Life (1 Viewer)

[Feynman]

“meaning” is a personal construct. It’s one of the great things about life: you get to decide upon and even create your own meaning.

How to best live your life according to whatever meaning you settle upon is a matter for science, as is, from an anthropological perspective, how people choose meanings for their lives. But there’s nothing that requires that you decide upon a meaning based on how the universe actually is -- and, indeed, many of us derive meaning from bending the universe to our wishes, not from contorting ourselves to how the universe already is.

 

[Sy123]

"Tearing up an analogy seeks to do you no good"

Lol the point being that ur analogy does not prove ur point, cars have a different purpose depending on the individual and the destination of choice depends on the individual. If anything, ur analogy proves the point that different things hold a different purpose for different people, which contradicts the claim there is one universal purpose for everyone.

No, an analogy is there to explain the point and make it obvious.

When anyone thinks of what cars are for, anyone who knows what "car" the word, means, knows that they are there to go places, if you say, "no its not people can make their own meanings", then I say that you can't make your own meaning because we already know what a car is.

If you say that cars are there so we can eat KFC, then I will say that you are deluded, there is a set purpose/purposes for a car, the purpose of a car is not the whim of anyone and everyone, since we know what a car is.

But if u acknowledge the meaning of life doesn't have one answer, doesn't that contradict everything u just said about the meaning of life being to worship God?

I only claim that it could be the case that things have multiple purposes, in regards to "purpose of life", then it could have multiple answers, but I gave only 1. I am merely expressing possibility

And no it doesn't seem immediately "obvious", that's my entire point, it's only obvious if u define meaningas having to be universal in the first place, which makes the entire argument trivial. It's the debating equivalent of saying "let there be an object A that exists, therefore A exists!".

I gave my argument here:

----------------
If the meaning of life is unrestricted and is determined by the opinions of other people, then both of these are true:

- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality
-----------------------

This is what happens if you don't restrict the range of possible answers to the answer of "meaning of life".

If you decide to restrict it, then I ask simply on what basis do you restrict certain things and not others, and then we come back to the start.

I agree that it doesn't mean that ur wrong in stating there might be a universal meaning and personally i agree with u. I do contend however with ur statements that suggested it as fact that meaning was universal and that atheists must have no meaning or purpose in their lives. In short, i contend with the notion that ur personal beliefs and opinions should be expressed in a way that tries to come across as a factual denunciation of an atheist's position.

What u presented was ur opinion on the meaning of life, so the statement that it is clear to "anyone" that atheists have no meaning or purpose in life is wrong, it's clear to u and those who hd ur opinion or definition (i among them) but it definitely does not apply to those who have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what exactly constitutes meaning

I understand what you're getting at, but simply put, if you do not restrict what counts as a "meaning of life", then you arrive at contradictory conclusions.

If you do decide to restrict it, then such a restriction requires a justification

If an atheist wants to say that there is a meaning of life, and that the meaning is a construction of his own, then like I said earlier, such a construction will lead to unrestricted meanings, ultimately making this "meaning", meaningless.

 

[Sy123]

“meaning” is a personal construct. It’s one of the great things about life: you get to decide upon and even create your own meaning.

How to best live your life according to whatever meaning you settle upon is a matter for science, as is, from an anthropological perspective, how people choose meanings for their lives. But there’s nothing that requires that you decide upon a meaning based on how the universe actually is -- and, indeed, many of us derive meaning from bending the universe to our wishes, not from contorting ourselves to how the universe already is.

Well that's completely false

Science is a very limited discipline and in fact cannot answer basic questions of even a child. Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong, science cannot tell us about the purposes of anything.

how people choose meanings for their lives. But there’s nothing that requires that you decide upon a meaning based on how the universe actually is -- and, indeed, many of us derive meaning from bending the universe to our wishes, not from contorting ourselves to how the universe already is.

