Would you agree that what you're really asking is why you exist? Why you are?

The human predicament is one where you are thrown into a life where you are enculturated into a society, inherit genes, encounter epigenetic changes, develop a personality, and then use that personality and interaction with the environment and social systems (that have developed through historical contingencies) in order to survive and entertain your mind. There is a drive, a Will, an angst at the bottom of our efforts in navigating this world, via our respective character/personalities/egos. This Will essentially must put forth energy and satisfy the main imperatives of survival-through-social-means and then keeping away boredom through-social-means. However, what you are realizing is why we do anything at all. I call this understanding "instrumentality". We do to do to do. We survive to survive to survive. We entertain to entertain to entertain. We cannot help but do anything else. We are burdened with surviving and entertaining our minds. We are metaphorically "thrown" into the world and must deal with it. The situation is absurd. We have our needs and wants that are never ending, always trying to be satisfied. The world turns, over and over. We keep moving forward. We keep structures going, we keep throwing more people in the world for no reason, and yet this is seen as good by some. Then, on top of this "structural suffering" of instrumentality is the contingent suffering of the billions of possible circumstances we encounter that cause physical or emotional anguish.

We justify suffering by saying that it is necessary (somehow?) because people need to be born in order to overcome it. This sounds like an absurd justification to me. So we create miserable circumstances and experiences so people can deal with them and learn from them, which didn't need to be encountered in the first place. So do we set ourselves up as some game show producers.. and apparently the newborns are the contestants that must play the game?

So we try to escape our circumstances. Hope is one avenue. Hope keeps us swinging through one goal to the next without trying to see the bigger picture. There is religious doctrine with its mysteries and secrets. There is the idea that we are living for some happiness principle (or variations of this)- there is achievement, flow activities, relationships, physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, and learning. Apparently some think that our goal is to experience this, and thus this instrumentality is justified. There is narrowing your thoughts by ignoring the instrumental absurdity, there is anchoring yourself in some sort of role in society, or taking on some mission that society provides as somehow worthwhile. There is sublimating your thoughts in works of art, literature, or creativity. I guess people will say some variant of these things is why more people need to be born. Why the human project is worth it. Are these legitimate or good enough reasons? Is there something to be said about the instrumentality of being? What does this indicate?

Oh and welcome to the forum.

Why should there have to be meaning?

Life is for its own sake, because there are things that we like.

What more meaning should there be?

I don't mean to encourage you to act unethically. You probably don't want to interfere with or harm the lives of others. You know it's better if you don't, because they're living beings like you. But the things that you like are, at basis, what it's about.

Metaphysics doesn't contradict that, but your question didn't seem to call for bringing metaphysics into the topic.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm sorry if you find this question stupid — krishnamurti

I don't find the question stupid, but I do wonder about the wisdom of calling yourself Krishnamurti and adopting his photograph as an avatar on a philosophy forum.

It's a good question K but IMO you are approaching it wrongly. For example the meaning of a car or a house is defined by its service to us. It is easy to assume that since life isn't serving us it has no meaning. But what if our purpose is to serve universal purpose? The essential question becomes what is the meaning of humanity in relation to objective universal purpose?

It has been a long time since I have heard this question which is a very good question but each person forms their own answer. Whether you choose a path that leads in the humanitarian direction or the other which might be starting your own business, the path remains the same but it is you who chooses at the forks in the road. Robert Frost was famous for his writing of
The Road Less Traveled

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Your journey is yours alone but there are folks you will meet along the way that will help guide you as you explore you inner self. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Maybe you are just looking around to see what might fit as an answer to your question but ultimately, it is the same amount of time whether you approach life in a positive way as opposed to a negative way. Just remember that none of us really know what is really going on, it is all about perceptions and with a little flexibility, you might find yourself moving in an unexpected direction on a prior position or conclusion that you had already identified.

The meaning of life consists entirely of whatever associations and/or connections that you make with and/or within life.

I do wonder about the wisdom of calling yourself Krishnamurti and adopting his photograph as an avatar on a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

sorry if I offended you, I'm just a fan of K , that's all

Whatever it is, you won't find it on an Internet forum.

Well... it's a good place to bounce off ideas and interact with other people

that's just another way of saying there's no meaning

But what if our purpose is to serve universal purpose? — Nikolas

Hmm...I do like the concept. But,c'mon what universe are we serving? I mean what impact can we have on a gigantic thing like the universe?

can you tell me what has any of us done something so great as to have an impact on the universe?
ok, let's go small, the earth? anything? ok, your country? your state maybe?

I know I haven't. And most people probably never will. And lets take example of people that have done something great? Alexder the great, Dead. Picasso? dead. Buddha? Dead. Mark Zuckerberg? Well he's alive. but you know whats coming.Michael Phelps. Same.

