Meaning Cannot Not Exist

[Duxwing]

Higher Meaning Cannot Not Exist

Dear Forum,

For millennia, philosophers have mused about the meaning and purpose of existence, concepts that certainly appear hopeful and beautiful at first blush. Think of it, discovering a higher purpose to existence, a greater meaning! In my case, the mere thought of these things can get the heart pumping in a hurry; just one last attempt, I think, and I'll crack the puzzle of life, tell everyone, and be remembered as the one who pulled it off. Yet below I seek to demonstrate that such a utopia, no matter how much I might desire it, cannot exist because Higher Meaning Cannot Not Exist.

We'll begin by realizing that the foundations of any logical system are inherently unproven; they are taken on faith for the sake of the argument; unfortunately, we could assume anything that we wanted to and end up in knots trying to be consistent with any of our "self-evident" values. But where does that leave us? Adrift in the Void of Nihilism, that's where. Yet as I lay upon my bed bewailing the meaninglessness of existence, I had a flash of insight: what would the world look like if I were wrong? Could I even conceive of a world with meaning?

No, I couldn't, for to prove that a set of statements was the meaning of life (a.k.a., a "higher meaning")-- a term that I define as a set of objective statements from which one could derive correct answers to any and all philosophical questions-- one would need another system to check one's results, and that system, of course, would require a system that would verify that the answers produced by the set of statements were correct. Yet this new system is also unproven and itself requires another system to be proven by. This constant regress of systems is infinite, which means that the "meaning of life" would simply be an arbitrary stopping point as opposed to something born of logic. So, a world with meaning would be infinitely recursive, and therefore provide us with nothing to stand upon-- in other words, even 'meaningful' worlds are meaningless.

Since meaning cannot exist, even in theory, then statements such as "the universe is Absurd" are vacuous because they are predicated upon the idea that meaning could exist. Thus, with the absence of higher meaning proven to be an illogical concern, we are beyond Absurdity. We cannot create meaning subjectively since such "meaning" is but conjecture just as arbitrary as the objective variant. Indeed, our existence is not meaningless, nor absurd, nor anything in between. At the risk of sounding grandiose, we live in the Age of Freedom, for we are free to do as we wish, and there is no Meaning to stop us.

-Duxwing

P.S., Whew, that was fun. I'd appreciate any comments, criticism, and especially review of my logic. I hope that I've created something of lasting value, and if not, at least something salvageable. Oh, and Happy New Year!

 

[Black Rose]

I think meaning is a relative concept rather than an all or none absolute. Meaning is not a thing for things by themselves serve no purpose. Meaningful events can and do happen. They have a lasting impact of the individual or group. Life ends but that's simply an excuse for not enjoying the benefits offered to us by such events. To "be" meaningful only requires an experience as such. There is nothing else to cling to.

 

[Cognisant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrhRzxoFH-4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So now what? That's the question that'll really drive you nuts

 

[Duxwing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrhRzxoFH-4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So now what? That's the question that'll really drive you nuts

My essay proves that question to be both unanswerable and illogical. That conclusion, in turn, releases us of any responsibility to answer it. Hence, we can stop looking at things as Good or Bad or Meaningful or Absurd, even if we're very used to such expressions. Regarding feelings, I feel like I'm slipping away from reason, but not exactly. I feel... peace.

-Duxwing

 

[Vrecknidj]

Meaning-creating creatures shouldn't find it all that surprising that when they examine the world they find meaning.

 

[nightstreaking]

A few weeks ago, when we were discussing religion, my pious grandmother brushed aside all my logical predication and said, "But do you believe in God?"

So if your desired outcome is a fixed/meaningful meaning (which I believe most--even the most casual--discussions about meaning are centered around), then just pretend I'm your grandmother and ask yourself what you think life means for you, as a unique consciousness. I usually get really hot and bothered about these existential dilemmas, but it's been resolved by the inclusion and acceptance of subjectivity.

I think meaning is a relative concept rather than an all or none absolute. Meaning is not a thing for things by themselves serve no purpose.

I think it was in Phaedo that Socrates talked about meaning in terms of opposites (very sketchy to bring this up since this wasn't how he was talking about it; he meant 'meaning' with the connotation of 'definition' and dynamism). The subjective drawing of meaning occurs between polars(extremes)--objectivity implies absolutes (there are no absolutes). Maybe this can be clarified some time... I mention it only because it has somehow contributed significantly to my conception of meaning.

Anyway, an Age of Freedom isn't any more helpful than an infinite regress (what's the difference between Freedom and Nihilism?). If there is to be any solution to what I perceive to be a ginormous problem, it won't come from logic.

