We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff

This is the objective reality implication we often neglect when claiming we believe in objective reality. The corollary to claiming we believe in objective reality is, that the meaning lies in that reality, not in us, and we just found it out there. Because it is intelligible to us, it must be that the outside world has some form of meaning already prepared for us to discover.

Do you agree with this? Because this is what we're really saying when we say there is meaning in that external reality. We discovered the meaning, we didn't create it.

I think an understanding of personal meaning comes from deciding what One ought to do when thinking of reality/nature/economy/society.

No matter which approach you take answering the question of the meaning of life, everyone agrees that it's firmly tied to the question "why". — Carlikoff

Not sure I agree with that.

Meaning and 'why' don't necessarily go together.

The meaning of life is a non-question, possibly incoherent. It generally comes down to being a more pompous or anachronistic way of asking, What's important to you?

We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff

I've never thought the universe cares. I don't see how this has much bearing on meaning unless you started from a position of transcendence, then you might feel like a heroin user who can't get on...

Because it is intelligible to us, it must be that the outside world has some form of meaning already prepared for us to discover. — L'éléphant

I disagree that the 'outside world' is intelligible to us, but we may do better with our inside world - our thoughts.

I disagree that the 'outside world' is intelligible to us, but we may do better with our inside world - our thoughts. — Tom Storm

Good. We're getting somewhere.

So, would you agree if I conclude from it that you don't believe in objective reality?

So, would you agree if I conclude from it that you don't believe in objective reality? — L'éléphant

No, I'd say we can get along in the environment we call 'reality' reasonably well. But intelligibility is context dependent. If everything is quantum fields we certainly find this less intelligible. I am not certain what the term objective reality refers to.

I am not certain what the term objective reality refers to. — Tom Storm

Let's agree that objective reality is one that has facts and truths. So, facts, as we know, are actual/correct statements about the world.

Let's agree that objective reality is one that has facts and truths. — L'éléphant

I'm somewhat sympathetic this 'whatever is the case' view of truth.

Generally I distinguish between two things 1) things being true and 2) the nature of reality (which may be ineffable). Some things can be assessed as true when they correspond to how something is in the world. A map. A name. A historical event. The effect of a poison. Most of these truths are based on evidence or empiricism. They are the easier ones.

Reality? Not sure what is in scope here. In general, it seems to me that communities determine what is true through a collaborative exercise in creating agreement. You could say that truth is created not found. Examples of such truths might include - 'democracy as the best government'; 'the value of education'; 'god/s care about humans', 'the imperative of progress'...

We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. Whatever you might say is the meaning of life, let it be happiness, power or serving some god, it will never satisfy the human desire for a meaningful meaning. — Carlikoff

I suppose some are prone to this level of existential anguish. Others find that one creates one's own meaningful life. One that will satisfy human desire.

Whatever you might say is the meaning of life, let it be happiness, power or serving some god, it will never satisfy the human desire for a meaningful meaning. — Carlikoff

Humans are part of Nature and so are ultimately grounded in nature's thermodynamic imperative. To persist, thou shalt entropify!

But life and mind don't really see that as their meaningful goal. They see it as instead the definition of meaninglessness as they are evolutionary structures that instead persist by locally defying this more general Cosmic constraint on their existence. Life and mind exist by being able to exploit entropic gradients to their private advantage - extracting the work and material that build them into organisms.

So - skipping over the whole evolution of life saga - we arrive at Homo sapiens as creatures now informed by the trials and tribulations of juggling both genetic and cultural levels of selfhood. We have to persist as animal bodies - with all those biological level needs. And we must persist as workable communities - with all their social level needs.

What is meaningful to the self in either sense is flourishing. Surviving and thriving. Biologically and sociologically.

Hence Maslow's hierarchy of needs that runs from simple survival at the bottom to modern glorified notions of self-actualisation at the top.

An issue to consider is where this notion of self-actualisation comes from historically, and what good purpose does it serve in the modern sociocultural setting? It it the right ultimate goal, or a questionable frame of mind? Does it lead to flourishing - in a way that is also sufficiently lasting?

So the point is that meanings are evolved. They are ways to codify the practices that allow intelligent order to gain control over the forces of entropy.

But the proof of the pudding is the long run. The system of meanings that define some stage of human sociocultural development might not lead to long term thriving.

