Hi. Can I answer with a music video by the band Earth Crisis? Because the lyrics say something about The Hand of Fate. Is that what you're talking about in the OP of this Thread?

Well, depends on what they have to say.

Well, depends on what they have to say. — Astrophel

It's a song about an eco-terrorist vigilante that says the following:

Never turn my back on them
I could never live as I once did
I have to obey my conscience and answer to all
That it bids
Why would the hand of fate place me here
If it wasn't to heed the call?
Destined to be the one who steps up
Out of line to save them all — Earth Crisis

So Arcane, there is a jot of connectivity. But here is a good place for an observation:
Conscience, mentioned in the lyrics: This appears when one second guesses one's position. What was at first confidence turns to inquiry, for what one was confident in has been undermined somehow. Think of this as a universal condition, that is, the condition of ALL one has confidence in, and all things have lost the absolute confidence one had in them. Earth crisis, or world crisis, is a crisis in everything, so there is no sanctuary since the world is all there is. Now you have encountered metaphysics. The question the OP asks, indirectly, is where IS one once conscience, the call, beckons, or insists (one can never go back) that all things, values and meaning is without foundation?

f life is not a struggle with god, then such a life will never understand what it means to be human. — Astrophel

Why do you need to understand "what it means to be human"? You're already human; it doesn't have a meaning; it's just one of the facts about which you have no choice. Why set up a straw-god to contend against/ depend on/ fear/ venerate/ make sacrifices to?
What's your simply [and briefly, if possible] stated point?

If life is not a struggle with god[death]... — Astrophel

... then its not "life".

Btw, why do you assume being human "means" anything at all?

So Arcane, there is a jot of connectivity. But here is a good place for an observation:
Conscience, mentioned in the lyrics: This appears when one second guesses one's position. What was at first confidence turns to inquiry, for what one was confident in has been undermined somehow. Think of this as a universal condition, that is, the condition of ALL one has confidence in, and all things have lost the absolute confidence one had in them. Earth crisis, or world crisis, is a crisis in everything, so there is no sanctuary since the world is all there is. Now you have encountered metaphysics. The question the OP asks, indirectly, is where IS one once conscience, the call, beckons, or insists (one can never go back) that all things, values and meaning is without foundation? — Astrophel

All of this went way over my head. Can you explain it to me like I'm an idiot?

EDIT: You know what? I'll just link to a video, and you tell me if it is related to the OP of this Thread in any way. Deal? Here's the video, it's not by Earth Crisis, it's by another band called Brand Nubian:

Btw, why do you assume being human "means" anything at all? — 180 Proof

Our existence is saturated with meaning. Never once has a human being witnessed meaninglessness, for such meaninglessness would have to lie beyond the boundaries of experience. It is nonsense to even imagine meaninglessness for a human being.

Never once has a human being witnessed meaninglessness — Astrophel

This statement doesn't make sense (e.g. birth defects, natural disasters, mass murders, vague utterances, discursive nonsense, random events ... are instances of "meaninglessness").

Why do you need to understand "what it means to be human"? You're already human; it doesn't have a meaning; it's just one of the facts about which you have no choice. Why set up a straw-god to contend against/ depend on/ fear/ venerate/ make sacrifices to?
What's your simply [and briefly, if possible] stated point? — Vera Mont

Well, I did say in the OP that the naive straw god was not what is in play here.

But understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are. To question is part of the structure of perception: You see a rabbit on a fence post, a simple recognition, yet how is this possible? The presence of the rabbit does not intimate its rabbit essence to you, but rather, you encounter the rabbit already equipped with rabbit familiarity, so the issue turns to your rabbit familiarity--what makes something familiar? Past experience. Ah, but prior to this experience, long ago, there was no rabbit when you encountered a rabbit. There was, however, a perceptual openness, ready to receive language and the world. This openness is a structural feature of infantile existence, and it is the very nature of the inquiring business of a mature mind. The question (doubt, says Peirce. See his Fixation of Belief. I don't abide in all they say, but the pragmatists were qualifiedly right), is the residuum of the original, abyssal infantile openness of our early existence.
And philosophy is a rediscovery of this original primordiality.