Maurois says, "Logic cannot invent anything. It is doomed to eternally reiterate... Logic has certainly given speed to the spirit; it has provided it with an agility it lacked, but also with the dangerous habit of believing that all is accomplished when it has made a reasoning which has the appearance of truth." For these types of questions, it arrives at a draw.

Edit:

My essay proves that question to be both unanswerable and illogical. That conclusion, in turn, releases us of any responsibility to answer it.
-Duxwing

On the contrary, it makes the question even more significant.

 

[Duxwing]

A few weeks ago, when we were discussing religion, my pious grandmother brushed aside all my logical predication and said, "But do you believe in God?"

Old people and axioms are a funny combination.

So if your desired outcome is a fixed/meaningful meaning (which I believe most--even the most casual--discussions about meaning are centered around), then just pretend I'm your grandmother and ask yourself what you think life means for you, as a unique consciousness. I usually get really hot and bothered about these existential dilemmas, but it's been resolved by the inclusion and acceptance of subjectivity.

I don't need to, I destroyed the concept of meaning as something illogical.

I think it was in Phaedo that Socrates talked about meaning in terms of opposites (very sketchy to bring this up since this wasn't how he was talking about it; he meant 'meaning' with the connotation of 'definition' and dynamism). The subjective drawing of meaning occurs between polars(extremes)--objectivity implies absolutes (there are no absolutes). Maybe this can be clarified some time... I mention it only because it has somehow contributed significantly to my conception of meaning.

Anyway, an Age of Freedom isn't any more helpful than an infinite regress (what's the difference between Freedom and Nihilism?). If there is to be any solution to what I perceive to be a ginormous problem, it won't come from logic.

The difference is that Nihilism states that the world is Absurd. Now, we can recognize that statement as vacuous since meaning is in itself illogical.

Maurois says, "Logic cannot invent anything. It is doomed to eternally reiterate... Logic has certainly given speed to the spirit; it has provided it with an agility it lacked, but also with the dangerous habit of believing that all is accomplished when it has made a reasoning which has the appearance of truth." For these types of questions, it arrives at a draw.

I never said that the pursuit of logic was without emotional dangers.

I think that should answer your questions nicely.

-Duxwing

 

[nightstreaking]

Your argument is valid (it's consistent and linear to me), but the conclusion is defeating. You have to trust the arbiters of information as sentient and active to prevent the need for infinite regress.

the meaning of life-- a term that I define as a set of objective statements from which one could derive correct answers to any and all philosophical questions

The meaning of life involves feeling. 'Correct' answers to any and all philosophical questions would be based on values. Meaning isn't value (is it?). Also, values function as but are not exclusively operating systems.

The difference is that Nihilism states that the world is Absurd. Now, we can recognize that statement as vacuous since meaning is in itself illogical.

The question was only meant to point out that you left us with no alternatives, as does Nihilism. Meaning is not illogical because it is not insignificant.

I never said that the pursuit of logic was without emotional dangers.

I wonder why you responded with this.

 

[Duxwing]

Your argument is valid (it's consistent and linear to me), but the conclusion is defeating. You have to trust the arbiters of information as sentient and active to prevent the need for infinite regress.

Believing things because the alternative is uncomfortable isn't how logic works.

The meaning of life involves feeling. 'Correct' answers to any and all philosophical questions would be based on values. Meaning isn't value (is it?). Also, values function as but are not exclusively operating systems.

That's why I said that meaning is illogical.

The question was only meant to point out that you left us with no alternatives, as does Nihilism. Meaning is not illogical because it is not insignificant.

Significance is relative to one's perspective. Killing someone can be good or bad depending on one's situation and values.

I wonder why you responded with this.

You held that pursuing logic to its bitter end could be unpleasant, and I agreed.

Overall, you appear to be holding that emotion and intuition provide meaning, am I wrong?

-Duxwing

 

[Black Rose]

The meaning of life involves feeling. 'Correct' answers to any and all philosophical questions would be based on values. Meaning isn't value (is it?). Also, values function as but are not exclusively operating systems.

That's why I said that meaning is illogical.

Feeling is a rational Jungian function. Why do you say values are illogical?

 

[Duxwing]

Feeling is a rational Jungian function. Why do you say values are illogical?

First, who made Jung arbiter of Truth? Second, values are illogical because they come from nowhere but our hearts, which are by nature fickle and contradictory. As an aside, you sound like a nice person that I haven't met before. Welcome to the forum!