So the search for a meaning to life is really the search for the codified practices that could sustain life in some suitably long-run and flourishing way.

And if humans really represent intelligence, then we would be in the business of constructing our meanings. Participating in a communal fashion to make them, not always searching for them, or talking about them as some strange mass illusion.

Reality? Not sure what is in scope here. In general, it seems to me that communities determine what is true through a collaborative exercise in creating agreement. You could say that truth is created not found. Examples of such truths might include - 'democracy as the best government'; 'the value of education'; 'god/s care about humans', 'the imperative of progress'... — Tom Storm

Okay then, that means you don't subscribe to objective reality. Which is fine. I was merely saying that you clearly express it.

Okay then, that means you don't subscribe to objective reality. — L'éléphant

The thing is, I am not sure.

Humans are part of Nature and so are ultimately grounded in nature's thermodynamic imperative. To persist, thou shalt entropify! — apokrisis

e.g. Epicurus-Lucretius' 'swirling-swerving atoms'... Spinoza's 'conatus' ... :fire:

I am not certain what the term objective reality refers to. — Tom Storm

Perhaps it refers to 'publicly accessible regularities of nature' (operationalized in theoretical models as physical laws & constants and/or in philosophy as reason's limits). Maybe not "certain", but, IMO, a pragmatic heuristic nonetheless.

Whatever you might say is the meaning of life, let it be happiness, power or serving some god, it will never satisfy the human desire for a meaningful meaning. The meaning of life can ultimately only tell us what our actions rely on, not what they should rely on. There is a meaning of life, yes, but it is itself meaningless. — Carlikoff

If the "meaning of life ... is itself meaningless", then the meaning of that (every) statement is also meaningless, no? :chin:

Consider this old post

In sum: "the meaning of life" is (made explicit by recognizing) life's radical contingency / uncertainty.

The thing is, I am not sure. — Tom Storm

You can search for explanation of objective reality. Then decide for yourself if your understanding leans towards the subjective. I just gave you what is an objective reality is. For example, if you think that snow is white and blood is red, then there's your objective reality. Facts come in statements. So, think about that. "Snow is white" is a fact -- is it in the outside world? If you agree, then you agree there's meaning out there --that snow is white. And it is intelligible to us. We picked it out from the external world.

But if you think that "snow is white" is not a fact, but our subjective interpretation of the world, then you don't believe in the objective world.

So the point is that meanings are evolved. They are ways to codify the practices that allow intelligent order to gain control over the forces of entropy.

But the proof of the pudding is the long run. The system of meanings that define some stage of human sociocultural development might not lead to long term thriving.

So the search for a meaning to life is really the search for the codified practices that could sustain life in some suitably long-run and flourishing way. — apokrisis

Nice!

Why should life have a meaning?

But if you think that "snow is white" is not a fact, but our subjective interpretation of the world, then you don't believe in the objective world. — L'éléphant

Snow is white to humans. It is a fact about human perception and language use. I have no issue with modest claims like cats being on mats, etc. But for me this does not tell us much about an objective world, just how a fragment of that world seems to us, based on the constructions of language and perception. This is a type of objectivity, perhaps, but I don't think I can push it far. Colour, as you know is a product of light and our sight process. Things themselves do not have colour. So it is objectively true that human eyes and brains process light in a similar way and come to a shared agreement about the names of what they see. I'll do my best not to arrive at Stove's Gem. :smile:

Perhaps it refers to 'publicly accessible regularities of nature' (operationalized in theoretical models as physical laws & constants and/or in philosophy as reason's limits). Maybe not "certain", but, IMO, a pragmatic heuristic nonetheless. — 180 Proof

Cool use of language! Very nice. I suspect this is what I am trying to get to as a plodding non-philosopher.

'Plodding with aplomb' online has been my goal for a couple of decades now. :smirk:

To persist, thou shalt entropify! — apokrisis

Hello, maggot.

:yikes: Sorry, your honour , I was drunk.

What I meant to say is that Western Culture has assiduously rejected any idea of meaning on the cosmic scale. That it has declared, on the whole, and as Bertrand Russell put it so eloquently in his Free Man’s Worship, that life is the outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms. Given that, you can have any meaning you like, but know that it is only yours, or maybe, you and your friends’.

Colour, as you know is a product of light and our sight process. Things themselves do not have colour — Tom Storm

The plastic bag I see looks pretty orange. It has the color orange. Our brain projects color onto the world. Okay, not into, but onto. The plastic bag beneath the orange is not orange by itself.