This misses the point, *how* people get their meaning of life is independent of *what* the meaning of life is.

 

[Sy123]

Similarly going back to ur original post, how is constructing a purpose for something an inadequete means of giving it meaning? Are u saying language and words have no meaning because we made them?

If someone used sticks to create fire, does that mean those sticks can't have possibly been used to make the fire because we constructed that use for them? That the sticks cannot have purpose for creating fire because we can't give it a purpose?

Like I said, if you do not restrict what a meaning is, then your meaning becomes meaningless.

So if you say, that the "purpose of fire is whatever you want", then someone can say, "the purpose of fire is so I can dive underwater and fish for massive pearls", point being that the latter's statement is just as valuable as anyone else's

If someone came to you and said this, no doubt you would bow your head and get away from such a crazy individual.

Why can we not say the same about someone who wants to say anything they want about the meaning of "life"

 

[Kiraken]

No, an analogy is there to explain the point and make it obvious.

When anyone thinks of what cars are for, anyone who knows what "car" the word, means, knows that they are there to go places, if you say, "no its not people can make their own meanings", then I say that you can't make your own meaning because we already know what a car is.

If you say that cars are there so we can eat KFC, then I will say that you are deluded, there is a set purpose/purposes for a car, the purpose of a car is not the whim of anyone and everyone, since we know what a car is.



I only claim that it could be the case that things have multiple purposes, in regards to "purpose of life", then it could have multiple answers, but I gave only 1. I am merely expressing possibility



I gave my argument here:

----------------
If the meaning of life is unrestricted and is determined by the opinions of other people, then both of these are true:

- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality
-----------------------

This is what happens if you don't restrict the range of possible answers to the answer of "meaning of life".

If you decide to restrict it, then I ask simply on what basis do you restrict certain things and not others, and then we come back to the start.



I understand what you're getting at, but simply put, if you do not restrict what counts as a "meaning of life", then you arrive at contradictory conclusions.

If you do decide to restrict it, then such a restriction requires a justification

If an atheist wants to say that there is a meaning of life, and that the meaning is a construction of his own, then like I said earlier, such a construction will lead to unrestricted meanings, ultimately making this "meaning", meaningless.

But your meaning for car is not universal because I just demonstrated that people can use cars for different things and also can travel to different places with a car and that the use of a car is most of all *entirely* dependent on someone's choice. A car has no universal purpose, people use cars and therefore the purpose of a car is simply to be used for what the person who uses it wants it for.

Similarly, if you are just expressing possiblity, again that means ur initial statement that "atheists have no purpose in life and this is clear to everyone" is unfounded, because if what you're just throwing around is a "possibility" it's not exactly "clear", is it?

Furthermore, you throw around words like irrationality and meaningless, but how exactly is an individual's ability to attach their own individual purpose to their own life independent of a universal meaning which does not necessarily exist, irrational and meaningless? All you are presenting is a circular argument based on your definition that meaning has to be universal and your only reason why is because you hold any other view as irrational or meaningless without actually demonstrating why.

In terms of your argument

"- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality"

The major flaw in this is you forget that those two views aren't held by the same person, they don't contradict because they are both opinions and a sense of purpose attached to the individual lives of two different people. Your "proof" would only apply if it was the same person affirming both, but it isn't.

To demonstrate the flaw in your proof let me use an analogy of two sticks

-Person A holds the purpose of the two sticks to be to create fire
-Person B holds the purpose of the two sticks to be to create music

You cannot then go on to conclude that they contradict each other and therefore this is meaningless because the point is both people have equally valid purposes for the stick dependent on their frame of reference.

 

[RenegadeMx]

One day, man hear knok on door. Man is intrigue, man ask, 'Who is?' Man say, 'Is potato man, I com to giv to yu free potato.' Man is very excite. Man open door. Is not potato man, is Latvian secret polis. Such is lyfe.