-Duxwing

 

[nightstreaking]

Believing things because the alternative is uncomfortable isn't how logic works.

The alternative doesn't work. It's beyond logic.

That's why I said that meaning is illogical.

Meaning is alogical.

Significance is relative to one's perspective.

This is objective significance. It is significant because it is discussed. Because you deemed it illogical, it was supposed to be insignificant because it no longer had any claim. Again,

My essay proves that question to be both unanswerable and illogical. That conclusion, in turn, releases us of any responsibility to answer it.

The responsibility stands.

You held that pursuing logic to its bitter end could be unpleasant, and I agreed.

I only proposed that logic could not solve this.

I don't know that emotion and intuition provide meaning, but you have shown that logic cannot.

Edit:
I seem to be getting a little repetitive; I'll wait for other forum members to contribute. Anyway, Duxwing, I admire you! Just playing devil's advocate here, so I hope no offense is taken.

 

[Black Rose]

First, who made Jung arbiter of Truth?

This only denotes that you disagree. Not that he is wrong.

Second, values are illogical because they come from nowhere but our hearts, which are by nature fickle and contradictory.

The heart is a subset of reality, there can be no contradiction only conflict. As I said its relative. Values differ but cannot be said to be meaningless.

As an aside, you sound like a nice person that I haven't met before. Welcome to the forum!

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

The alternative doesn't work. It's beyond logic.



Meaning is alogical.

Fine, if you want to get very technical, meaning is a subjective experience in which a certain set of activities or thoughts is emotionally elevated above all others, which, I admit, is alogical. The problem with that argument is that it only describes meaning as a mechanistic psychological process, not as something that an agent of free will (i.e., arbitrary input) could use as a guide.

This is objective significance. It is significant because it is discussed. Because you deemed it illogical, it was supposed to be insignificant because it no longer had any claim. Again,
The responsibility stands.

I don't understand your wording, would you care to rephrase that?

I only proposed that logic could not solve this.

All other solutions are guesses. There's no reason not to use logic to solve puzzles like this one.

I don't know if emotion and intuition provide meaning, but you have shown that logic cannot.

Indeed, and therefore no-one can call us unreasonable for not having an answer-- or, as I said, we have no responsibility to answer the question.

Just believing in something doesn't make it true.

@Animekitty

I don't have to prove that Jung is wrong, Jung has to prove that he is right. The burden of proof rests upon the asserting party.

Have you never been faced with conflicting emotions? The heart is almost fickle by design.

-Duxwing

 

[Black Rose]

Just believing in something doesn't make it true.

@Animekitty

I don't have to prove that Jung is wrong, Jung has to prove that he is right. The burden of proof rests upon the asserting party.

Have you never been faced with conflicting emotions? The heart is almost fickle by design.

-Duxwing

Value is a positive relationship between subject and object. Its not about emotion or belief. What can be valued depends not on a falsehood but on what is gained by having that relationship substantiated.

 

[nightstreaking]

I would only suggest that you re-define meaning until it means something.

I don't understand your wording, would you care to rephrase that?

You define meaning, you decide it is irrelevant, it then becomes insignificant in your argument and you conclude that we are not bound to (responsible for finding) meaning because meaning is meaningless when all that is proven is that meaning cannot be deduced through logic (and so the responsibility is not dissolved).

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I derive meaning therefore meaning exists! o_O

 

[Hadoblado]

It just seems like Duxwing mistakes the term meaning for 'higher meaning'. Meaning exists because without it we would not be able to postulate that it does not exist. Higher, or objective, meaning is a different question.

...I think that's already been said though.

 

[mu is mu]

For the most part, I have adopted a skeptical stance within my discussion below. My direct criticism isn't intended to provoke you but rather to indicate areas in which I personally suspect your reasoning is unsound; with that said, please don't read anger or combativeness into my statements.

Dear Forum,

For millennia, philosophers have mused about the meaning and purpose of existence, concepts that certainly appear hopeful and beautiful at first blush. Think of it, discovering a higher purpose to existence, a greater meaning! In my case, the mere thought of these things can get the heart pumping in a hurry; just one last attempt, I think, and I'll crack the puzzle of life, tell everyone, and be remembered as the one who pulled it off. Yet such a utopia, no matter how much I might desire it, cannot exist because Meaning Cannot Not Exist.

Upon reading your use of "cannot exist" I almost reflexively become skeptical. According to the constrictive reasoning which you explicate below such an absolute claim might be true but you haven't yet established that your reasoning corresponds to reality.