In the end, everybody's the same. As they say, death is the great equalizer

What I'm asking is why should we bother to do anything other than see for our basic needs? why try to make a million dollars? why try to get lucky? why try so hard to be someone?why not just be?

I know a lot of why's. Can't help it.

Oh and welcome to the forum. — schopenhauer1

Oh thanks, I got a feeling I'm gonna love it here. also, can you explain instrumentality a bit more please?

So let's say I take up service for humanitarian causes as the meaning of life(this is the only thing I've found to be relatively meaningful than other stuff) , but by the logic of point a.) even that is meaningless. No matter what I do, but in the grand scheme of things,it's all going down. So why bother? — krishnamurti

I would say "life is meaningless" by which I mean: The universe does not provide a ready-made meaning. I also don't mean that we start at Square One when we start to think about meaning: People have been devising meaning for a long time, and some of that is available to us in our cultures.

So yes, each of us has to devise an answer to the question. We can

a) accept a meaning-of-life that already exists, as it stands, lock stock and barrel.
b) modify a meaning-of-life that already exists.
c) devise a meaning-of-life based on what you have observed, read, heard, and thought
d) accept the view that there is no meaning to life
e) keep yourself busy and just don't think about it

a = the religious option. Religions are complex constructions of meaning. Various religions suit the desires of billions of people for a meaning of life.

b = the religious heretic option. The meaning a given religion provides can be adapted for our personal needs. That might make you a heretic in the eyes of the orthodox, but as long as they don't burn people at the stake, that's OK.

c = is the hardest route. Construct a meaning of life for yourself out of your own experiences, so far.

d = the route of least resistance. Accepting a no-meaning view doesn't mean that you embrace lawlessness, suicide, joylessness, or anything else. It just means that you don't hold the view that life has some pre-ordained meaning. You can be a happy, loving and loved, joyful person or a miserable, solitary person as it suits you. In other words, the quality of your life doesn't have anything to do with whether life has a meaning.

e = a very common approach.

Follow the way that works for you. One is not better than another IF it suits you.

I used to believe that the meaning of life was provided by God. I don't believe that anymore. Now I think life probably has no ready-made meaning. However, there are activities in life that are much more meaningful than other activities. You find humanitarian causes to be meaningful. Great! Keep at it. Personally, I found most jobs (with 2 or 3 exceptions) to be pretty meaningless. That makes sense. There is a reason they have to pay people to work. I found meaning in relationships with other people (and dogs, truth be told) books, and music.

Welcome to The #1 Philosophy Forum on the Internet.

what is the meaning (of life) then? — krishnamurti

To maintain "a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network"

-Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 89.

So do we set ourselves up as some game show producers.. and apparently the newborns are the contestants that must play the game? — schopenhauer1

Ouch! How apt, if you want to be cynical... What was the equivalent cultural related statement/question in Schopenhauer's time I wonder? (I'm assuming there was one)

What does it mean to you? What do you search for? Love? Power? Excitement? Food? You are the writer of your own novel. I've always felt my life is what I believe it to be. I can fall under the spell of my own belief. If I believe my failure is because my story will eventually end in triumph and I'll use it as a stepping stone to achieve my ultimate goal to become a sumo champion then I believe my life is an underdog story, to be general. But on the other hand if I view my failure as a tragedy, where if it would never have occurred, I could have reached the pinnicale of my profession, then I believe my life is a ballad of bad luck. Again this is general but my point is, that what ever meaning we attribute to our life is the meaning of life. For some it may be to have children and for others it may be to travel the world. Whether those things happen or not the eventual outcome will be to either give up on life, or find a new reason to continue living. Many people die long before their body does, now I don't know if this is a quote but if it's not I'm claiming it, "the meaning of life is to find a reason to live" knowing that if that reason were to ever go away, you would have to search for new meaning. It's a bit tragic I guess, but hey "ups and downs smiles and frowns"-snoop dogg

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?
What arrogance have humans!!

↪creativesoul
that's just another way of saying there's no meaning — krishnamurti

No it's not. It situates meaning.

Are you familiar with the concept of a conscious universe? The universe is analogous to a living organism structured on levels of reality. It is an ancient idea. Plotinus referred to it as the emanations of ONE as the source of creation and the Great Chain of Being.. But obviously this is difficult to explain in a post. Someone copied an excerpt from Jacob Needleman's book "A Sense of the Cosmos"

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituality/5157-conscious_universe_-_jacob_needleman.html

If you re open to the idea that the universe is a hierarchy of intentions, then Man has the potential for conscious evolution. We exist as the man animal and a creature of reaction. Conscious evolution leads in the direction of a higher level of being within which the man animal can evolve towards becoming a conscious being. If this excerpt makes sense perhaps we could explore what creates a conscious human perspective as opposed to our more usual conditioned indoctrinated perspective. The idea is that as we are, we serve a mechanical necessity. Organic life on earth serves a mechanical purpose of transforming substances. However we have the potential of serving a conscious purpose that we can awaken to.. Some are drawn to this purpose much like a moth is drawn to the light. If life in Plato's cave offers sufficient meaning then why contemplate these things? But as Plato said: "man is a being in search of meaning." Those drawn to this quality of meaning beyond what the world provides are drawn to the ability to experience and reflect conscious universal purpose as opposed to the habits acquired during cave life.