 

[futuremidwife]

Like I said, if you do not restrict what a meaning is, then your meaning becomes meaningless.

So if you say, that the "purpose of fire is whatever you want", then someone can say, "the purpose of fire is so I can dive underwater and fish for massive pearls", point being that the latter's statement is just as valuable as anyone else's

If someone came to you and said this, no doubt you would bow your head and get away from such a crazy individual.

Why can we not say the same about someone who wants to say anything they want about the meaning of "life"

These are one of the circumstances in which the meaning, like the fire example is not valuable. Our disapproval with meanings like the fire one is mainly due to fact, and common sense. Everyone with basic common sense knows for a fact you can't do that with fire, it's just a factual and an accepted universal view.

We have no facts, no concrete knowledge on the meaning of life so we cannot disregard it. We have to acknowledge it, because it's as valuable as anyone else's meaning of life, no matter how outrageous we personally define it. There is this no universal outrageous scale we can measure with, it is only defined through personal definitions. For example, as a symbol of masculinity and a coming of age ritual, the Satre-Mawe tribe weave bullet ants into this leaf glove where they are required to put there hands in and not cry or scream pain. To me, that's painful and outrageous, but to the Satre-Mawe tribe they see it as rewarding. So, like the meaning of life, no one can define how 'outrageous' the meaning is, because we don't have the facts, and we don't have a universal scale.

 

[RenegadeMx]

Two latvian man walk into bar to have night of many potato. no potato, only suffering. such is life

 

[futuremidwife]

One day, man hear knok on door. Man is intrigue, man ask, 'Who is?' Man say, 'Is potato man, I com to giv to yu free potato.' Man is very excite. Man open door. Is not potato man, is Latvian secret polis. Such is lyfe.

Ahah, you made a different version of this story! How many do you have lmao!!

 

[RenegadeMx]

Ahah, you made a different version of this story! How many do you have lmao!!

much more then i have potato,

Why is 6 afraid of 7? Bekause 7 is Politburo spy. Such is life.

 

[futuremidwife]

much more then i have potato,

Why is 6 afraid of 7? Bekause 7 is Politburo spy. Such is life.

Fucking legend man!!! AHAHAH!!!

 

[Menomaths]

Ahah, you made a different version of this story! How many do you have lmao!!

The same amount google has. Such is lyfe.

 

[RenegadeMx]

Infinite number latvijan man are walk into bar. First is say: one potato. Sekond am say: half potato. Third are say: kuarter potato. Before next kan say, bartender skream: You all am kapitalist jew pigdog and give two potato. Men overjoyed by see two potato, but soon realize was rokk. All realize no wit or smart kan give food to fight malnourish, only utter dedikation to glorious kommunism.

 

[RenegadeMx]

 

[Sy123]

But your meaning for car is not universal because I just demonstrated that people can use cars for different things and also can travel to different places with a car and that the use of a car is most of all *entirely* dependent on someone's choice. A car has no universal purpose, people use cars and therefore the purpose of a car is simply to be used for what the person who uses it wants it for.

No, that is really not true, just as I said, if someone asks someone what a car is for, and that person says, "to cook KFC", then this person is mentally handicapped, this is because we already know what a car is for.

Moreover you have not even touched the actual point of using the analogy.

If I say, "the purpose of a car is what you make of it and each answer is equally true and valid", then you have really taken the meaning out of what is meant by a car.

Similarly, if you are just expressing possiblity, again that means ur initial statement that "atheists have no purpose in life and this is clear to everyone" is unfounded, because if what you're just throwing around is a "possibility" it's not exactly "clear", is it?

You are simply misunderstanding me at this point, I am refuting the claim that, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", and in doing so, I say that it is possible that there can be multiple parts to an answer "what is the meaning of life", what I mean by this is that, "the meaning of life is A, B, AND C", that is all that I meant.