We'll begin by realizing that the foundations of any logical system are inherently unproven; they are taken on faith for the sake of the argument; unfortunately, we could assume anything that we wanted to and end up in knots trying to be consistent with any of our "self-evident" values.

We make countless unprovable assumptions on a daily bases via our senses.

But where does that leave us? Adrift in the Void of Nihilism, that's where. Yet as I lay upon my bed bewailing the meaninglessness of existence, I had a flash of insight: what would the world look like if I were wrong? Could I even conceive of a world with meaning?

Why are you assuming that existence is meaningless? I perceive that to be an incredibly arrogant assumption, as if you've evaluated every worldview and discovered all of them to be false. One single fact can overturn an entire framework of reasoning and can overrule practically any degree of self-confidence.

No, I couldn't, for to prove that a set of statements was the meaning of life-- a term that I define as a set of objective statements from which one could derive correct answers to any and all philosophical questions-- one would need another system to check one's results, and that system, of course, would require a system that would verify that the answers produced by the set of statements were correct.

Just like before, upon reading your personal definition with "any and all philosophical questions" I automatically become skeptical, although I think you're consistent with your logic throughout your presentation. I also think your worldview is bleeding into your reasoning here, which is only natural.

Yet this new system is also unproven and itself requires another system to be proven by. This constant regress of systems is infinite, which means that the "meaning of life" would simply be an arbitrary stopping point as opposed to something born of logic. So, a world with meaning would be infinitely recursive, and therefore provide us with nothing to stand upon-- in other words, even 'meaningful' worlds are meaningless.

There was a time in life in which I projected my philosophical reasoning onto reality and subsequently lived consistently with those self-originated projections. The seeming credulity with which you trust your speculation seems very similar to the naive closed-mindedness responsible for that unhealthy state of detachment I once knew. This is not meant to be perceived as personal criticism but rather a warning that you may inadvertently be dooming yourself to a constrictive, fallacious subjectivity disguised as an ostensibly logical worldview; this is classic self-delusion.

Since meaning cannot exist, even in theory, then statements such as "the universe is Absurd" are vacuous because they are predicated upon the idea that meaning could exist. Thus, with meaninglessness defeated, we are now not only beyond Good and Evil but Absurdity as well. We cannot create meaning subjectively since such "meaning" is but conjecture just as arbitrary as the objective variant. Indeed, our existence is not meaningless, nor absurd, nor anything in between. At the risk of sounding grandiose, we live in the Age of Freedom, for we are free to do as we wish, and there is no Meaning to stop us.

For the third time, "cannot" fills me with skepticism. You integrated this discussion with parameters that filter out the possibility of meaning and then noted that meaning cannot exist. But any objective meaning to our existence depends largely on how the human race originated. As some believe, the earth and universe will someday end with no one remaining to remember anything, which would consequently and ultimately comprise an utterly pointless existence regardless of any spiritual, humanistic, or philosophical attempts at devising or discovering purpose. As Ecclesiastes says, everyone would meet the same end (i.e., death and cessation), regardless of lifestyle. Such an existence would be, it seems to me, identical to your "Age of Freedom," one of the chief appeals of atheism: God, purpose, immortality, etc., are traded for absolute moral freedom. "We are free to do as we wish," as you say.

P.S., Whew, that was fun. I'd appreciate any comments, criticism, and especially review of my logic.

Once again, the criticism above isn't intended to be perceived as a personal attack. But you seem to have an adept philosophical mind (way more than me) and I think your publicizing your tentative conclusions here was a sound attempt at scrutiny.

 

[Moocow]

@Duxwing I believe that what you have clarified here is the shortcomings of intuitive abstractions, of which meaning is just one of many.
It seems to me that "meaning" is not so much a single idea but an entire worldview, comparable and probably related to "god."
What are we talking about? Purpose? "Meaning" sounds like a plea for infinitely superior purpose- the bizarre expectation that everything, every scope of time, every magnitude of order, will have a use.
I believe this is just a misuse of our practical method of abstraction which otherwise came about to transform the animals and objects around us into tools of our survival.
It's like flapping your palms in the air and despairing that you can't fly with them, instead of using them to invent some wings.

 

[BigApplePi]

Dear Forum,
This Forum is dear?

For millennia, philosophers have mused about the meaning and purpose of existence, concepts that certainly appear hopeful and beautiful at first blush. Were you listening in on them? You must be a thousand years old.

Think of it, discovering a higher purpose to existence, a greater meaning! That presupposes lower purpose and lesser meaning.

