To unpack that: we are born with "why"-asking machinery in our brains, and that machinery, which normally has a pragmatic point (is useful in life) just naturally tends to keep asking "why?" At which point it bumps up against the question of existence as a whole - why existence as a whole? — gurugeorge

I'm happy to find this thought discussed by someone else. Yes, it's when the 'why' targets existence as a whole that it reveals itself to be a lyrical why, a 'pseudo-question.'

But consider: normally, asking why depends on relative juxtaposition of things. Why this? Because that, because some other thing. But there's no "other thing" against which existence as a whole can be juxtaposed. Unless you posit it. And that's "God." If God is defined as self-existent, unmoved Mover, etc., then the why-series comes to an intellectually satisfying end. — gurugeorge

Right. Nature (the way things are) is a system of postulated necessary relationships. We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact. There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with.

But I don't see how a metaphysical God object brings the why-series to an end. Because that still leaves God as a brute fact. So we don't escape brute fact. A certain kind of believer can ignore this, because that image of God is emotionally satisfying. But logically we still have existence as brute fact. With a first cause we have only concentrated the unexplained at a point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpaUICxEhk

I often question the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and I find that Alan Watts makes some very beautiful and compelling arguments as to why I shouldn't worry about it.

I'm not really into the cheesy music and imagery people use when making videos of his speeches, but the things he has to say are so worth sitting through some cheesiness. Also, if you prefer to hear his full talks and ONLY his talks (without any music) you can find those as well, but this video is shorter and to the point.

To elaborate a bit more on what he says, life doesn't need meaning to be worth living. Life doesn't need meaning for any reason at all. Music has no meaning, the purpose of music is simply to listen to it. Dancing has no meaning, the purpose of dancing is simply to dance. When you watch a film, you aren't watching it for any reason other than the enjoyment of watching it. You aren't gaining anything from it, you just do it for it's own sake.

Think of life in the same way. It's very possible that there is, in fact, a meaning that we simply are not aware of. But you can make peace with the possibility that there is no meaning by realizing that it doesn't need meaning to be lived and enjoyed. Do it for the sake of itself. The point of life is to live, plain and simple.

Everyone seeing this thread will be dead in 90 years or less. Some of us much less than that. I'll be lucky to get 30 more years, and would not relish getting any more than that. All I have made, thought, and built; all those I love, or know will be swept away and turned to dust.
What possible 'grand meaning' can such an ephemeral thing have? — charleton

I think you've put your finger on the problem here. We build our sandcastles between the tides. We can understand goals that pay off in 5 years or even 20 years (depending on our age). This future-orientedness is 'mature' and 'civilized.' But extend it a little too much and it threatens us with a vision of terrible futility.

For many children are probably the 'meaning' of life. They carry the torch forward. Progress accumulates that way. There is also social progress. Our deeds reverberate for generations perhaps. Politics and art are what I have in mind. But if the species will eventually go extinct (which seems likely enough as we look as far as possible into the future), these secondary projects also begin to look futile. We don't seem to be able to escape the general death and futility of all things.

So then we shift toward the intensity of the moment and toward dying well, I think. Some of my favorite rock songs treat this theme of personal annihilation, and it comes off ecstatic, beautiful. War isn't pretty, but I think it too has offered men a way to charge at death in a maximum intensification of the moment. Then of course there's just our usual tendency to become engrossed in the situation at hand and forget mortality and futility. So futility or meaninglessness is something like an effect that comes and goes with a certain kind of thinking. We speak of 'meaninglessness' from a certain mood. Is it the truth about life? Yes and no. We speak of the eternity in the moment in other moods.

We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact. There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with. — ff0

I've had this thought, too, in my own words. But I've never been able to get my friends or even my girlfriend to understand what the hell I'm talking about.

