Does your life have meaning?

Originally posted by whodey
The thought of us haveing "meaning" is purely subjective in nature. For example, what "meaning" does a rock have? It has no intrinsic value other than simply existing. However, relative to myself, that rock may have a great deal of value depending on what that rock may mean to me. For example, it could be made of a precious metal such as gold or silver. ...[text shortened]... mber of atoms that make you up? What gives vistesd greater "meaning" than that dumb rock?

Okay, I’m going to assume from your reply that you are using “meaning” to mean “value”—I will use the latter term.

The simplest answer is that I value my life, not because of anything else (whatever that would be) but as itself. It is sometimes a discordant symphony, but the only symphony that I have and am. I value it because of its transience. It is what I am.

I appreciate that others are in the same existential boat that I am. In the case of some of my loved ones, the relationship is so intimate as to be essentially also a part of who I am.

Life is as much its own purpose as is a symphony. The point of the symphony is not to get to the end; the symphony is not valued because of something else, but as itself, perhaps, as an expression of the coherence of existence which we find beautiful.

Originally posted by dottewell
"Ultimately nothing has any meaning."

What does "ultimately" mean here, except judged from a particular perspective (and one of little or no practical value)?

What makes sub specie aeternitatis the most appropriate viewpoint to judge meaning and value?

When I say "ultimate" meaning I am referring to what actual meaning, if any, your life has in the grande scheme of things. We all have a skewed perspective as to how we relate to the grande scheme of things, however, it is skewed nonetheless. However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some degree. This is because if our lives had no meaning, how would we then even come to the conclusion that it must have meaning to begin with? Although our perspectives are skewed our perspectives are based upon the reality in which we exist so we must have some meaning in the universe.

The next question would then be if our lives do have an "ultimate meaning" beyond our own reality, then to whom does it have meaning? If you would perish and those that care about you perish does the meaning you percieved your life to have once had also perish and if so where did it go unless it was merely all an illusion to begin with? After all, without a personal perspective of somekind nothing has meaning, rather, it simply exists. So whose perspective do we rely in terms of giving meaning and value to all that exists?

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, I’m going to assume from your reply that you are using “meaning” to mean “value”—I will use the latter term.

The simplest answer is that I value my life, not because of anything else (whatever that would be) but as itself. It is sometimes a discordant symphony, but the only symphony that I have and am. I value it because of its transience. It is ...[text shortened]... but as itself, perhaps, as an expression of the coherence of existence which we find beautiful.

A symphony without a conductor perhaps? What purpose does the symphony have other than to exist? If that is the case, you are of no greater value than a nonliving object such as a rock in the grande scheme of things.

Originally posted by whodey
But if the meaning for your existence is ONLY what you make it, it has no inherent value, rather, such meaning could then be deemed illusionary. Once you perish and thsoe who care about you perish the meaning for your life also perishes. It begs the question if such meaning actually existed in the first place. If so, where did it go?

All "meaning" in life, books, movies, music, the universe, is subjective. You may find meaning in things I deem completely meaningless. Neither of us in inherently right or wrong in that evaluation, meaning is subjective, it has no inherent value free of one's perspective.

If you and everyone who was aware of your life ceased to exist and you were basically wiped from history, then I'd agree that there is no more meaning for you life for anyone, but what do you care because you don't exist anymore?

Also, I'm sure at least a few artists or poets or whatever found their lives meaningless and killed themselves, only to have their work influence others years later, so their lives had no meaning to them, but did have meaning to others. It is all subjective.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
If you and everyone who was aware of your life ceased to exist and you were basically wiped from history, then I'd agree that there is no more meaning for you life for anyone, but what do you care because you don't exist anymore?

Exactly! So I submit to you that such "meaning" is merely illusionary at its roots. If such meaning can merely vanish without a trace, I submit to you that it never existed to begin with. However, if that be the case and there is no meaning to our existence then how did we even arrive at such a notion that our lives must have meaning to begin with?

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly! So I submit to you that such "meaning" is merely illusionary at its roots. If such meaning can merely vanish without a trace, I submit to you that it never existed to begin with. However, if that be the case and there is no meaning to our existence then how did we even arrive at such a notion that our lives must have meaning to begin with?

That is part of the illusion.

The medium is the "meaning" (apologies to Marshall McLuhan). There is no "meaning" from elsewhere, no matter how much one might desire it, and project it.

Though I really hate to put it that way; again, you seem to be shifting the sense in which you use that word.

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly! So I submit to you that such "meaning" is merely illusionary at its roots. If such meaning can merely vanish without a trace, I submit to you that it never existed to begin with. However, if that be the case and there is no meaning to our existence then how did we even arrive at such a notion that our lives must have meaning to begin with?

Your logic is flawed. Just because something can cease to exist doesn't mean it never existed. The collision of anti-matter with matter is a great example of this.

Like the whole "tree falls in the forest" arguement, I've always seen this as a pointless, even meaningless point of view.

If by "illusinary" you mean that meaning is all in our minds, and has no direct influence on the outside world, then I'd agree. But our own perception of the "meaning" of our lives causes us to influence the world in different ways than we would if that "meaning" were different or non-existent.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Your logic is flawed. Just because something can cease to exist doesn't mean it never existed. The collision of anti-matter with matter is a great example of this.