This statement doesn't make sense (e.g. birth defects, natural disasters, mass murders, vague utterances, discursive nonsense, random events ... are instances of "meaninglessness"). — 180 Proof

No, I mean, you know this is wrong. Meaninglessness means without meaning, and all the things you mention are certainly meaningful. Meaninglessness would be an abstraction from reality, as with a proposition and its content, qua being a proposition. Or a truth table as a truth table, and entirely outside of any context in which people are talking, engaged, interested, and so forth.

But understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are. — Astrophel

Some of us have nothing better to do than ask questions to which there are no answers. Most of us, most of the time, are busy trying to survive. That doesn't make the underprivileged majority less human or the leisured minority more meaningful.

You see a rabbit on a fence post, a simple recognition, yet how is this possible? — Astrophel

No, I don't. A woodchuck, maybe, if he feels threatened. Rabbits do not climb; rabbits run, veer and leap.

And philosophy is a rediscovery of this original primordiality. — Astrophel

Okay. I hope it keeps you occupied.

Explain in what way (e.g.) a fatal birth defect is "meaningful".

Some of us have nothing better to do than ask questions to which there are no answers. Most of us, most of the time, are busy trying to survive. That doesn't make the underprivileged majority less human or the leisured minority more meaningful. — Vera Mont

There is here a lot that is extraneous to the issue. Underprivileged minority? At any rate, it does sound like you are a bit sour on metaphysics, but this entirely depends on what metaphysics you are thinking of. A lot can be said on this, but in the space of a post, I would say there is bad metaphysics, the kind of thing Christian theology has long held to, say, but there is also good metaphysics, and for this one simply has to take seriously real questions, that is, questions found in an honest assessment of the way the world is. Here metaphysics is no less valid than physics.

Consider this simple question for the "naturalist" where naturalism here says philosophy should occur in "the same empirical spirit that animates science." (Quine): you have two objects, one is a human brain and the other is a tree. The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? SImple as that. This is not some extravagant nonsense from deep in left field, but rather is a clear naturalist question, the kind of thing one has the right to ask because it is there, in the world. (Note: the accepted premise here is that one DOES indeed have knowledge of the tree. Knowledge here is not being denied, but affirmed. It is a question of its possibility.)

This leads directly to metaphysics, and by a naturalist's standard!

you have two objects, one is a human brain and the other is a tree. The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? — Astrophel

Well, let me ask you this, then. Let's replace "tree" with "this Thread". That being the case, I'll say the following. My brain is under the impression that this Thread has a Kierkegaard-ish tone. Is that impression accurate, yes or no? If yes (or no), is it entirely accurate (or inaccurate), or is it accurate (or inaccurate) to a degree?

Explain in what way (e.g.) a fatal birth defect is "meaningful". — 180 Proof

A better question would be, why do you think only good things are meaningful? Meaning, and of course, this is not the dictionary sense of meaning, but the affective sense, referring to the pathos of one's regard for something, is about something affectively impactful, and this includes have an interest, being concerned, loving, hating and the entire range of value possibilities. A fatal birth defect is meaningful to the extent it occurs in the context of such engagements.

but there is also good metaphysics, and for this one simply has to take seriously real questions, that is, questions found in an honest assessment of the way the world is. Here metaphysics is no less valid than physics. — Astrophel

What does 'good' metaphysics add to good physics? And why is an addition required?

The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? — Astrophel

What 'knowledge claim'? Human brain processes information delivered to it through sensory input and names the things - objects, events, changes - that are relevant to its own and it's vessel's functioning.

This is not some extravagant nonsense from deep in left field, but rather is a clear naturalist question, the kind of thing one has the right to ask because it is there, in the world. — Astrophel

One has a right to ask any question that pops into one's head - unless one is devout and forbidden by his religion to ask a certain category of questions, or a slave with no rights at all, in which case one must keep one's own silent counsel. One, however, does not have a right to receive answers. One can always invent answers, which is what philosophers do.