The protagonist of that story is its essential, central, primary component. ...because a possibility-story is a life-experience possibility-story only because it has a protagonist. — Michael Ossipoff

Fascinating. It does occur to me that we exist largely as possibility. We are haunted, haunted, haunted by the things we could do, should have done, no longer can do, might become able to do. What is fully there seems to be only a small part of what is humanly there.

nigger

nigger

Alan Watts — JustSomeGuy

Alan Watts is a great introduction to philosophical questions for someone who never got his feet wet before. But after some time, it gets tiring - he says the same thing over and over in different ways, and that's that. He has great breadth, but little depth.

One great book of his that I very much enjoyed (though I've found the same ideas better expressed and in much greater detail) is Behold The Spirit - his thesis on mystical Christianity.

"The protagonist of that story is its essential, central, primary component. ...because a possibility-story is a life-experience possibility-story only because it has a protagonist. }— Michael Ossipoff

It does occur to me that we exist largely as possibility.

Yes,that's what it all really only amounts to.

And the gravitas of the regrets and dilemmas that you mentioned is removed by the insubstantial-ness and ethereal-ness of what metaphysically (describably, discussably) is.

That's why I say that this metaphysics implies an openness, looseness and lightness.

This finite life (or finite sequence of finite lives) in the world of identity, things, time and events, is only part of our overall life, which, we all agree, ends with well-deserved timeless peaceful rest and sleep.

But while we're in this temporary eventful story part, it's worth noting its insubstantiality, openness, looseness, lightness.

It doesn't have the grim limits of the world that the Materialist believes in.

Michael Ossipoff

question assumes there is a meaning for life. I do not understand why people assume something has a "meaning". — Pollywalls

Yes, life doesn't have or need meaning.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm happy to find this thought discussed by someone else. Yes, it's when the 'why' targets existence as a whole that it reveals itself to be a lyrical why, a 'pseudo-question.' — ff0

Not if you're only asking about metaphysical reality.

But consider: normally, asking why depends on relative juxtaposition of things. Why this? Because that, because some other thing. But there's no "other thing" against which existence as a whole can be juxtaposed.

If the topic is limited to metaphysical existence, I don't think there's a problem like that, because I don't think that the systems of inter-referrng if-then facts that metaphysics leads to need to be justified by or juxtaposed to anything outside their own context.

Nature (the way things are) is a system of postulated necessary relationships. We can answer local why-questions in terms of these relationships. But the system as a whole must remain a brute fact.

No, not metaphysically.. We've discussed why there couldn't have not been abstract facts, of which our physical worlds consist.

There's no reason to believe in a metaphysical brute-fact..

There is no object outside of the system to put the system into a necessary relation with.

A system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals doesn't need a relation with something larger or global...or anything outside its own inter-referring context.

So, when you speak of that "necessary relation", you're talking about a "need" that isn't.

But I don't see how a metaphysical God object brings the why-series to an end.

Not all Theists believe that God is an element of metaphysics, or, in any sense, an "object".

Explanation doesn't go past metaphysics.

...So we don't escape brute fact.

But, if you're referring to metaphysics and metaphysical reality, the metaphysics that I've described doesn't have or need any assumptions or brute-fact.

But logically we still have existence as brute fact.

No, not in metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

I agree that he says the same thing over and over in different ways, but there are people (such as myself) who benefit from hearing the same concept put into different terms sometimes. It serves as a reminder or a refresher, in a sense. Making me reflect on something I already am aware of, but have lost sight of, and helping me see it from a different angle.
But I do agree that he is more of an "introductory" philosopher. He touches on questions related to life, the universe, religion, god, etc. but doesn't get real in-depth with them most of the time. That's also something I like about him, though, and something I find I benefit from every once in a while. Although I do love how complex and technical philosophy can get, sometimes it helps to look at things from a simpler, more basic perspective. I think a lot of people can benefit from it, especially if you have a tendency to really overthink everything and get stuck on the details, because that can make you lose sight of the big picture. Alan Watts is basically all big-picture. I need that sometimes.

Meaning is self generated. Posing the question in terms of life endowing meaning to oneself is a categorical error that I see too often to address every time.