desire to find a quick solution dwindled. Instead, I could feel my sadness, pain, confusion and numbness. And since it was there, real, and actually spoke to me directly, I tried to listen more.
A few years later, as I was walking out from the Student library, I became aware of the wool that had been there, as I felt it evaporate. I could sense the cold, hostile space outside our atmosphere, and I felt alone and vulnerable.
Closing words:
The way I understood your post, was neither a full deep-dive into what we feel about the meaning of life, nor an intense philosophy major into the topic, so I opted for a down scaling on both sides, mostly on the personal side. Therefore, I do not dive into my personal perspectives or evaluations, but use your premise as a springboard into the big subject "The meaning of life".
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case?
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?
Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true.
Quoting Tom Storm
Hello Tom,
I'll give it a bit of thought and see if I can find some good answers for you. If I can't find any good answers after giving it a bit of thought, I'll just forgo answering, in case you might be wondering.
Thank you in advance.
Caerulea-Lawrence
It's equally rational to Occam's Razor that with the complexity of how reality functions, the probability of complex life is obvious on a large enough timescale. I see nothing wrong with our reality coming into existence as the result of infinite possibilities leading to such a result. Why would Occam's Razor dictate a God? Isn't that just the result of a narrow minded demand on the self to rationalize something because all the questions haven't been answered yet?
Like, throughout the history of science, every single time something weren't able to be explained, people turned to "because God" and yet, every single time the unexplainable were explained through new discoveries and scientific tests, they all went into the public notion of truth about reality. At this point in time we have some answers and some we have not, but the public still position the unexplained as "it must be God".
You only feel that this feels wrong because A) You don't have enough knowledge in science/physics to grasp the scientific concepts about reality or B) You feel an existential dread and you jump to the conclusion of "God" as a self defense mechanism.
It is quite possible to accept that reality is so much more complex, weird and incomprehensible than we know, without having to fall back on concepts that emotionally makes sense to us. We can accept that it is all that complexity and still understand our small existence within it as being what it is, nothing more or less.
Quoting jasonm
So, yes, it is meaningless, but it is only scary if you position yourself in a narcissistic position of being the "centre of the universe". I see the awakening from this state as a form of Copernican self-realization. The world didn't "lose meaning", in a societal sense, just because the earth was discovered to not be the center of the universe. The same goes for people realizing their existence isn't the center of the universe. Like with Copernicus and Galileo, it was the believers of the church that had an existential crisis through this fact and wouldn't accept it, but people with a scientific mind had less trouble adjusting their concept of reality after it.
So, why does it matter that you have this short time of existence and then you are gone and forgotten? What is the legacy that you are desperate to hold on to? Sure, people want other people to remember them after they die, most people would surely like to be remembered for a long time, but then what?
Isn't your experience in life what you apply meaning to? Your experience, emotions etc.? You will not be able to experience anything after you die, so you wouldn't have any reason to be depressed by a loss of meaning.
Basically, you can only experience meaning when being alive, so the idea of life being meaningless because you die seems like you only try to apply meaning as an afterthought to your own subjective experience. Disregarding all the people who will absolutely remember you after you die, who will think about you and be happy that you gave them meaning in their own lives, you can only think about meaning while you are alive, therefor your life has meaning to you and when you die that meaning doesn't matter anymore because you are dead.
That life as a whole, and against the very existence of the universe, has no meaning, doesn't mean it has no meaning for you. It only means there's no "plan", we simply just "are" because of the universe and that the meaning comes from the subjective experience that ends at death. A plant will experience its meaning while growing and existing, and then when it withers, it will not experience meaning anymore.
Meaning can be an emerging attribute of our experience in life, but if we focus on trying to find some overarching meaning, we will just waste time experiencing any current meaning as a subjective being capable of experiencing it far more than any plant. The hunt for meaning after we die or about us in the context of history has more to do with our ego than actual meaning.
Is my ego larger than the universe? Then I will fight the wind mills and die on a battlefield of disappointment. Or will I meditate on my short blimp of existence against the vastness of time and space, find meaning in my short time alive and die knowing I at least had a life capable of experiencing all this wonder?
Hi again Tom,
this is not an argument for gods, but simply a hypothetical idea with regard to the first OP's two assumptions.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, it is the latter, an emotional state.
From my post earlier:
Quoting Caerulea-Lawrence
This was the reason for writing this. If you want to look at the personal/emotional part of my answer, it would only make sense to me if you are a bit personal/emotional as well, as I believe that is in tune with the intentions of the thread.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Thanks for clarifying. I don't think you've answered my questions, but I shan't press the point. In relation to the above - as I said -
Quoting Tom Storm
Perhaps 'the purpose of existence' is for existents to recognize that existence itself cannot provide existents with "purpose" thereby engendering in existents a "metaphysical need" that also cannot be satisfied (i.e. "a useless passion") and yet persists as a meta-"metaphysical need" to deny via idealism (e.g. fideism) or nihilism the "metaphysical need" itself. :eyes:
Besides, "purpose" is a map and the only map which can describe, or apply to, the whole is, of course, the whole itself; thus, the "purpose of existence" is existence itself, and the "meaning of life" is life itself.
:sweat: