There is no meaning of life
There is no meaning of life. We just exist, and die. And life goes on, and on, and on. For million, billion of years, etc etc etc.
We are just a speck of dust in the vast universe, in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, 90% (or 99%?) of people (human beings) will always try to find or give 'meaning/purpose' in their own insignificant lives, because the reason is simple: it's survival instinct. Human beings (people) will (usually) try to keep living, keep surviving, no matter what. It's evolutionary. It's in human nature.
Even if it means people (humans) will create anything as their toxic positivity & optimism bias, especially in today's world/era.
But it all still doesn't make it true.
It's just delusions, illusions, fantasy, wishful-thinking, & human's futile hope, wishes, imaginations, dreams, expectations, theories, etc etc etc
But it's not the harsh reality/truth/facts, because people don't want to hear the harsh reality/truth/fact. People only want to hear good things only (most people), even if it's in their own denial, ignorance, blind faith, naivety, simple-mindedness, & stupidity.
There is no meaning of life.
We are just a speck of dust in the vast universe, in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, 90% (or 99%?) of people (human beings) will always try to find or give 'meaning/purpose' in their own insignificant lives, because the reason is simple: it's survival instinct. Human beings (people) will (usually) try to keep living, keep surviving, no matter what. It's evolutionary. It's in human nature.
Even if it means people (humans) will create anything as their toxic positivity & optimism bias, especially in today's world/era.
But it all still doesn't make it true.
It's just delusions, illusions, fantasy, wishful-thinking, & human's futile hope, wishes, imaginations, dreams, expectations, theories, etc etc etc
But it's not the harsh reality/truth/facts, because people don't want to hear the harsh reality/truth/fact. People only want to hear good things only (most people), even if it's in their own denial, ignorance, blind faith, naivety, simple-mindedness, & stupidity.
There is no meaning of life.
Comments (127)
What makes you assertions anymore true than theirs? Give a bit more of an argument otherwise it is just a silly rant.
Youve supplied meaning to life with those remarks. However slight the significance might sound, youve still deemed life worthy enough of your attention and meaning. The difference is yours is not as aesthetically pleasing as other accounts. Yours is thick on the metaphor while loose with the truth.
Truth is a quality given to "correct reference", it's "the right answer", and what's "right" is determined by the logic of the sentence and the words being used. If the "right answer" is specific and measurable, and based on stable concepts, for example, "How many planets are there in our solar system?" Then "truth" can appear transcendent, and there it embodies the qualities that we think the word should have, of being objective and authoritative.
"Meaning" is neither specific nor measurable, it's context-dependent, and there are many valid arguments that can be made for what something "means". There is no authoritative "truth" to something's meaning because the logic of "What something means" precludes any definitive answer. Perhaps it's that which you've identified, and it's thus the self-assuredness with which others claim life has meaning that you find foolish.
To say definitively that there's no meaning to life is just as lacking in authority as definitively saying that there is a meaning to life. As it stands, you've just repeated the error. The only thing we can say definitively is that there's no definitive answer to the question of life's meaning.
@niki wonoto, or the salmon run means "breakfast" to a hungry bear. The form, in general, is that X means Y to Z.
but I suspect that when you say 'life', you are speaking personally, such that your formula is: @niki wonoto means "nothing" to @niki wonoto.
Which is only to be expected, because meaning is shared, whereas your meaning relates only to yourself. What this shows, and what you claim, therefore is a simple truth, that self-concern, without relation to others is meaningless and ultimately futile. X means nothing to X.
Whereas I can report to you that self-concern can derive meaning when it is derived from concern for another who is concerned for you.
X means something to Z.
AND
Z means something to X.
Gives the basis on which
X means something to X.
This is the relationship of love, whereby, if @niki wonoto cares about some other who cares about @niki wonoto, then he would no longer find his own life meaningless.
Meaning of life is to be searched / created by each individual to suit their own desire, purpose and taste in life. :)
Quoting Pussycat
Exactly. Good points both of you.
Translation: I have failed to find meaning, therefore no one else can find meaning either.
It places rather a high valuation on your personal abilities and experiences. Perhaps there are people who have had significantly different experiences than yours. Perhaps quite a few.
Searching for an answer to your question could bring meaning to a life!
Well, if that's so, there's nothing to be concerned about. Tu ne quaesieris as Horace says:
no ones allowed to know his fate,
Not you, not me: dont ask, dont hunt for answers
In tea leaves or palms. Be patient with whatever comes.
This could be our last winter, it could be many
More, pounding the Tuscan Sea on these rocks:
Do what you must, be wise, cut your vines
And forget about hope. Time goes running, even
As we talk. Take the present, the futures no ones affair.
What for? Life is its own meaning, its own purpose, its own narrative. The search for some artificial meaning is a huge waste of life... and lives. I mean, look at the result when lots of people find their "meaning" in a god or cause or national aspiration! Or when one loud enough asshole finds his own meaning in manipulation and domination of others.
Meaning of life doesn't have to be something grandiose or drastically dramatic.
Anything, no matter how trivial, one finds happy doing, makes them absorbed, totally oblivious of life and the world could be good enough meaning of life.
You wrote that 90 or 99% of people will carry on looking for a meaning. As a consequence, you should agree that, by posing your question, you have automatically put yourself in this group. Then you wrote that people find toxic answers. If this phenomenon is so widespread, we should at least suspect that the question itself is toxic. It is not difficult to find reasons for this: for example, the question is reductive: it tries, surreptitiously, to reduce life to something else, to a meaning. Besides, that meaning is already supposed to be better than life, because the question itself implies that life without a meaning is not a good thing. Thus we can see that your question is really toxic, because it contains the ready made assumption that life is not a good thing, unless it finds some meaning as its justification. Such a toxic question needs, of course, to be thrown away and we need to keep ourselves vigilant to avoid any other surreptitious coming back of it under different masks.
Once we have gained this step, a better question could be: what are the best ways to approach life, to connect ourselves with life, to have an as much as possible good and fruitful relationship with life?
It is natural and human thing to do for mature adult people to ask such questions at some point in their lives, have thoughts or debates on the topic without having to feel stress, guilt or negativity.
Seeking the meaning of life is not replacing life with meanings, but trying to find what makes life happy and worthwhile.
Then it's the wrong question.
"Meaning" is necessary for a conveyance or container: it exists for its content - the information it delivers. What does the skull and crossbones label mean? It's a warning that the bottle contains poisonous material. What does 'onomatopoeia' mean? The formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named. What does a red and blue marine flag mean? This ship is directing its course to starboard. What does life mean? That something is not inanimate or dead. That's what the word 'life' means. The property of aliveness itself cannot be interpreted as information. We are not mere symbols to convey a message to some external intelligence.
Just so.
A particular life can be observed, examined, scrutinized, studied analyzed: it can be described. It can be influenced, modified, damaged, improved, enlarged, diminished, prolonged or curtailed.
Valid questions might be: What is required to prolong my life? How can I spoil that man's life? Could this child's life be made happier? How might that woman's life be more rewarding?
You must discover what your purpose is, lest you live a life of waste and obtuse thinking. :smile:
Hoping for that gives purpose to some of us.
Quoting Vera Mont
The OP seems well aware of what life means. It seems clear what he seeks is the significance, purpose or meaningfulness of life.
That's exactly the same thing. It assumes that life is no more than a means to something greater than itself.
Ha! :grin: What I am missing in this OP is the participation of the author. @niki wonoto seems to be absent from his own thread...
I wish he had more exchanges with the users, or at least with @Corvus and @Vera Mont which are having interesting views on it.
@niki wonoto has "left the building"!
... But he forgot to take his topic with him! :grin:
There is for me. But thank you for revealing your own psychological state.
Only man has been diminished in his own eyes; made to feel insignificant and flawed. Told by 500 generations of prophets and philosophers that he is wanting, fallen short, fallen from a loftier position, and that the only way he can redeem himself is by dedicating his life to something greater than himself: a god, a liege lord, an empire, a noble cause, a brotherhood of warriors, monks or mobsters. His own little life is of no consequence: it is a conveyance merely, like a deed of sale or a summons, disposable once it's served purpose.
The meaning of meaning is what I mean it to be once I decide what meaning means in any given moment. Most if the time now I do not bother with such temporally inconsistent rhythms and just laugh, smile or mock reality and its absurdism.
We all die and that is strangely satisfying for me :)
Interesting way of thinking. The fact that death is something that will happen for granted, makes me feel more motivated. Even death has a bit of romantic vibes. If we were all immortal, we wouldn't be motivated to do anything at all. :chin:
"Death does not concern us, because while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist. - Epicurus :cool:
Similar with dead, but a couple of differences. First, inanimate came before life. Everything was inanimate until life showed up. Although there would have been no concept of "inanimate" before there was life. (Of course, there was nobody around to lable things.) But dead came after life. Second, while dead things are inanimate, most inanimate things are not dead. Nagel says "...the appearance of life from from dead matter..." I wouldn't say something is "dead matter" unless I was talking about the remains of a plant or animal.
Quoting Vera MontWow, I view the idea of meaning in an extremely different way. Everything (we are aware of) in the universe exists simply as part of the cycle. Only we are above that. Only we get to have meaning, if we choose to.
How did you climb above the universe?
The appearance of our consciousness and intelligence put us there. They make us the only known thing that conceives of these ideas. Someone conceived of the concept of meaning beyond the cycle of life and death. Now we can each decide the meaning for our lives, if we choose to. To our knowledge, nothing other than humans can do that.
Ah. So, now that you're omniscient, your life isn't enough; it needs to contain some message. OK.
I saw that too. I think at this point there's some cause for concern, given there's almost no engagement once a post is made. I'll raise the issue with other mods.
i'm not sure if one's life meaning can necessarily be chosen. Do we really have that much agency? Many meanings we might choose will turn out to be false, and reveal themselves as such with hollowness and dissatisfaction. I would say, it must be discovered.
Some people will never discover theirs, or even may not have any.
Yeah, probably a good idea. Looking at all the thread titles, I began to wonder, is this person getting some kind of kick out of simply trying to spread notions that life is not worth living? In the hope of pushing some vulnerable readers further into despair? I hope I am wrong but ........
They lack the conceptual capacity. Only man is so blessed and cursed, afawk, with the ability to add concepts onto what is.
Almost certainly they are just depressed.
I can see the possibility of choosing badly. Meaning regretting your choice. Hopefully, you aren't on your deathbed when this regret hits you. If you're not, then you can choose another meaning. You might make a choice you're happier with, having learned from your mistake.
I can also see people never choosing any meaning. Heck, some never consider the topic at all.
I think I understand what you mean by it must be discovered. But it still must be chosen, don't you think? A person with extraordinary talent for healing might choose that as the meaning of their life. But they might choose music, despite what seems to be obvious to everyone else. Or they might become a doctor, but consider being a parent the meaning of their life.
Yes, I think so. My point is that the act of choosing in itself is not enough. What is chosen must stand in some "meaningful" relationship to oneself, that I can't elucidate right now.
There are so many meanings, that more than merely "regretting the choice", are objectively wrong choices, in that they don't stand in this (for now, mystery) relationship with the chooser. For instance, the pursuit of money or fame cannot be the meaning of your life, no matter how earnestly chosen, if you are unfulfilled and haunted by precisely the thought that your life is meaningless.
You can also walk around the exact same lake, bored, thinking of nothing except gripes and dissatisfactions, and at the end think, "what a waste of time, I'm never doing that again!". I've done so as well.
Life is like a walk around a lake. We all end up where we begin: the ground. Yet, the moments in between may have meaning, and you might even make a journey worth repeating. Or, you might not.
Indeed. Some might come to realize their decision was not too their liking. Or they might think it's shallow. Or whatever. And they might think more on it, and learn the kind of thing that is needed.
Some might come to think their lives don't need this kind of meaning.
I would suggest that his formula is "@niki wonoto means nothing", and that the form of meaning is X means Y. The delusion that meaning, if it is to be meaningful at all, must lie latent in the thing itself, the X instead of the Z.
But I think your post captures another delusion, that meaning of your life comes from others, not yourself. Sure, you can devote your life to others, even others devoted to you. But your meaning is not contingent on others. This is the social butterfly's view on life, who surrounds themselves with as many friends as possible. Do social butterflies live especially meaningful lives? This has not been my impression.
Only man is cursed with the capacity to consider himself less significant than he actually is.
Insufficient external validation renders life meaningless?
I'm not sure how you could construe "X making a claim on Joe," as, "Joe receiving external validation." Solipsism renders life meaningless.
Somehow that doesn't improve the situation that life has no meaning unless it's given up to something other than itself.
Becoming part of a larger whole really does confer meaning. I should think this is empirically demonstrable. I see you've given some rhetorical protestations to this idea in the thread. Do you have more than rhetoric?
Quoting universeness
A pointless provocateur and a nihilist poseur--a role that is altogether too easy take up. It probably seems cool to a certain lazy type, because if everything is meaningless and nothing matters, there's never a reason to let others make any demands of us, or rouse one's self into action which might be slightly tiring as well as meaningless. One just goes around whining about the meaningless of life. Talk about tiresome!
I say hit the delete button.
There is meaning aplenty to be had; life just doesn't hand it to us on a silver platter.
No, I understand that people believe this. I just find it sad that they don't consider life itself valuable enough not to require a meaning added to it. Sad, and frightening.
Aye.
Aye. And do we also understand that everyone's rhetoric is meaningful, even though they have different notions of 'meaning' or even, gods help us, 'meaningfulness' ?
I believe the field of psychology, or at least in the study of personalities, acknowledges that the pensive, quiet people (who often find life to be "not happy") are the ones who have a more accurate assessment of life. Not a good finding coming from this field -- but there you go.
I'd say, do not dwell in the past no matter how beautiful or successful the past was. Keep it off your mind. Take care of what you have now. You can't be with your past anymore -- it's gone. Love the one you're with. This, coming from my own experience of dealing with all sorts of people.
Here's a link to the article:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-depressive-realism-6891266
So, depressed people have a clearer perception of reality than most of us, and they are more "prepared" for tragic events than the overall. Oh, come on... why is depression the main cause of suicide then? :roll:
Suicide.
And imagine other countries such as Japan or South Korea...
Interesting. In my experience people with depression are just as likely to get things wrong but the tendency is towards catastrophic underestimation and negative inferences rather than Panglossian overestimation.
Yes, exactly. It was Socrates who said it. The dictum is recorded in Plato's Apology.
I think we agree regarding @niki wonoto and I wonder why he/she/they, have not so far, posted at least a brief rebuttal to the concern/claim I and @Mikie have posted. That in itself is rather bizarre. But still, @hypericin could still be correct. Chronic depression can cause many bizarre behaviours.
We all struggle with personal meaning and purpose. Personal pathology and the experiences and level and style of nurture we have experienced as children, can affect each of us at such a deep, fundamental and very personal level. There is also the power that is 'addiction' and 'habit,' which can be extremely difficult to completely conquer, and few of us ever do, once such takes a strong hold.
Personally, (and I have used this a few times now on TPF) the idea of choosing to live life as a blessing or a curse, is a very real choice. The most important consideration I have, for creating my own meaning and purpose in this life, exists around those words I have emboldened above.
I learned, that I can choose, to allow a feeling of despair, to persist inside me from the moment it starts, for as long as it festers. The more I leave such unchecked and unchallenged, the more it grows and roots in my psyche. I realised, that if I choose to be apathetic and wallow in my own self-pity or I choose to fight and defeat my attack of despair, that the same time period, passes, regardless of which choice I make, for any particular duration of time. This became a vital understanding for me. So, I choose to fight, fight and f****** fight some more, against any and all inner risings of personal despair, and any feelings of lack of reason and purpose or lack of meaning to my own personal life.
I now rarely experience such inner attacks. Sometimes all the bad news can bring one on, or the despair expressed by others, especially loved ones. But my inner question of 'well what's your choice here pal? Do you wanna keep living these precious moments of your life as a curse or a blessing? This is not a f****** computer game, you don't get to reset the gameplay to an earlier point, you don't get these moments back, EVER! So, I choose again, not to live my life as a curse and I re-establish and refresh all my personal meanings, causes and purposes that help me maintain, progress and enjoy my life. I simply will not be any other way, as I have lived, in the main, a happy life because of such.
@Vera Mont
@Tom Storm
@Athena
I have never really understood questions about the meaning of life. There's a more pertinent question. Is life worth living? To a significant extent, as you say, this is up to us and what we make of it. But some people do live a hellish life for any number of reasons - chemical or situational. It may make sense to hate every moment and not see a way out.
I suspect that those of us who 'make choices' to find our own meaning through work and social connection have the inner resources, in short the wherewithal, to take charge of things. I think it's the case that not everyone can do this.
Ironcially @niki wonoto has written an OP drenched in meaning and strong principles. I just think they are the wrong principles.
It is your suggestion so the form of meaning is the form of meaning to you.
Therefore,
(The form of meaning is X means Y) to @hypercin.
Whereas.
(The form of meaning is X means Y to Z, seems a bit more complete) to @unenlightened.