(Note: the accepted premise here is that one DOES indeed have knowledge of the tree. — Astrophel

Knowledge of the presence and description of a tree, yes. Knowledge of poplarhood and spruceness, no.

This leads directly to metaphysics, and by a naturalist's standard! — Astrophel

You can lead a jaundiced realist to metaphysics, but you can't make her drink.

why do you assume being human "means" anything at all? — 180 Proof

Exactly.

Whether there is a God(s) or not isnt relevant to my view which follows.

In my view the Eden myth referred to in the opening, was designed to express that humanity's desire for meaning is its downfall. In a nutshell, its message was, although humans have the physiology to go beyond nature and construct a universe of make-believe, don't. Choose living over knowing.

Sure, the side effects have given us things like quantum mechanics and an ever increasing advancement of technology. And unsarcastically, I am generally not maligning knowledge.

But as a species, we definitely chose knowing over living, and that has lead to an insatiable desire to construct meaning.

It is only because we construct meaning that we have irresolvable suffering.

As an animal, I fracture a bone, or cannot sustain my group with adequate food and safety, and that leads to pain, which prompts my next actions. The pain may continue until I am able to heal or procure the necessities. Then I return to a stable bliss until the next painful trigger comes along.

As a child of so-called Adam/Eve, I take those pains, and construct meaning to attach: damn it, why did I have to climb that tree and sprain my ankle? Damn it, why are my kids worse off than my neighbor? Etc. I know why, because Im stupid, or a sinner, or that is the plight of humankind, etc. Now, with a narrative [made up meaning] to attach to the pain, it is able to linger as suffering.

See also Ecclesiastes: [finding meaning is] vanity and chasing wind. Reproduce, labor only for sustenance, and try to survive into old age. All meaning is not only vanity, bur goes against so-called God, or as I prefer to think of It, Nature; our nature.

A fatal birth defect is meaningful to the extent it occurs in the context of such engagements. — Astrophel

Granted: anything may be meaningful to somebody to some extent in the context of some kinds of engagement... whatever that means.
However, it does not indicate that meaning is in any way inherent in anything; it only indicates that a mind not occupied with more pressing matters can assign some meaning to every thing and situation it encounters.
I notice you didn't assign any specific meaning to fatal birth defects, trees, brains or fence-sitting rabbits. In fact, one might consider "understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are." literally meaningless.

Well, let me ask you this, then. Let's replace "tree" with "this Thread". That being the case, I'll say the following. My brain is under the impression that this Thread has a Kierkegaard-ish tone. Is that impression accurate, yes or no? If yes (or no), is it entirely accurate (or inaccurate), or is it accurate (or inaccurate) to a degree? — Arcane Sandwich

Kierkegaard is an essential part of Heidegger, especially the former's Concept of Anxiety. Reading Concept, one finds Sartre here, Heidegger there, throughout. In the matter of metaphysics, there is K's notorious reference to nothing, which is the failing of language to speak existence. The book is devoted to a philosophical exposition of original sin and he essentially uses this idea, bound in myth and theology, to bring to light the human struggle with her own existence vis a vis eternity. One insight: rationalism (Hegel's, which was popular at the time) fails to affirm that we actually exist. Existence is deeply personal (subjective) and one has to discover this. K's argument with Christendom (Attack on Christendom) tells how the church as an institution has displaced the essential thinking and engagement of a authentic Christian. K is of course well aware of Meister Eckhart, the fourteenth century Dominican Priest who was charged with heresy, and was aware of thinking like this: "The true word of eternity is spoken only in solitude, where a man is a desert and alien to himself and multiplicity." So much for the church! But more: so much for the world! For the world is the multiplicity Eckhart is speaking about. Kierkegaard gaveto the reader the hiddenness of our existence beneath the certainties of everyday living. To discover this hiddenness is the hard work of phenomenology. Some think like this: Here you are, there is a world of trees, people, and yes, even this post. It stands before you in a very, very different way if you allow yourself to withdraw from typical contexts of engagement, and move "out" of context all together. And witness the world as if for the first time.