In my case, the mere thought of these things can get the heart pumping in a hurry; just one last attempt, I think, and I'll crack the puzzle of life, tell everyone, and be remembered as the one who pulled it off. Yet such a utopia, no matter how much I might desire it, cannot exist because Meaning Cannot Not Exist. From cracking open life to meaning non-existence. Quite a jump.

We'll begin by realizing that the foundations of any logical system are inherently unproven; they are taken on faith for the sake of the argument; Too late. The faithful are already here and it's hard to get rid of them.

unfortunately, we could assume anything that we wanted to and end up in knots trying to be consistent with any of our "self-evident" values. But where does that leave us? Adrift in the Void of Nihilism, that's where. Be careful what you ask for. Have you tried Nihilism? Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Yet as I lay upon my bed bewailing the meaninglessness of existence, I had a flash of insight: what would the world look like if I were wrong? Could I even conceive of a world with meaning I know this may be difficult, but have you thought of having morning breakfast? Isn't that meaningful? I recommend starting somewhere.

No, I couldn't, for to prove that a set of statements was the meaning of life-- a term that I define as a set of objective statements from which one could derive correct answers to any and all philosophical questions-- one would need another system to check one's results, and that system, of course, would require a system that would verify that the answers produced by the set of statements were correct. Yet this new system is also unproven and itself requires another system to be proven by. This constant regress of systems is infinite, which means that the "meaning of life" would simply be an arbitrary stopping point as opposed to something born of logic. So, a world with meaning would be infinitely recursive, and therefore provide us with nothing to stand upon-- in other words, even 'meaningful' worlds are meaningless. Well that IS a problem. Dare I say you started with a set of statements? Maybe that was your mistake. Statements are only symbols. It's the meaning behind those statements that are real.

Since meaning cannot exist, even in theory, then statements such as "the universe is Absurd" are vacuous because they are predicated upon the idea that meaning could exist. Wait a minute. Aren't your 1st 4 words an assumption?

Thus, with meaninglessness defeated, You must put up a stronger fight.

we are now not only beyond Good and Evil but Absurdity as well. That's so far out I don't know if I can even begin to think that over! We cannot create meaning subjectively since such "meaning" is but conjecture just as arbitrary as the objective variant. Given you are objectively biased, we now discover subjective bias as well. Indeed, our existence is not meaningless, nor absurd, nor anything in between. At the risk of sounding grandiose, we live in the Age of Freedom, for we are free to do as we wish, and there is no Meaning to stop us. I hope you mean that.

-Duxwing

P.S., Whew, that was fun. I'm glad someone found it so. Rough time for me. I'd appreciate any comments, criticism, and especially review of my logic. I hope that I've created something of lasting value, and if not, at least something salvageable. I've nothing to say. Oh, and Happy New Year!

You mean 2013? What about the years that haven't started yet? Just in case, Duxwing, I hope you have a meaningful 2013. After that ... well what would be the purpose?

 

[Cognisant]

More so I think the significance is that everything we hitherto assumed to be unquestionable becomes questionable, indeed everything must be questioned as one's inherently meaningful assumed reality is revealed to be false.

For example if morality is not objective than what is justice?

If emotions are merely mechanistic neurological biases, are they a valid cause?

What is valid cause in an existence without inherent purpose?

Interestingly no answer given to these questions is either right or entirely wrong, one could feasibly justify anything, even choices that are contradictory or self defeating, so we're left to argue over what an agreed upon objective standard ought to be. This I think is where philosophy gets nasty, it's the streetlight arena for the bare knuckle fist fight over who gets to decide, who will be our arbiter of meaning, in the absence of one who gets to play god?

It doesn't matter who's right because nobody is, all that matters is who wins.
You can argue that, but pacifism makes for a poor defense

 

[Cognisant]

@BigApplePi
What's your take on the matter?
That was quite the critique of Duxwing's OP and it was not as well written or considered as it should have been I'll agree, however it confuses me that you've advocated nihilism and finding meaning in one's breakfast in the same post.

Was that meant as a critique for critique's sake?

 

[Reluctantly]

Dear Forum,

For millennia, philosophers have mused about the meaning and purpose of existence, concepts that certainly appear hopeful and beautiful at first blush. Think of it, discovering a higher purpose to existence, a greater meaning! In my case, the mere thought of these things can get the heart pumping in a hurry; just one last attempt, I think, and I'll crack the puzzle of life, tell everyone, and be remembered as the one who pulled it off. Yet such a utopia, no matter how much I might desire it, cannot exist because Meaning Cannot Not Exist.