That you disagree seems only to emphasise the importance of Z that you merely remove and put at the beginning.
Life, that is here proposed as meaningless, consists of a separation of the organism itself from the environment and the reproduction of itself. But the separation is only partial and functional, because the substance and energy for development, maintenance and the reproduction process is taken from the environment. So life consists of a partial separation and a relation of dependence and interdependence. Meaning arises in the organism's evaluation of the environment - food or poison - am I your dinner or are you mine? Such judgements are of import (meaningful) to an organism; thus meaning is the common term in a relationship. Gazelle means life to a leopard, and a leopard means death to a gazelle. Life and death are the beginning and end of meaning.
As such, it becomes apparent that "life", considered as the whole of the environment and all organisms as a whole, cannot be in relation to anything else such that meaning can arise. Even God needs to create the other as creation, in order to produce the relationship that He calls 'good'.
That's partly why I tagged you in my last post, as you have valuable experience with working with folks who have a history of mental struggle and addictions. Folks like yourself can at least offer an informed position on such a very important issue as nurturing personal meaning and purpose in life and combatting destructive notions of despair and anti-life. Even though you like everyone else, at some point in your life and perhaps still, face the same such inner turmoil at times.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is that because they as you suggest, 'don't have the wherewithal?' My question would then become, does it, in your experienced opinion, remain at least possible, that anyone, can be turned, away from complete surrender to utter despair?
Quoting Tom Storm
Agreed!
What part (if any) does the notion of legacy via reproduction or via human memorialisation of a life now past, or perhaps both, play, in your notion of living a meaningful life?
I don't know. I'd like to think so, but I imagine it's a combination of (not always available) protective factors that impacts upon a person's recovery - biological, situational, relational, etc, etc. I spoke to a guy who was about to kill himself and the thing that stopped him, he said, was seeing a happy Labrador running in the park as he was about to prepare the noose. It took him back to his own dog when he was a boy and the pleasant memory jolted him. Talk about timing and luck. I think there are a lot of people who never encounter that transformative moment.
Serendipity certainly is a welcome existent.
For humans, it seems to be very important, at least to most folk most of the time, and to some extent for other intelligent and particularly for social animals. Those who find they are unable to reproduce often feel a personal meaning void, as do those who do not know anything of their ancestry - foundlings.
The feeling that no one cared for one's infant self or that there will never be an infant other to have that relation to can be devastating. These are matters of fact. for example
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/28/adoption-foundlings-psychiatry-ian-palmer
https://www.verywellfamily.com/signs-infertility-has-hijacked-your-life-1960006
Meaning and caring are very close.
Well made points that ring true.
True. I have seen this phenomenon in myself--not so much "bizarre" behavior as self-defeating and counter-productive behaviors which seemed like a good idea at the time. Perseverating is a feature of depression for many depressed people; it's the same idea repeating itself over and over again. Of course these perseverated ideas are never positive, up-beat, can-do phrases. Quite the opposite.
Depression may lift on its own, or lives may change, or one might get therapy. The former down-beat negative ideas can fade away and the world has meaning, possibilities, and goodness again.
I don't know if 'wonoto' is depressed. Maybe he, she, or it is trying nihilism on to check out the style--the philosophical equivalent of goth.
Yes, I have witnessed such, on occasion, in friends, work colleagues, even family. Even manifesting in idiosyncratic/obsessive compulsive disorders/behaviours.
Quoting BC
They really really can, its just getting an afflicted often hopeless person to realise it.
I had a bipolar friend who was found dead in his house at 42. An open verdict was given as to his potential suicide. We had long debates about how he might better deal with his condition. But me and the rest of his friends did not know enough at the time to help him better. Now I think I know what I should have said to him way back then, 15 years ago, but who knows, perhaps there was not ever much chance of saving him from himself. Such a waste.
Quoting BC
:grin: I always thought the goth kids looked cool. One of my female pupils committed suicide due to being constantly bullied for dressing as a goth. 14 years of age. Again, what a terrible waste.
I agree about Niki, somethings not right. I know of no other example of a TPF member posting the opening of threads only, and then not responding to any response.
You misread, I said that this was the mistake OP was making.
The Free Will card is played.
I can also choose, at least as far as choosing to believing that I made a choice. I do not believe that people 'choose' to be depressed (and all the stuff that goes along with it). What we can and do choose (or what we can not and do not choose) is an intricate puzzle. We don't have to get into all that. My theory (chosen or not) is that we are born with a predisposition towards optimism or pessimism. You seem to be a solid optimist. I'm not a despairing pessimist, but I'm closer to that than being a cock-eyed optimist. Rogers and Hammerstein, 1949, South Pacific:
I have heard people rant and rave and bellow
That were done and we might as well be dead
But Im only a cock-eyed optimist
And I cant get it into my head"
The "affective" aspects of human behavior don't seem to be a matter of choice. Aspects of our intellectual life, however, can (to a large extent) be chosen. Anyone might pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, read it, and chose to think of it as gospel or as heresy. Same with the Gospel, Ayn Rand, Mao's Red Book, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, Thoreau, Hegel, or... whatever. Consequences usually follow when we make intellectual choices. Enthusiasm for Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience influenced both Gandhi and M. L. King thinking (one out of a billion other examples). Thoreau influenced my thinking too. So did Uncle Karl. So did the Gospels. So did a lot of texts that I could have given a pass, but didn't.
The really tricky part of this is where the affective and intellectual influences mix. Some people clutch the Manifesto to their heart, other people drop it like a hot potato. What our intellects are attracted to and which we choose to read are influenced by what we like before first contact.
So getting back to Nikki Wonoto, he, she, or it may not have "chosen" nihilism as much as fallen into it and found its odd fragrance pleasant. You don't like its odor, I don't like the smell of it, but some people do. Taste is destiny?