Another insight: this relation we have with the world has analytic possibilities.

So you take Kierkegaard's word over Hegel's in matters of Theology? Is that it?

What does 'good' metaphysics add to good physics? And why is an addition required? — Vera Mont

Well, this is a big question. It begins with seeing how physics cannot explain basic assumptions. Assumptions about knowledge and ontology. I know, for example, that the tides are due to the gravitational pull between the earth and the moon. But then, what can be said about the perceptual event that produces all of the basic data? This is a metaphysical question.

What 'knowledge claim'? Human brain processes information delivered to it through sensory input and names the things - objects, events, changes - that are relevant to its own and it's vessel's functioning. — Vera Mont

I'll assume that existence of a knowledge claim is really not in dispute. You know something? That is a knowledge claim. Why is your brief description problematic? It isn't if you are thinking as a scientist does about such things. "Processes information"? You mean it takes something out there, a leaf, an organ tissue sample, a supernova, or anything, really, my shoe laces, and delivers what it is to the understanding of things one has, right? You perhaps see the trouble in this: Not how DOES, but how is it at all possible, that processing like this "delivers" anything at all? This is a metaphysical question.

One has a right to ask any question that pops into one's head - unless one is devout and forbidden by his religion to ask a certain category of questions, or a slave with no rights at all, in which case one must keep one's own silent counsel. One, however, does not have a right to receive answers. One can always invent answers, which is what philosophers do. — Vera Mont

the fact that "information processing" cannot explain at all how a world is epistemically accessible did not pop up as, say, a question about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. It is there, right before your eyes. Like asking what a bank teller is or an accountant or gravity. The question here is how in knowledge possible? Perhaps you have read a lot of bad metaphysics. Among the worst is the metaphysics of science, which is the ignoring of its own foundation of assumptions.

Knowledge of the presence and description of a tree, yes. Knowledge of poplarhood and spruceness, no. — Vera Mont

Explain.

You can lead a jaundiced realist to metaphysics, but you can't make her drink. — Vera Mont

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'metaphysics"?

@Astrophel Wanna hear my theory? I think that Hegel was an existentialist, like Kierkegaard.

In my view the Eden myth referred to in the opening, was designed to express that humanity's desire for meaning is its downfall. — ENOAH

:fire:

I.e. our "fall into time" (Cioran) ... "nostagia, or philosophical suicide" (Camus) ...

[W]hy do you think only good things are meaningful? — Astrophel

Strawman – I never claimed or implied that anything is (inherently) "meaningful".

Granted: anything may be meaningful to somebody to some extent in the context of some kinds of engagement... whatever that means. However, it does not indicate that meaning is in any way inherent in anything ... — Vera Mont

:100:

Meaning, and of course, this is not the dictionary sense of meaning, but the affective sense, referring to the pathos of one's regard for something ... — Astrophel

The victim of a fatal birth defect does not even have an "affective sense" of what's happens to her. Likewise, natural disasters do not happen because of our "pathos" (i.e. we want / don't want them to happen). Again, your equivocating (meaning with feeling) avoids ...

random events ... are instances of 'meaninglessness' — 180 Proof

I'll just share my theory.

1) Hegel was right when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit.
2) If so, then Hegel is History's Last Philosopher.
3) If so, then there have been no philosophers since Hegel died.
4) But there have been philosophers since Hegel died.
5) So, Hegel was not History's Last Philosopher.
6) So, Hegel was wrong when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit.
7) But (1) and (6) are contradictory.
8) So, Anything Goes (i.e., from a contradiction, any premise follows)

Now, that can't be correct, at least one of the premises must be false. I think that the first premise is the false one: Hegel was not right when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit. Or perhaps it did, but only in the sense that Hegel's personal history ended when he died. In that case, either Hegel will reincarnate, or he will not. I say that he will not. There is no such thing as reincarnation. Therefore:

Theorem: Hegel could only have been right that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit, if that means that his own personal history ended when he died.