We'll begin by realizing that the foundations of any logical system are inherently unproven; they are taken on faith for the sake of the argument; unfortunately, we could assume anything that we wanted to and end up in knots trying to be consistent with any of our "self-evident" values. But where does that leave us? Adrift in the Void of Nihilism, that's where. Yet as I lay upon my bed bewailing the meaninglessness of existence, I had a flash of insight: what would the world look like if I were wrong? Could I even conceive of a world with meaning?

No, I couldn't, for to prove that a set of statements was the meaning of life-- a term that I define as a set of objective statements from which one could derive correct answers to any and all philosophical questions-- one would need another system to check one's results, and that system, of course, would require a system that would verify that the answers produced by the set of statements were correct. Yet this new system is also unproven and itself requires another system to be proven by. This constant regress of systems is infinite, which means that the "meaning of life" would simply be an arbitrary stopping point as opposed to something born of logic. So, a world with meaning would be infinitely recursive, and therefore provide us with nothing to stand upon-- in other words, even 'meaningful' worlds are meaningless.

Since meaning cannot exist, even in theory, then statements such as "the universe is Absurd" are vacuous because they are predicated upon the idea that meaning could exist. Thus, with meaninglessness defeated, we are now not only beyond Good and Evil but Absurdity as well. We cannot create meaning subjectively since such "meaning" is but conjecture just as arbitrary as the objective variant. Indeed, our existence is not meaningless, nor absurd, nor anything in between. At the risk of sounding grandiose, we live in the Age of Freedom, for we are free to do as we wish, and there is no Meaning to stop us.

-Duxwing

P.S., Whew, that was fun. I'd appreciate any comments, criticism, and especially review of my logic. I hope that I've created something of lasting value, and if not, at least something salvageable. Oh, and Happy New Year!

The funny thing about what you realize is that in describing it to another person, you have to use the assumptions you say it doesn't entail. And this naturally becomes the focus of your opposition, as it has here, instead of what you know.

And how do you solve such a problem? I think philosophers use allegories. Poets, perhaps, use words to paint pictures. Writers, they use stories to evince the synchronicity of thoughts and events. Comedians can use satire. An artist ........ heh, could you be an artist? What does the artist use? Oh right, that's the problem again. It can still be fun though, even if misunderstood? Maybe that's the only saving grace.

 

[BigApplePi]

What's your take on the matter?
That was quite the critique of Duxwing's OP and it was not as well written or considered as it should have been I'll agree, however it confuses me that you've advocated nihilism and finding meaning in one's breakfast in the same post.

Was that meant as a critique for critique's sake?

Hi Cognisant. He wrote it okay by bringing out the points. I was having a little fun with his assumptions, trying to point them out. I don't think I advocated nihilism. I thought he was knocking it before saying why it might be bad. Yes the breakfast is anti nihilism I suppose.

 

[Da Blob]

No, No, No!

Every thing has meaning and everything has purpose, except for the mythical Nothingness of Buddhism and its Western counterfeit, Nihilism.

Every single edge, every single differentiation has a meaning even if it is just a IS versus IS NOT distinction

Meaning though is an almost meaningless word though having no hard edges and no clear differentiations. Does one mean/intend a definition or mean to define intention/purpose?

Perhaps the verb, to mean, has more purpose than the definition of the noun, meaning?

The issue seems to be one of relative value/purpose of different means. What utility/purpose do meanings have?

A meaning derived from a single edge or differentiation is less defined than a meaning surrounded by multiple boundaries and defined as a finite set. However, which serves purpose better?

Every thing than can be perceived has meaning. Some meanings are broad and nebulous and some meanings are a set with just a few members/elements.

However, If Time is relative, so must meaning be relative.

For every Time has a meaning and every meaning has a Time

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace."

 

[Duxwing]

For the most part, I have adopted a skeptical stance within my discussion below. My direct criticism isn't intended to provoke you but rather to indicate areas in which I personally suspect your reasoning is unsound; with that said, please don't read anger or combativeness into my statements.

I'm glad to be criticized, but thanks for being polite.

Upon reading your use of "cannot exist" I almost reflexively become skeptical. According to the constrictive reasoning which you explicate below such an absolute claim might be true but you haven't yet established that your reasoning corresponds to reality.

I stated what I set out to prove, but I agree, I should have been more clear.

We make countless unprovable assumptions on a daily bases via our senses.

And that's a good idea?

Why are you assuming that existence is meaningless? I perceive that to be an incredibly arrogant assumption, as if you've evaluated every worldview and discovered all of them to be false. One single fact can overturn an entire framework of reasoning and can overrule practically any degree of self-confidence.