I try to go for 'hesh' rather than 'it' as my probably poor attempt to find an acceptable intersex pronoun. I do also use 'they' but do find it confusing, due to it's plurality.
Quoting BC
Neither do I, but I simply wish folks would believe more in their own ability to fight back.
They is a bit awkward, but its probably the best option because we already used it to refer to people whose gender we didnt know. As in, Mildred, if a tax inspector comes today can you tell them Im at a conference in Hong Kong. I think whats happening now is that the usage is just being expanded.
Yeah, I tend to watch things like the transatlantic call in show on youtube, now and again, It is ran by trans folks and I try to see what terms are acceptable to them. They have never used 'hesh,' so it's probably a dead duck. Having said that I have never phoned in to ask them. :yikes:
If 'they' becomes the 'most acceptable,' then I will use it when it seems appropriate to do so.
I don't think it's a big imposition to use the pronouns any particular person asks for? Do You?
I agree that depressed people are not happy, but I don't believe they have an accurate assessment of life. When they suggest there is no meaning to life and no reason for our existence, they are wrong and that's what makes them so unhappy. Quoting L'éléphant
I think of sentimentality as the romanticized cousin of regret. The sentimental harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive some perfect moment that never existed, like the time when their family was gathered around the Christmas tree welcoming a new puppy into their lives, as if that moment wasn't as complex, troubled, wonderful and significant as the present moment.
The regretful harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive that critical moment where things went wrong, so as to change them so that today wouldn't be as complex and troubled as it is right now. It's like the time you wish you could take back those words, continue that pursuit, or see that relationship through. What is missed is that today is as it is supposed to be, not just from casual necessity, but from teleological necessity
Regret and sentimentality come from not believing one has a purpose that is constantly being fulfilled. If we accept that the driver for our acts aren't the causes that precede them but are for the purposes we are to fulfill, then it's hard to find a reason to focus on yesterday and try to run backwards in time and away from our intended destination.
This is my philosophy of radical purposefulness, which is no more or less reasonable than the more typically accepted radical causation theory, where all events are explainable from their cause.
I see two different types of meaning in what you two are saying. I don't know what to make of it, and maybe it isn't important. But it occurred to me, so I figured I'd mention it.
First is something that's wrapped up in a biological imperative. such as being a parent. The plants and all the other animals can't contemplate these things. For them, there is no meaning of life in the way this thread is primarily focused on. Only a human would, or can, say a biological imperative is the meaning of their life.
Second is the kind of meaning that only humans can have. Not because were the only thing we are aware of that has any concept of meaning, but also because we're the only ones who do most things that are not biological imperatives. Like devoting your life to music, religion, linguistics, philosophy, literature, or any of a number of other things. most of us seem to be talking about.
The first type might be easier to find. Or might feel more natural. It seems like it would be great fortune if what you thought the meaning of your life is was also something you were biologically driven to do. Of course, if you think the meaning of your life is, say, to have children, but you cannot, it might be a pretty serious problem for you. Hopefully, people in that kind of predicament are able to change their way of seeing things in time. Adoption, or other ways of caring for people.
But what really strikes me is that humans are the only things in the universe that we are aware of that can choose to do things that aren't biological imperatives. I feel there's something... Difficult to find the right word. I think "human" might be it, although that doesn't convey the specific feeling that I can't seem to name. There's something appropriate in people doing things that only people can do. Not many animals walk on two legs. Not many have opposable thumbs. It would be strange if someone refused to take advantage of either.
Although it doesn't necessarily have to be your meaning of life. Maybe Bach would have said the meaning of his life was being a father.
Some people have counterproductive thoughts. A lot of afflicted often hopeless people are afflicted by their circumstances. Their social/physical environment may be of low quality; bad housing, violence, not enough food, rats / roaches / bedbugs, dirt, poverty, chronic physical illnesses, isolation -- and more, all leaving the afflicted angry, hungry, lonely, fearful, frustrated -- very unhappy for months and years on end. What these afflicted people need are immediate and significant physical changes in their circumstances. They may be diagnosed as "depression" cases and they may well be depressed, but what they really need, and what will be curative, is a better life.
Or, sometimes living with someone who has a combination of intractable problems -- let's say a terminal physical illness and is maybe bi-polar, may stress a partner very severely until they are themselves dysfunctional -- depressed. In that case, the situation will resolve (the terminal illness will result in the partner's death. But sometimes people are in relationships that are chronically stressful, but to which both are committed. That too can lead to depression and the cure may well be separation.
I don't want to diminish the importance of maintaining healthy thinking about one's choices, but sometimes circumstances have to change rather than coming up with new ideas. And yes, sometimes people are--for all practical purposes--STUCK in the situation they are in.
Maybe Wonoto is 'stuck'.
And there, but for the fortuity of my circumstances, go I.
Quoting javi2541997
Quoting Tom Storm
I have no objection to the above comments. I did not read the scientific study to support that article. I also find that glorifying the dark perception of life by depressed people is biased -- serious looks do not entail deep meaning.
Quoting Hanover
Because we have adopted the meaning of "purpose" as something that's got to be grand. Anything less than grand is just existing. And existing is easy to do. Rocks exist. People can't picture themselves serving a purpose if they make a minimum wage and cannot pay the rent. Or if fuel price increases and everyone is bothered by it. How can we think of the grand purpose in life if we're annoyed at the pump?
I feel Socrates was right in saying that. He was the first philosopher in history who turned the philosophical focus into human life i.e. what is life, what is better life, and how one should live, from the wonders of the universe topics which were philosophical trends at the time.
I read the OP as just a topic of Philosophy of Life rather than some outcry of personal problems.
Humans have reasoning abilities as well as highly developed linguistic capabilities (which no other species have), hence they do think about life and death, and ask these questions, and philosophers debate on the topic from speculating attitudes.