That, is why Hegel was an existentialist, in the same sense as Kierkegaard. That's my theory.

But then, what can be said about the perceptual event that produces all of the basic data? — Astrophel

Much can be said about the process of observation, taking measurements, hypothesizing, experimentation and testing. The 'basic data' is already there, in the physical world, to be noticed, recorded, studied and understood. There is no single 'perceptual event'. Conscious beings notice their environment and make sense of it to the best of their ability.

You know something? That is a knowledge claim. — Astrophel

No, that is a question.

"Processes information"? You mean it takes something out there, a leaf ..... and delivers what it is to the understanding of things one has, right? — Astrophel

Wrong. The leaf or whatever exists outside and independently of the human organism. The organism has sensory equipment to inform the brain about various attributes of an encountered object. The brain is told what a leaf looks and feels like; its size, shape, colour, texture, temperature, tensile strength, pliability, flavour. The eyes may have recorded similar objects attached to a a large, hard, branching object and noticed that the small ones fall off the large one every fall and new ones grow every spring, suggesting that the thing named 'leaf' is a product of the living organism dubbed 'tree'. Other objects, small and large are observed to grow and shed 'leaves'. Putting all this information together, the brain forms an approximate understanding of deciduous vegetation. That understanding can be expanded and enhanced by further study. While some humans' understanding of 'leaf' remains rudimentary, others' may learn a great deal more about the varieties, forms and functions of leaves. We can all claim some knowledge, but certainly not the same knowledge.

Not how DOES, but how is it at all possible, that processing like this "delivers" anything at all? This is a metaphysical question. — Astrophel

That, too, can be studied. Just asking the question seems to me futile.

The question here is how in knowledge possible? — Astrophel

Okay, I'll bite. How? You're the metaphysician, tell us. What does life mean? Why is is is?

Explain. — Astrophel

You can know what a tree means to you; you cannot understand what a tree is in itself.

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'metaphysics"? — Astrophel

That carpet bag you're waving about, without once showing its contents.

In my view the Eden myth referred to in the opening, was designed to express that humanity's desire for meaning is its downfall. In a nutshell, its message was, although humans have the physiology to go beyond nature and construct a universe of make-believe, don't. Choose living over knowing. — ENOAH

Not quite. It is saying that the myth reveals something about the nature of inquiry and discovery. A tree of knowledge, wasn't that it? Which bore apples that enlightened? Of course, God's injunction not to eat the fruit IS an inherent part of the problematic: no injunction, no disobedience. What is an injunction? A law, a principle. What is a question? It is a standing in the openness of what lies before one, rather than in the fixity of acceptance (obedience). A question is an openness to the world that defies closure (hence the hermeneutic circle: inquiry has no rest for nothing stands that is born of language that is beyond question). This defiance IS the defiance in the old story of the bible.

Make believe? This requires a standard of something that stands as an absolute, against which other things can be judged. "Make believe" is pejorative. This has to be put aside. Think like Rorty: truth is made, not discovered, not make believe.

But as a species, we definitely chose knowing over living, and that has lead to an insatiable desire to construct meaning. — ENOAH

Mostly pragmatic in nature. That is, we do make institutions and these are like fetishes as meaning gathers around them. Most of knowing lies in dealing with, coping, problem solving.

It is only because we construct meaning that we have irresolvable suffering.

As an animal, I fracture a bone, or cannot sustain my group with adequate food and safety, and that leads to pain, which prompts my next actions. The pain may continue until I am able to heal or procure the necessities. Then I return to a stable bliss until the next painful trigger comes along.

