Naturalizing the Meaning of Life

[Philovitist]

So, I'm Philovitist. My philosophical programme is to naturalize ethics. Woo.

Naturalizing a philosophical issue is to conceptualize it such that it can be studied using the scientific method.

Natural philosophy got naturalized into physics, chemistry, cosmology, et al.
Philosophy of mind got naturalized into psychology.
And virtue theory is currently being naturalized in positive psychology (consider Character Strengths and Virtues
Etcetera. Last one is a bit iffy, but I love noting that one.

Straightforward, but hard.

As you might notice, naturalization of a traditionally philosophical issue never results in the elimination of that issue from philosophical discourse. Natural philosophy, philosophy of mind, and so forth all still exist and matter (more or less). They just have scientific strains that still rely on philosophy (or "theoretical discourse") to keep in the right direction.

Now, there is already a naturalised project working to understand the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's the biggest figure in that field, and an entire handbook (The Human Quest for Meaning) of a variety of perspectives and scientific works on the subject already exists.

The science is pretty interesting, but it works under an operational definition of meaning — that thing people keep searching for, that thing whose absense causes people to experience depression and dissatisfaction when they report that they lack it, etc. — which basically dilutes the whole idea. There's no idea of 'true' meaning as opposed to 'fake' meaning (ex. finding meaning in the Christian faith), for example. The result is a science that examines how people deal with meaning, not one of meaning, itself.

Perhaps a revisionist approach might try to detect patterns in what people 'find' to be meaningful (ie, what common qualities exist between things they find meaning in) in order to make hypotheses about what is actual meaning?

This thread's for discussing the idea of a science of human meaning; its plausibility, its limitations, its promise. Let's stay on-topic.

Anyone interested?

 

[Starswirl]

As you correctly point out, naturalization can be useful for figuring out what people think, but unless you feel that philosophical truths are defined by the majority, science is mostly inapplicable to the search for meaning.

I say "mostly" because science has played an interesting role in tearing down ideas on meaning. While an experiment cannot disprove a philosophy, it can seriously discredit it. Many ideas on meaning rely on the notion that no other alternative except "X" can account for something in the universe. For millenia, people said that God(s) must exist because certain phenomena in nature can only be explained by the supernatural. Modern science has provided other explanations for these phenomena, ruining the "argument by necessity".

Another example I love, one which is still fought over in modern times, is on the subject of morality. I have heard many argue that an absolute, objective morality must exist because similar ideas on morality can be found in cultures all around the world that had no contact with each other. Recent science, however, suggests that moral codes are cultural memes built to ensure social stability; they are entirely artificial.

But as for finding a meaning through science? Philosophers have enough problems demonstrating that it is even possible to find meaning through logic. It seems impossible that the meaning of life could suddenly appear on the graph of radiation levels emitted by supernovae or in the forces of tectonic plate thrusts.

 

[Philovitist]

Haha. No one's suggesting that the meaning of life is a subject of geology or astronomy. I'm thinking it's psychology, and deals with how people decide their lives are fulfilling or not.

Objectifying standards for eliciting mental states isn't too complicated. Take funniness, for example. Funniness is that quality in information that makes human beings laugh upon processing it. The reason people don't all laugh at the same things at the same time with the same intensity, though, is determined in part by differences in how/if individuals detect this quality. For example, an anecdote about women might include elements found to be funny by one person but misogynistic by another.

This might make funniness appear like some relative thing that is different for every person, and thus not very receptive to theory or scientific inquiry in the normative sense that the science of logic is understood in. But really, funniness is like color perception. We detect patterns with our senses, experience qualia representing that pattern, and react. There are simply individual differences in this process, adding noise to the signal humor scientists are trying to get to.

In the end, though, in principle, we will eventually know exactly what it is about funny things that makes them funny — just like we know what it is about red things that makes them red (the reflection/absorption of light in a certain way) — and have an objective concept of funniness. And analogous to color sensors, we would be able to construct humor sensors. And so forth.

And a science of the funny detached from surveying the majority opinion would be born, because it would instead focus on what the majority opinion is about.

 

[Philovitist]

Another example I love, one which is still fought over in modern times, is on the subject of morality. I have heard many argue that an absolute, objective morality must exist because similar ideas on morality can be found in cultures all around the world that had no contact with each other. Recent science, however, suggests that moral codes are cultural memes built to ensure social stability; they are entirely artificial.

I'm not sure if this is true. There's also a lot of research demonstrating that much of morality is sociobiologically evolved. And whatever their origin or artificiality, this doesn't necessarily imply anything about the absolute or objective nature of morality.

But as for finding a meaning through science? Philosophers have enough problems demonstrating that it is even possible to find meaning through logic. It seems impossible that the meaning of life could suddenly appear on the graph of radiation levels emitted by supernovae or in the forces of tectonic plate thrusts.

Philosophers are basically doing it wrong. :/

 

[loveofreason]

What a fascinating idea. I'm ignorant, but is there any role for brain scanning (similar to methods Dario Nardi has used to substantiate cognitive typing?) to create a neurological base line for the experience of meaning? I wonder if there are different categories of the meaning experience across human populations....

 

[BigApplePi]

Naturalizing a philosophical issue is to conceptualize it such that it can be studied using the scientific method.

You want to prepare any subject for the scientific method? I think that can be done. Name one of those specific topics you've already named and I'll give it a try if I recognize it.

 

[The Introvert]

This thread's for discussing the idea of a science of human meaning; its plausibility, its limitations, its promise. Let's stay on-topic.

Anyone interested?

For clarification: you want to discuss the possibility of a scientific explanation for human meaning?

Does this mean that you want to scientifically explain why and how humans give meanings to things, or

That you want to scientifically explain the meaning of life?

Either way, I'm interested.