.

.

But for me this does not tell us much about an objective world, just how the a fragment of that world seems to us, based on the constructions of language and perception. — Tom Storm

You assign to much importance to language. As many philosophers do. Language, from mathematical to religious, is just a small part of being. It is handy for talking and writing. To inform or being informed. It doesn't shape reality. It's part of ex/impressing reality. Different languages ex/impress different realities. The chirping of birds, the mathematical story of quantum fields, the story of the poly gods, they all express different realities. The story of one objective reality, progenited by Xenophanes and Plato, gained popularity again during the "enlightenment", as an answer to religious atrocities. A new reality took its place though, while the monogod reality persisted. The both direct descendants of the one god and one reality idea. Which in fact was a sleazy and refined tactic to push one's own reality, about which we are forced to learn about already as young children. By law! Don't send your children to school, to learn about the miracles and wonders of the scientific reality? Want a fine? Want to be separated from your children? Bad parent! A parent should send their children to school! Laymen are ignorant... so the argument goes. The days of the old are with us again.

Um, no ... you've misread me or I wasn't clear enough. Your OP thesis refutes itself. "life is meaningless" is therefore also meaningless aka "babytalk" (i.e you're not saying anything when you say something self-subsuming like that).

.

We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff

Speak for yourself.

I'm sure many won't accept that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist, but it's a far more reasonable conclusion than that it does care, given the available evidence. Regardless, though, it seems childish to attribute caring to the universe. It suffices that we're parts of it. Does the universe care that the Earth has a moon? Things (including humans) merely are, as far as we know.

That should suffice, as far as "meaning" is concerned. We are, undoubtedly. How should we live is a pertinent question, but it's unrelated to "the meaning of life." We don't require a particular "meaning of life" to live happily, tranquilly, free of disturbance. It's singularly futile to maintain we must have a particular reason, or adhere to a particular meaning or maxim, to want to live happily, tranquilly, and free of disturbance.

No matter which approach you take answering the question of the meaning of life, everyone agrees that it's firmly tied to the question "why". — Carlikoff

"Why" is not a question. It's just an interrogative adverb. One has to use his imagination to turn the "question of the meaning of life" into one that takes the form of "Why", The first that come to my mind is "Why does life exist?", but I can't be sure that this would be your question if you had expressed it.
Then, how can you assume that everyone agrees that it's firmly tied to, well, actually anything? That's why the word "everyone" is to be avoided, not only in a discussion but also in one's own thoughts. Not only one cannot be certain about that, but sometimes it turns to be even wrong!

When we ask about meaning, we ask about purpose, about the reason for a given circumstance. — Carlikoff

Not necessarily. The meaning of a word is its significance, what does this word signify, convey to someone. Just that. It doesn't imply that there's a purpose for that word. For example, "What does Martin mean?", "What is the meaning of the word abracadabra?", "With tall I mean 1.80m height and more", and so on. There are no purposes in any of these.
Most probably you have been misled by the parallelism of "What is the purpose of life" with "What is the meaning of life".

What is the common problem with the above two cases? Generalization. This is a trap and is to be totally avoided in reasoning.

***

Well, I believe that the above remarks are more useful than perpetuating and talking about the-meaning-of-life philosophical question, which has been proved, from millions of discussions to lead usually to either a "None"-type or an idealistic/utopian-type of answer, or a religious-type of dogmatic answer.

Hello, maggot.

:yikes: Sorry, your honour , I was drunk. — Wayfarer

:rofl: It wasn't me, it couldn't have been me! I was dead! I was on the moon!

Only the gods give meaning to life. Science, be it Dawkins (The Selfish Gene and Meme), Hawking (God is a mathematician) or me (the altruist gene and meme, realized by love and hate particles to recreate heaven, as described in my upcoming story), the gods are needed. They are no mathematicians (though some Homosapiens gods think they are, which led to considerable trouble in heaven).

One-size-fits-all meaning to life would mean all except one of us is a redundancy, it's overkill I tell you. Please do the needful, whoever draws the short straw. I'll pay for the cheerleaders.

Since I'm not needed, I'm going to find myself a woman and proposition her for sex. Hopefully she's blind (not exactly Brad Pitt), has anosmia (body odor) and prefers quickies (don't ask me why?)