As a child of so-called Adam/Eve, I take those pains, and construct meaning to attach: damn it, why did I have to climb that tree and sprain my ankle? Damn it, why are my kids worse off than my neighbor? Etc. I know why, because Im stupid, or a sinner, or that is the plight of humankind, etc. Now, with a narrative [made up meaning] to attach to the pain, it is able to linger as suffering. — ENOAH

It is an interesting way to look at things. How is this narrative constructed? In time. To recall (and thus, to "know" one is stupid, a sinner, etc.) is to invoke the past, an integral part of a temporal sequence, but the past is no more (by definition), so the recollection is entirely devoid of any actual past, for there really is no such thing. To refer to yesterday's events, this mornings coffee and toast, the tidal wave the drenched Lisbon on 1755, is, and only can be, a present event about the past; the but the past is integrally produced AS a present event of recalling, but, the present event has no existence either, for it is ever fleeting into the future, and what is the future if not the "not yet" of a past possibility recalled (for what else is there to anticipate the future with?). Past, present and future are thus, on closer analysis, really a singularity that is utterly transcendental, for one cannot imagine what it is without recalling and anticipating. Time is the structure of our existence, yet it shows itself to be entirely other than the standard, vulgar, everyday, linear phenomenon.

The point I want to make about all of this is that here in this brief sketch of an analytic of subjective time (Augustine, Kierkegaard, Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger--they all have their version. Paul Ricoeur even wrote a book, Time and Narrative, that you might find interesting, given your thoughts above), leads, if one really follows through, to extraordinary existential insight. this vast language game we are in makes a lot of trouble, true, but it also possesses the dialectic possibilities for profound disclosure. Profound? There is the rub: one can only recognize them as such if one pursues them, and one only pursues them if one is possessed by the desire for the profound. Alas, this is how it goes. No one is going to take the time to read Augustine through Derrida unless one simply has to know this kind of thing.

The victim of a fatal birth defect does not even have an "affective sense" of what's happens to her. Likewise, natural disasters do not happen because of our "pathos" or we want them to. Again, which equivocating (meaning with feeling) avoids ...
random events ... are instances of 'meaninglessness' — 180 Proof

But this is due to your failure to understand that no event has ever been witnessed that is without meaning, and no event has ever occurred unless witnessed. Ontology and epistemology are analytically bound. The witnessing is all that has ever been submitted as data for the construction of anything one can even bring to mind. Any "instance" can only be conceived in a meaning context of the instance itself.

If I take you rightly, you want to say, say, that it is raining (if it is) and this is entirely beyond the perceptual act that acknowledges it. I say you are living in a dream world, as if such an event could ever pass through the boundaries of perceptual conditions. No sense of this can be made at all. Pure nonsense.

1) Hegel was right when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit.
2) If so, then Hegel is History's Last Philosopher.
3) If so, then there have been no philosophers since Hegel died.
4) But there have been philosophers since Hegel died.
5) So, Hegel was not History's Last Philosopher.
6) So, Hegel was wrong when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit.
7) But (1) and (6) are contradictory.
8) So, Anything Goes (i.e., from a contradiction, any premise follows)

Now, that can't be correct, at least one of the premises must be false. I think that the first premise is the false one: Hegel was not right when he suggested that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit. Or perhaps it did, but only in the sense that Hegel's personal history ended when he died. In that case, either Hegel will reincarnate, or he will not. I say that he will not. There is no such thing as reincarnation. Therefore:

Theorem: Hegel could only have been right that History itself ended with the Absolute Spirit, if that means that his own personal history ended when he died.

That, is why Hegel was an existentialist, in the same sense as Kierkegaard. That's my theory. — Arcane Sandwich

Hegel never said he was the last philosopher. Kierkegaard certainly did not hold as Hegel did that one's existence was grounded an historical dialectic. If you are looking for someone who brought Hegel and Kierkegaard together, then Heidegger is who you should read.

If you are looking for someone who brought Hegel and Kierkegaard together, then Heidegger is who you should read. — Astrophel

I think that Heidegger is just a watered-down version of Kierkegaard, to be honest. It's Kierkegaard but without the Aesthetics and the Ethics.