Not that, "the meaning of life is A", and "the meaning of life is not-A"

Furthermore, you throw around words like irrationality and meaningless, but how exactly is an individual's ability to attach their own individual purpose to their own life independent of a universal meaning which does not necessarily exist, irrational and meaningless? All you are presenting is a circular argument based on your definition that meaning has to be universal and your only reason why is because you hold any other view as irrational or meaningless without actually demonstrating why.

Well you need to quote me exactly where I said such and such is irrational or meaningless so I can know the context of what I said. Objecting to my word usage is not an argument. You then accuse me of using a circular argument when that is not at all true. Firstly, it is you who first used the adjective, "universal", so you need to define this term precisely because you are using it ambiguously.

Secondly, I am merely saying that if you say that meaning is what you make of it, then you take meaning out of it.

In terms of your argument

"- The meaning of life is A
- The meaning of life is not-A

To affirm both of these statements results in the pain of irrationality, and there is no need to deal with those who are comfortable with irrationality"

The major flaw in this is you forget that those two views aren't held by the same person, they don't contradict because they are both opinions and a sense of purpose attached to the individual lives of two different people. Your "proof" would only apply if it was the same person affirming both, but it isn't.

No, the view is held by the meaning-relativist. If you say, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"

Then if 2 people say contradictory things, the person who says, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", has to affirm both contradictory statements. If he denies one of them, then he isn't true to his claim, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"

To demonstrate the flaw in your proof let me use an analogy of two sticks

-Person A holds the purpose of the two sticks to be to create fire
-Person B holds the purpose of the two sticks to be to create music

You cannot then go on to conclude that they contradict each other and therefore this is meaningless because the point is both people have equally valid purposes for the stick dependent on their frame of reference.

Sure, but two sticks can have multiple purposes.

Both Person A and Person B are only partially correct, the full purposes of a stick are very many, but if you say, "the purpose of two sticks is anyhting you want it to be", then the person who says, "the purpose of two sticks is to eat bananas", then such a person's opinion is as equally valid as Person A and B.

 

[astroman]

i worship myself

 

[Sy123]

These are one of the circumstances in which the meaning, like the fire example is not valuable. Our disapproval with meanings like the fire one is mainly due to fact, and common sense. Everyone with basic common sense knows for a fact you can't do that with fire, it's just a factual and an accepted universal view.

We have no facts, no concrete knowledge on the meaning of life so we cannot disregard it.

Says who? What do you say about the people who do have a concrete universal meaning of life?

We have to acknowledge it, because it's as valuable as anyone else's meaning of life, no matter how outrageous we personally define it. There is this no universal outrageous scale we can measure with, it is only defined through personal definitions. For example, as a symbol of masculinity and a coming of age ritual, the Satre-Mawe tribe weave bullet ants into this leaf glove where they are required to put there hands in and not cry or scream pain. To me, that's painful and outrageous, but to the Satre-Mawe tribe they see it as rewarding. So, like the meaning of life, no one can define how 'outrageous' the meaning is, because we don't have the facts, and we don't have a universal scale.

Thank you for acknowledging and supporting my point then, on atheism, there is no universal standard for anything, so anyone's "meaning" goes, and if that is the case, then there is no meaning at all. If everyone's meaning is valid, then there is no meaning, very simple.

 

[Kiraken]

No, that is really not true, just as I said, if someone asks someone what a car is for, and that person says, "to cook KFC", then this person is mentally handicapped, this is because we already know what a car is for.

Moreover you have not even touched the actual point of using the analogy.

If I say, "the purpose of a car is what you make of it and each answer is equally true and valid", then you have really taken the meaning out of what is meant by a car.



You are simply misunderstanding me at this point, I am refuting the claim that, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", and in doing so, I say that it is possible that there can be multiple parts to an answer "what is the meaning of life", what I mean by this is that, "the meaning of life is A, B, AND C", that is all that I meant.

Not that, "the meaning of life is A", and "the meaning of life is not-A"



Well you need to quote me exactly where I said such and such is irrational or meaningless so I can know the context of what I said. Objecting to my word usage is not an argument. You then accuse me of using a circular argument when that is not at all true. Firstly, it is you who first used the adjective, "universal", so you need to define this term precisely because you are using it ambiguously.

Secondly, I am merely saying that if you say that meaning is what you make of it, then you take meaning out of it.



No, the view is held by the meaning-relativist. If you say, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"

Then if 2 people say contradictory things, the person who says, "the meaning of life is what you make of it", has to affirm both contradictory statements. If he denies one of them, then he isn't true to his claim, "the meaning of life is what you make of it"



Sure, but two sticks can have multiple purposes.

Both Person A and Person B are only partially correct, the full purposes of a stick are very many, but if you say, "the purpose of two sticks is anyhting you want it to be", then the person who says, "the purpose of two sticks is to eat bananas", then such a person's opinion is as equally valid as Person A and B.

So now the basis of your argument is "not everything is a valid purpose"

However, this by no means discounts the argument that something can have multiple purposes or that said purposes can be subjective. Your argument is ridiculous because you take an extreme example that is by no means logical (no one would say the bananas statement) and then somehow draw the conclusion that there has to be one universal meaning for life and that is to worship God and therefore atheists cannot have any meaning to their life. A bit absurd, isn't it? Similarly you're rebutting one or two ridiculous examples of how a car cannot be used but that misses the point that a car DOES have various uses depending on how the individual seeks to use it, it doesn't just have *one* overarching purpose, which was the point of your initial statement and this whole debate.

Also, even taking ur KFC example, what if someone had a caravan and they cooked inside it? Wouldn't their "car" technically be used to cook KFC? The purpose of something like a "car" or "life" is therefore entirely malleable based on how a person uses it. If literally everything had the same purpose there would be no margin for diverse methods of living or using objects for multiple different things, but it's self-evident this isn't the case when you look at society in real life.

Your rebuttal is also invalid, because on what basis are those two people "partially correct"? That's a nonsensical concept lol, the sticks can be used for music or they can be used for fire, that means they are BOTH correct, but from different frames of reference.

The premise of your argument is flawed because you're using impossible purposes to show that there must be one *singular* purpose to life that everyone follows. Those two are not the only two possible answers, and it completely discounts the fact that meaning and purpose can be subjective, that this subjectivity does not necessarily denote impossible situations and that this by no means shows that there is one singular universal meaning to life. Honestly it seems like you used pseudo-intellectual ranting to shoehorn the concept of God into everything you say, which is fair enough, but to then use this as a basis to launch an attack on atheists and say they have no purpose or meaning in life is somewhat erroneous. To summarise the absurdity of this argument let me essentially break down your argument.

1. People don't use sticks to make bananas
2. Therefore atheists have no purpose in life

 

[enoilgam]

I'll admit that I haven't read everything word for word, but from what I gather, a large part of Sy's argument is that atheist's have no real basis for their beliefs as opposed to those who follow a religion, in which case I would agree. Atheist morals are just abstractions much in the vein of nihilism I think (note, this isn't a criticism of atheism).

 

[Kiraken]

I'll admit that I haven't read everything word for word, but from what I gather, a large part of Sy's argument is that atheist's have no real basis for their beliefs as opposed to those who follow a religion, in which case I would agree. Atheist morals are just abstractions much in the vein of nihilism I think (note, this isn't a criticism of atheism).

1. That isn't what he said. He said atheists have "no meaning in life" since to him, the only basis of meaning in life is worshipping God.
2. How is religion any less of an abstraction than atheist morals? Saying religion is more concrete is already presupposing that God exists and that religion is right, but an atheist would contend that religion is simply a construct by man in which case those who follow religion are simply following an abstraction that is someone else's.
3. Nihilism is different from moral relativism so again, that statement that atheists are essentially nihilists is also incorrect