I don't have to assume that existence is meaningless, only that a meaning for it cannot be proven objectively, which is in line with the problem of infinite regress. I don't have to prove any other worldview false before I can prove my own, and if my statements couldn't be proven wrong I'd be out of line with Popperian epistemology.

Just like before, upon reading your personal definition with "any and all philosophical questions" I automatically become skeptical, although I think you're consistent with your logic throughout your presentation. I also think your worldview is bleeding into your reasoning here, which is only natural.

Would you please elaborate on how my worldview is bleeding into my logic?

There was a time in life in which I projected my philosophical reasoning onto reality and subsequently lived consistently with those self-originated projections. The seeming credulity with which you trust your speculation seems very similar to the naive closed-mindedness responsible for that unhealthy state of detachment I once knew. This is not meant to be perceived as personal criticism but rather a warning that you may inadvertently be dooming yourself to a constrictive, fallacious subjectivity disguised as an ostensibly logical worldview; this is classic self-delusion.

Would you please refer me to the parts of my argument that make you think so?

For the third time, "cannot" fills me with skepticism. You integrated this discussion with parameters that filter out the possibility of meaning and then noted that meaning cannot exist. But any objective meaning to our existence depends largely on how the human race originated. As some believe, the earth and universe will someday end with no one remaining to remember anything, which would consequently and ultimately comprise an utterly pointless existence regardless of any spiritual, humanistic, or philosophical attempts at devising or discovering purpose. As Ecclesiastes says, everyone would meet the same end (i.e., death and cessation), regardless of lifestyle. Such an existence would be, it seems to me, identical to your "Age of Freedom," one of the chief appeals of atheism: God, purpose, immortality, etc., are traded for absolute moral freedom. "We are free to do as we wish," as you say.

No, I first defined The Meaning of Life in the abstract and then proceeded to prove such a thing to be illogical.

Once again, the criticism above isn't intended to be perceived as a personal attack. But you seem to have an adept philosophical mind (way more than me) and I think your publicizing your tentative conclusions here was a sound attempt at scrutiny.

Thanks for the input, I look forward to more.

@BigApplePie

You have quite the sense of humor. Regarding the "jump," I was describing my own emotions relative to the matter. As for the faithful already being here, are you not religious yourself? And yes, I have tried Nihilism for the past eleven months and it's been terrible. So, I decided to take a new perspective on my problem and see if I could develop a solution. The warmth and taste of breakfast are certainly fulfilling, but not meaningful in the sense that I use the term.

I did start out with a set of statements, but those statements were arrived at by other statements that can be traced back to the foundations of logic itself as opposed to empirical (e.g, "Cogito ergo sum") statements. Hence, my logic stands-- unless logic itself comes tumbling down. As for the defeat of meaninglessness, I'll be glad to fight harder if you'll show me where it's still breathing.

And with respect to my mention of Beyond Good and Evil, that was an error. Thanks for finding it!

@Reluctantly

I was more focused on destroying the argument, "The world is meaningless" than constructing an argument of my own. However, in mid-post I realized that I could make a bigger conclusion.

@Da Blob

Whoa.... just, whoa.... You're waaaaaay over my head.

@Animekitty

Aha, I see what you're saying, but how does a model of actions and consequences, which is what you've created, help us in proving or disproving the idea that life could have a "higher meaning".

To everyone else:

I agree that we should focus on the term "higher meaning" instead of "meaning". Thanks for pointing that out. I've made the necessary edits to reflect your concerns.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

Every thing has meaning and everything has purpose, except for the mythical Nothingness of Buddhism and its Western counterfeit, Nihilism.

Duxwing, Da Blob. Allow me to take at shot at defining meaning.

X has meaning to Y if it makes a connection.

If it makes no connection with you, it has no meaning for you. If it does, it has meaning in proportion to the impact.

Does everything have meaning? Wasn't it Freud who answered yes also? Meaning need not be conscious. It can have unconscious impact.

 

[Duxwing]

Duxwing, Da Blob. Allow me to take at shot at defining meaning.

X has meaning to Y if it makes a connection.

If it makes no connection with you, it has no meaning for you. If it does, it has meaning in proportion to the impact.

Does everything have meaning? Wasn't it Freud who answered yes also? Meaning need not be conscious. It can have unconscious impact.

I agree that human psychology allows for the creation of memories and associations, but the pertinence of this fact to our philosophical discussion is unclear to me-- I'm arguing a case for any and all agents, not just human ones.

-Duxwing

 

[Da Blob]

Duxwing, Da Blob. Allow me to take at shot at defining meaning.

X has meaning to Y if it makes a connection.