Well, I agree with you about plants but the reproductive biological imperative in many animal species is more than just instinctive in some cases. Well, at least it seems that way to me. A mother or father elephant, for example does recognise their offspring for their entire life, no matter how long they have been apart 'an elephant never forgets.' Many animals have very similar biological imperatives to humans as humans are animals but I do agree with you that such is normally demonstrated to a lesser degree in the average non-human animal compared to the average human animal.
Quoting Patterner
Are you not just referencing the notion of the complexity and nuance that can manifest in different humans when it comes to what feeds into 'meaning,' 'purpose' and 'cause,' in their particular lives?
Making the reproductive imperative and nurturing your children, even after they become independent adults, as one of your or even thee main purpose of your life, would seem to restricted to me personally but I agree with you that some choose to do this. Are you simply saying, you are impressed by the size of the spectrum of potential 'meaning/purpose/cause,' that humans can manifest or are you saying that this is what overwhelms many people and makes them reduce it to the more simplistic biological imperatives or it results in negative pathologies such as chronic depression?
Is this not a significant part of the reasons why we both chose socialism as our political stance BC?
Quoting BC
Sounds about right to me.
Quoting BC
The question remains. If Niki is real and is as conflicted as the threads produced so far suggest.
What do you think he/she/they gain, from remaining silent after posting an opening that purports to be seeking help from TPF members. Do we have any professional psychoanalyst members on TPF, who are more able to suggest why Niki would chose this approach? I know @Tom Storm has experience of working in mental health/social work but I don't know if there are more qualified members of TPF who could comment. Is there any TPF member you would choose to tag for such a purpose?
Perhaps @Corvus is correct and Nikki is just innocently posting philosophical human dilemmas on a philosophy site to help him/her/them complete a philosophy course. :halo:
You have some very good points. By simply asking whats the meaning of life? humanity has distinguished itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. I raise another question, which I think is related to the topic: What does it mean to be human?
A human being is born into a very specific set of circumstances: we are born into a family (or lack thereof), living in a specific era of history, in a town, within a state, within a national community, which all takes place on the grand stage of planet earth. This is the setting for our lives. The people in our circles are the characters in the story (including ourselves). As we go through life, we are faced with challenges and must make decisions. These challenges and decisions create the plot, and move the story onward. Furthermore, these experiences cause us to transform; to grow, or diminish; to find glory or shame. Everything that happens to a human being, and every decision they make forms the story of their life.
Simply put, a human being is a story: from birth to death. And we can become stories that inspire others to rise up to greatness, or to live in the shadows. We can inspire others to live a noble life, or a desperately wicked life. And we can also be inspired by others, as I have been inspired by all of you to join in on this discussion.
In regards to the meaning of life, I will say that I find meaning in connecting with others through intellectual discussions. I have had a great morning drinking my coffee and reading what you all have to say. Thank you for all of your posts.
Yeah, I don't presume or even imagine anyone with real personal crisis of their life would come to Philosophy Forum, and cry out seeking for help. :)
That question is just as pointless as the other. What is the meaning of a rock? What is the purpose of an earthworm? What is the significance of blue? There are no answers, because they are not mere symbols that represent, stand for [mean] some thing or convey some idea: they are the actual thing or manifestation.
You can ask meaningful questions about humanity: How does a human differ from other great apes? Do humans have any traits unique in the animal kingdom? Do the specific characteristic confer advantages on the human? In what way do humans use standard animal faculties differently from other species?
Of course, those questions have answers based in empirical fact, which makes them far less enticing than these wide-open-to-interpretation 'philosophical' ones.
The most outstanding human characteristic seems to me an obsession with mirrors of every kind: we never tire of examining, admiring and discussing our own image.
Just for the fun of it Vera, I will have a go. Meaning is often found in what an object might represent or what its utility is:
Quoting Vera Mont
To demonstrate that there is substance in the universe.
To exemplify the human notion of what 'solid' means.
To be building material for foundations, walls, bridges, lighthouses, aqueducts, and retaining walls.
To become constituents in cosmetics, cars, roads, and appliances.
To be a source of minerals and salts for human health and nutrition.
To become Jewelry, idols, statues, and astrological stones.
To aid in rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge.
To act as grinders and kitchenware.
To store/capture valuable minerals like gold, sapphire, diamond, etc. for later extraction
To be used as a weapon.
Can meaning not reflect utility?
Quoting Vera Mont
To provide food for birds, animals, and humans by assisting plant growth.
To aerate the soil, promote drainage, and draw organic material into their burrow.
To break down dead organic matter in a process known as decomposition.
To have a positive effect on bacteria and fungi in soils.
To increase pastoral productivity and facilitate mine restoration.
Can meaning not reflect functionality and process?
Quoting Vera Mont
To indicate that the galaxy andromeda is moving towards the milky way.
To help identify where the sky is.
To act as an aesthetic.
To help indicate a temperature on a scale of temperatures or a visible light frequency on a spectrum of visible light frequency.
Are categorisations/colour labelling an aspect of meaning?
Quoting Vera Mont
Why are they not both of these?
I guess my point is merely noting that humans can choose meanings that are biological imperatives/things other living things do, or that are beyond what any other species can do. Since it's not a requirement that someone choose a meaning at all, it can't be said that one type is better, or more appropriate, than the other. I just thought it was worth noting. I don't know if it's something any philosopher has written at any length about.
No. Both meaning and utility are external; they are assigned by the maker, agent or user. You described how a rock might serve humans - entirely in human terms, in a human context. Not rock terms. Rocks existed long before humans. Did rocks have meaning for those billions of years when there were no hominids to make use of them? Did some creator god make all the rocks in the universe in anticipation of a species that would eventually give them a purpose on one little wee planet?