Like the whole "tree falls in the forest" arguement, I've always seen this as a pointless, even meaningless point of view.

If by "illusinary" you mean that meaning is all in our mi rld in different ways that we would if that "meaning" were different or non-existent.

Just because something can cease to exist doesn't mean it never existed.

Precisely!

I only ever got to hear Beethoven’s Ninth at an actual symphony concert one time—there was the symphony, and then it was over—that certainly does not mean that it was a wasted, vain or valueless experience.

EDIT: For me. As you say, another might've found it a total waste of time.

Originally posted by whodey
When I say "ultimate" meaning I am referring to what actual meaning, if any, your life has in the grande scheme of things. We all have a skewed perspective as to how we relate to the grande scheme of things, however, it is skewed nonetheless. However, it seems as if we all think our lives have meaning, therefore, it stands to reason that it must to some deg ...[text shortened]... s. So whose perspective do we rely in terms of giving meaning and value to all that exists?

I'm asking why "the great scheme of things" is the right yardstick of our actions. Like many theists, you play fast and loose with notions of objectivity and subjectivity.

Here, "objective" does not mean "from the viewpoint of the eternal". Sure, from that viewpoint pretty much nothing is significant; it's all too relatively small. But that's only one "objective" viewpoint.

"Objective" here simply means something like "indepedent of what particular people think".

Take a statement like: The genocide in Rwanda was one of the most tragic and abhorrent events of the 21st century.

This is objectively true. It will still be true after human beings have ceased to exist. And it is also important.

Now take another statement like: In the entire history of everything that ever happened in the universe, the genocide in Rwanda was a mere insignificant blip.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, this is true. So what? It's a different perspective. What makes it a better, "truer" one?

Originally posted by whodey
A symphony without a conductor perhaps? What purpose does the symphony have other than to exist? If that is the case, you are of no greater value than a nonliving object such as a rock in the grande scheme of things.

A symphony without a conductor perhaps?

Yep. The universe, conducting itself... Who conducts you?

What purpose does the symphony have other than to exist?

Do you go to the symphony just to hear how it ends?

If that is the case, you are of no greater value than a nonliving object such as a rock in the grande scheme of things.

Who is “the grand scheme of things?”

Do you feel so undervalued in life that you need a supernatural being to value you? Without which, you don't hold for yourself any value?

Frankly, Whodey, I suspect that this is just all about living forever... If the symphony comes to an end, then it wasn't worth much...

Originally posted by dottewell
Take a statement like: The genocide in Rwanda was one of the most tragic and abhorrent events of the 21st century.

This is objectively true. It will still be true after human beings have ceased to exist. And it is also important.

Now take another statement like: In the entire history of everything that ever happened in the universe, the genocide in Rwan ...[text shortened]... is true. So what? It's a different perspective. What makes it a better, "truer" one?[/b]

I disagree. Who says that the genocide in Rwanda was a tragic or abhorrent event? After all, someone wanted them all dead, no? In a universe that is devoid of subjectivity there is neither good or bad, rather, there are merely the facts that certain events happened. How can one place value on simply reporting the facts? That is, if it is done 100% objectively. There is no beauty, there is no love, there is no good, there is no evil. These words are all 100% subjective in nature. Therefore, they exist only to us or a higher power who created us. These terms are not measurable in any way other than from a subjective perspective. If they then do not exist empiracally, do they really exist at all or are they simply an illusion?

Originally posted by vistesd

Though I really hate to put it that way; again, you seem to be shifting the sense in which you use that word.[/b]

I realize that I have not percisely defined the term "meaning". This is partly because I find that the answer to such a question is somewhat abstract and subjective as to ones personal perspective. I am not sure how it can be measured or even if you can prove that meaning to the universe exists outside of our perspectives. Everyone here seems 100% sure that there is meaning, yet there does not seem to be a consensus on exactly what that meaning is or can prove that it even exists beyond who we are.

the world keeps spinning with or without you, so how much meaning do you have?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]A symphony without a conductor perhaps?

Yep. The universe, conducting itself... Who conducts you?

What purpose does the symphony have other than to exist?

Do you go to the symphony just to hear how it ends?

If that is the case, you are of no greater value than a nonliving object such as a rock in the grande scheme of things.[/b ust all about living forever... If the symphony comes to an end, then it wasn't worth much...

Who conducts me? Well if I am being conducted it must either be someone else, myself, or a higher power.

When I asked what purpose a symphony has other than to exist, I was not saying that all that matters is the end. What about the begining, why was it started and by whom? What about the middle, does someone enjoy symphonies and why? What is the purpose of the music in general other than to play itself? I think for you it is enough to say that there is a symphony, therefore, the symphony is the meaning to it all. One need not go around asking questions as to who plays the instruments, who is conduciting, and what happens when the symphony is over, rather, lets just enjoy the music. Then again, music is only music to the ears of the beholders. If their is no one to behold the sound of the music, is it music? It is akin to asking if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it fall does it make a sound? Therefore, if there were no living creatures in the universe, would the universe still be a symphony or would the meaning to it all vanish? If it vanishes then our existence is essential to its meaning and we must therefore persist in some form or fashion to ensure the universe has meaning. On the other hand, if the meaning does not vanish then who gives it meaning if there are no living creatures to enjoy it?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
the world keeps spinning with or without you, so how much meaning do you have?

How do you know this?