If it makes no connection with you, it has no meaning for you. If it does, it has meaning in proportion to the impact.

Does everything have meaning? Wasn't it Freud who answered yes also? Meaning need not be conscious. It can have unconscious impact.

Yes and therein lies the rub, meaning can exist beyond consciousness and purpose as the verbal manifestation of meaning also can exist beyond awareness. I think that Set Theory provides a realistic forum for discussions of meaning, particularly fuzzy logic in regard to the meaning/definition of symbols such as the word, purpose and the boundaries that define the inherent concept of intent.

@ Duxwing - YEP!
Giving one the benefit of a doubt, that the quest for an alternative to Nihilism is a sincere endeavor one is willing to invest effort in, I have laid out the bare bones of such an alternative, a dynamic system.

However, I will not elaborate upon it. It was designed to provoke thought, and those thoughts are One's own as is the system One could build to organize those thoughts. If I should take the time to elaborate, then I could be seen as just advocating my own views, to which One could react in Defensive denial and hostility. However, how can one react similarly to a system that one has built One's self and therefore claim as One's own?

A catapult built outside of The Wall is a threat, a catapult built inside The Wall is an opportunity.

Here's a hint though...
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/loy.htm

 

[Analyzer]

There is no such thing as meaning, so that means its a meaning.

 

[Black Rose]

@Animekitty

Aha, I see what you're saying, but how does a model of actions and consequences, which is what you've created, help us in proving or disproving the idea that life could have a "higher meaning".

It seem that we need a higher power to give a higher meaning. Or to find purpose in an ideal that is part of the greater whole. We do experience the events in our lives but we do not ascribe meaning to all events. That our whole life serves a purpose may be one definition. Does this mean we must have a destiny? Given that meaning is subjective we must choose what we want our live to be based on. This requires goals. Although inherent meaning requires that we have no single purpose. To be is all that is required. I could say my life has no meaning but that could be a temporary injunction. There is no wrong way to be. States are temporary.

So what I can say is that there is no higher purpose than being. To be and to live life the way you wish it to be.

Also I find this word helpful nindo. A personal philosophy.

 

[Duxwing]

It seem that we need a higher power to give a higher meaning. Or to find purpose in an ideal that is part of the greater whole. We do experience the events in our lives but we do not ascribe meaning to all events. That our whole life serves a purpose may be one definition. Does this mean we must have a destiny? Given that meaning is subjective we must choose what we want our live to be based on. This requires goals. Although inherent meaning requires that we have no single purpose. To be is all that is required. I could say my life has no meaning but that could be a temporary injunction. There is no wrong way to be. States are temporary.

So what I can say is that there is no higher purpose than being. To be and to live life the way you wish it to be.

Also I find this word helpful nindo. A personal philosophy.

Nani? Nindo? ANIMEKITTY-NO-BAKA!















Ohhhhh, I'm just teasing. Naruto was one of my favorite shows and comic book series when I was in middle school, though I tend to stay away from anime and manga now: I fear becoming engulfed like I was before. But, as a side note (and I can't believe I'm asking this after all these years), did anything ever happen between Naruto and Hinata after she admitted to liking him during the battle with Nagato?

And now for something completely different.

Regarding the purpose of one's life being a subjective, arbitrary decision, I agree that since there is no ultimate judge of the universe, you are entirely free to create your own purpose if you so desire. Heck, I might even do that. It sounds like fun.

-Duxwing

 

[Oblivious]

Meaning-creating creatures shouldn't find it all that surprising that when they examine the world they find meaning.

This.

Otherwise I tend to be a kind of Lovecraftian nihilist.

 

[Da Blob]

Any movement or sound is a profession of faith,
as the millstone grinding is explaining
how it believes in the river!

No metaphor can say this,
but I can't stop pointing
to the beauty.

Every moment and place says,
"Put this design in your carpet!"

RUMI

 

[Duxwing]

Any movement or sound is a profession of faith,
as the millstone grinding is explaining
how it believes in the river!

No metaphor can say this,
but I can't stop pointing
to the beauty.

Every moment and place says,
"Put this design in your carpet!"

RUMI

Even not moving or making a sound is a profession of faith: you have to assume that you aren't moving. Hence, I write philosophy. Apart from that, the punchline gave me a good laugh. Thanks Blob.

-Duxwing

 

[Agent Intellect]

If meaning is not part of the universe, but meaning exists for us, then what are we?

 

[Duxwing]

If meaning is not part of the universe, but meaning exists for us, then what are we?

We could be mediums to another realm if your assumptions are correct.

-Duxwing