Does that mean that humans were also created to serve a species that has not yet claimed ownership? In that case, we have a purpose: to wait. The meaning will be given by the new owners when God hands us over.
TBC - i have to go.
Quoting universeness
That's one of the things rocks did. You describe relationships that could not have formed without the existence of two or more entities, and processes that take place with conscious agency to mediate them. To say 'something happened' means only that something happened; it conveys no further information.
Similarly, you have put the meaning of rock, an earthworm and blue in the context of their exploitation by other entities. Not in terms of what a worm means to himself. As if everything in the universe existed to be used by another.
What does the word 'ghanommetriea' mean? Nothing. That's why there is no such word. Words were invented to convey a message, to stand for and signify something real. So were musical notes invented to stand for sounds, and Morse code is patterns of single sounds that stand for letters, that stand for sounds that combine into words that stand for things and ideas. They all have specific meanings assigned to them by their creators.
Were humans and earthworms created to convey specific meanings?
Or did we just use a word "meaning" metaphorically to stretch over self-assigned and externally defined functions, superstitions, aspirations, social bonding, creative endeavour, personal relationships, self-aggrandization and -depracation, value and purpose?
My contention is that far too many different ideas have been stuffed into this one little word. It's reasonably elastic, but by now it has so many definitions, it's lost its ability to convey information. I.e. Nobody seems to know what anyone else means by "meaning", but everyone makes assumptions based on their own definition.
Yes, imo, as they facilitated new combinatorials, such as rocky planets, moons, asteroids etc.
That is one way power-hungry people capitalize on man's need for meaning, but it is not representative of a meaningful life. I am not claiming that was your standpoint, but I wanted to point it out.
A meaningful life does entail one is serving something greater than oneself, but that does not necessitate one is not serving oneself. By realizing one is one with the greater thing one serves, other- and self-servitude becomes one and the same; both in theory and in practice. By practicing servitude for the greater thing, one is serving oneself. By practicing servitude for oneself, one is serving the greater good. One gets meaning both from the hard work and from the breaks!
The value of serving oneself is not wholly dependent on the value of serving the greater thing, nor vice versa; the values are co-dependent.
We are next-to-nothing without each other; therein lies the meaning.
A social animal feels incomplete without a society. A human life is more productive and rewarding when its activities include shared undertakings, companionship, helping and being helped by others. Humans are rarely happy and fulfilled in isolation.
Is this true?
Why does it have to be described in terms of data delivery?
Without you and her and him and me, there no society. Society is not greater than us: it's just us. It doesn't need minion 'serving'; it needs individual cooperating. When you put your own essence and purpose in the context of another's requirements, you become a voluntary serf, subsumed by they "greater" entity.
I think it's individual life is more valuable, that it should have more integrity and dignity than chypherdom.
By describing it in these terms, we show just how fundamental and profound having a compass is. A compass (that is, serving some greater thing) changes how we receive, interpret and transmit data, meaning it is a transformation of your entire experience. It's not just some resource that we can tap into and that we need to fill up on; no, it is a state of mind; a transformation of thoughts, emotions and perceptions.
If we simply explain the need for proper social servitude as some need and desire that makes us happier, we would be underplaying the importance and profundity of fulfilling this need. If social servitude only makes you happy, it is replaceable by other sources of happiness. Meaning, as a resource, is not replaceable. Meaning is not happiness; meaning is the medium of happiness.
Which is exactly what we need to do, if we are ever to stop slaughtering one another on the orders of our 'superiors'. As long as there is willing submission, there is enthusiastic domination.
Quoting Ø implies everything
Is it? Does servitude really make you happier than cooperation? Can you compare the mood of a barn-raising to that of a chain-gang? I think a big-brained species needs several diverse sources of satisfaction. Group effort is only one of these. Intimacy is another. Overcoming self-chosen challenge. Physical pleasure. The companionship of friends. Contact with nature. The appreciation of culture and creative endeavour. Acknowledgment and respect.
Anyway, why conflate psychological needs with the purpose of existence? Surely, existence came first; meaning and purpose were imposed only later.
I agree that people with meaningful lives are more dangerous. Meaning is dangerous, and perhaps the world would be better off currently if our lives were a little less meaningful. It is a double-edged sword however; meaninglessness goes hand-in-hand with apathy and desensitivity, which leads to all kinds of depravity.
So, where is the optimal balance currently? And where will the optimal balance be in the future? Perhaps we are finally able to achieve a framework of absolute certainty (accompanied by good formulations of it), through which we are able to (relatively) peacefully resolve differences? That's my dream but I know it might be a bit optimistic.
This paragraph shows you have misunderstood me. By social servitude, I mean servitude for some social cause, which does not necessarily involve direct servitude of people. And, if it does involve servitude of people, one's servitude of those people would (ideally, of course) only extend as far as serving them would serve the cause. And completely willingly serving someone is cooperating with them; since you are willingly serving them, you have the same cause as them and you reckon that the cause is best served if the other person/people play(s) a more executive role.
Also, when you create meaning through servitude, then that is definitely a self-chosen challenge. You have to want it. You have to choose it.
To assert that one does not need to justify one's existence in terms of submission is not meaninglessness as defined by the 'meanings' vaguely outlined in this thread. I don't become despondent and depraved by rejecting a label imposed on me by someone I consider no higher an order of being than myself.
Great question and I will take my time to respond to it. I hope others are interested in taking a jab at it. It is veering away from self-help and into metaphysics however, so I will be more formal and careful in dealing with it; it is far from a resolved issue for me.
Googling Niki Wonoto reveals somebody somewhere doing philosophical business as Niki Wonoto; NW posts unremarkable pictures on Instagram and has posted on The Suicide Project--9/15/23--the same text that was posted here. There are other social media accounts under that name. What I saw in a quick drive-by was posts about music and ordinary pictures. I didn't sign in to the Twitter account.
Apparently NW finds some satisfaction in expressing nihilistic thoughts and seeing them displayed on screen. Why would a devout nihilist care to know what meaning others see in the texts?
Is NW "seeking help"? Apparently not. The suicide project site appears to be moderated, allowing no posts about methods, partners, pacts, and so on. It's a conduit for dark texts.
IF the NW person is the same in the accounts that I looked at (and they may not be), he appears to be at least somewhat engaged in life.
That question is just as pointless as the other. What is the meaning of a rock? What is the purpose of an earthworm? What is the significance of blue? There are no answers, because they are not mere symbols that represent, stand for [mean] some thing or convey some idea: they are the actual thing or manifestation.
@Vera Mont
If we are viewing these things from an objective standpoint, then you are correct. But meaning is subjective. A rock is not a symbol (objectively), but it could be a symbol (subjectively), if we apply a meaning to it. The color blue can be a symbol, in various contexts. In a painting, blue can symbolize sadness. Furthermore, human beings can become symbols. Martin Luther King Jr. is a symbol of the civil rights movement. Husayn is a symbol of martyrdom for the Islamic faith. Mother Theresa is a symbol of virtue (if you believe that she lived a virtuous life), and Viktor Frankl is (in my opinion) a role model. He is a symbol of various qualities that I would like to emulate.
Now, to wrap up my thoughts
Meaning is subjective, so I dont believe there can be a definitive answer to the meaning of life. But thats why I love this question! In attempting to answer it, we reveal more about ourselves than we do about the nature of reality. And in doing so, I get to connect with people who view life differently than myself.
Thank you for the conversation. If you have any other thoughts, feel free to share
I can only view the "meaning" or existence of an entity other than myself as an object.
If meaning is subjective, why are so many humans of different cultures able to use the same alphabet, or the same warning labels on toxins, or the same traffic signs? If a you have a private personal meaning for a word, nobody else can understand your use of it.
The very function of words, the reason they were invented, was to have objective meaning and thus facilitate communication.
Quoting JWW
Subjectively, from the rock's POV, it simply exists. If some other entity - e.g. a human - uses it as a symbol, it has meaning for that human, but the rock itself simply continues to exist.
Quoting JWW
Sure, to somebody other than blue itself.
Quoting JWW
Does this mean they had no meaning in themselves? Until other people raised them to symbolic significance, they simply lived their lives. This is all I've been trying to get across.
Life happens - not for any particular reason or purpose; it doesn't serve any predetermined function; it is not a means to some end. Life happens. Those of us lucky enough to live it in bodies that perform within acceptable parameters have a biological imperative to supply its needs. Beyond that, we have psychological needs, and the more complex among us living things also have social needs.
But we are not mere food or tools or footsoldiers. We are not messages in bottles or words in a Big Book of Destiny: we are individual entities with various degrees of choice and various levels of craving for self-definition.
Well done sir, in your investigation and analysis. You may well be the closest to solving the case of the mysterious Niki Wonoto. I found your findings and analysis intriguing. :grin:
Here's a good moment from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Short conversation between Dr. Crusher and Data (an AI android, for those who don't know):That's what this whole conversation about meaning is. Finding our place in the universe.
I like the Star Trek reference! Thanks for sharing
I have never seen an NE reference on a forum. Thought I was the only fan.
You must have an easy life then, still it doesnt make sense to state there is no meaning to life.
Maybe the meaning of life is love or to give yourself meaning such as be successful and enjoy it ? Or maybe just be happy that youre alive ?? the odds of life existing on this planet is billions or trillions to one so perhaps celebrate that and be glad maybe in that astronomical number lies the answer youre looking for.
It makes perfect sense.
Quoting simplyG
Why can't you simply live, love, succeed and enjoy, with no hidden messages?
Quoting simplyG
Now you've got it!
Id imagine if I was an African man struggling to eat this would be the last question on my mind. Its the spoilt westerners that have this sort of nihilistic outlook about life. Lifes too easy or comfortable is why this question gets asked.
Quoting Vera Mont
You can but it does make you wonder the fact we havent met any other extraterrestrials yet means were pretty much an extraordinary achievement to exist at all. So could point towards divinity perhaps though we may not know it.
AFAIK, we haven't met any extraterrestrial alligators or mosquitoes. Either they didn't get here yet, or we're all pretty damn special. So, to whom is the meaning of mosquitoes significant?
Its intrinsic to that creature, eat, survive reproduce though they dont know thats their meaning. Same applies to human beings, but we want more or specifics to which the computer replies: 42
You dont have to travel that far. Being a habitat journeyman from a lower tier Stockholm suburb one to an academical one will see that meaning question multiplied. Where I grew up we just lived on without too many questions asked. No meanings of life, no wants to do with our lives. We also became, imho, not less valuable for mankind, doing what we do best to put milk on tables, and to get some comfortability.
The starving man might think, "This is it? This is life? Pain and misery? Life is meaningless." He might think that, because he [I]can[/I]. No other animal can. To our knowledge, nothing else in the universe thinks, searches, contemplates, wonders. I cant fault anyone for wanting to go to the Zen route, and do less of those things. But neither can I fault anyone for doing the thing that is uniquely ours, the thing that defines us more surely than anything else.
Right. So, we ask: "What does it mean?" and somebody - anybody at all - replies "Love" or "King and country" or "42" or "MAGA", and we put that on a flag and march together. 'Cose we're so much smarter than the average lemming.
I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again...
All is vanity.
What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains for ever.
The sun rises and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.
The wind blows to the south,
and goes round to the north;
round and round goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
See, this is new?
It has been already,
in the ages before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to happen
among those who come after.
I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to the sons of men to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be numbered.
I said to myself, I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.