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin when she was already very sick:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth..............................

Simone was attracted to what the world could not offer. Your question asks if it was worth pursing a life dedicated to the experience of truth at the expense losing oneself in the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. Only a person with a similar hunger in the heart for the experience of truth as opposed to imagination will understand. Most will just consider it foolish. Albert Camus called Simone the "only great mind of the times." Does it mean anything if it interferes with our smart phones?

So do we set ourselves up as some game show producers.. and apparently the newborns are the contestants that must play the game? — schopenhauer1

My metaphysics implies that:

1. Someone who was going to be born into a world like this would just be born into a different one, if everyone in this world refused to reproduce. I myself wouldn't want to have a role in bringing someone into this world, but I don't really believe it makes a difference, for the reason expressed in the sentence before this one.

2. A person is born because they want, need, or somehow merit birth. Not because someone reproduced.(In an infinity of possibility-worlds, someone will.)

Michael Ossipoff

1. Someone who was going to be born into a world like this would just be born into a different one, if everyone in this world refused to reproduce. I myself wouldn't want to have a role in bringing someone into this world, but I don't really believe it makes a difference, for the reason expressed in the sentence before this one.

2. A person is born because they want, need, or somehow merit birth. Not because someone reproduced.(In an infinity of possibility-worlds, someone will.) — Michael Ossipoff

With what justification?

It seems to me that meaning is grounded in our cultural background practices. I walk along the street and I am bombarded with meaning; its ubiquity sufocates me if I am in the right mood. Any "meaning to life" is also going to be grounded in our cultural background practices.

— schopenhauer1

1. Someone who was going to be born into a world like this would just be born into a different one, if everyone in this world refused to reproduce. I myself wouldn't want to have a role in bringing someone into this world, but I don't really believe it makes a difference, for the reason expressed in the sentence before this one.


2. A person is born because they want, need, or somehow merit birth. Not because someone reproduced.(In an infinity of possibility-worlds, someone will.)

— Michael Ossipoff


With what justification?


You mean how is it implied by my metaphysics?

According to that metaphysics, a person's life-experience possibility-story is a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then logical facts about hypotheticals. After all, all of the abstract logical facts are inevitably there anyway, and need no explanation. I mean, no one denies that there are those abstract logical facts. That's all that's needed.

(Even a "Nominalist" has to acknowledge them as things, by referring to them, when he says he doesn't believe in them.)

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.

It seems reasonable to suggest that that protagonist must be someone who has some sort of involvement with life, in order for him/her to be the protagonist/experiencer of a life-experience story. If so, then a desire for, or need for, or at least some kind of subconscious involvement with life is something that goes with being the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story.

So then, that's why I said that you were born because of some wish, need, or other subconscious emotional involvement toward life. Therefore, among the infinity of systems of inter-referring abstract facts, is one that is a life-experience possibility-story about you.

All of that seems reasonable with or without reincarnation. It's equally true of a first and only life, as much as for a new life-experience story that matches the remaining subconscious inclinations and feelings when someone is unconscious after death.

If all that sounds like a fantastic suggestion, I suggest that it there isn't a less fantastic alternative suggestion.

Michael Ossipoff

I emphasize that the reincarnation speculation isn't part of my metaphysics, though it's implied by it.

Michael Ossipoff

I feel so lost right now.I don't know what is the purpose of it all. smile all you want but this how i am feeling right now. — krishnamurti

Do you need to know the purpose of it all, to not be lost?

Well, in metaphysical naturalism, purpose/meaning is subjective, and that seems the most viable view. But here are some more answers given by other philosophers;

• To serve some deity or deities (Brown)
• To retain one's soul (Tolstoy)
• Emotion (Wolf)
• For the benefit of others (Singer)
• Creativity (Taylor)
• To promote virtues (Aristotle, Kant)

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning

I feel so lost right now.I don't know what is the purpose of it all. smile all you want but this how i am feeling right now.

LOST.....

Modern scientists say that there is probably no grand meaning to life. "You decide your own meaning", it's said. but isn't that meaningless in itself because the presumption is that:

a.) there is no meaning of life

and

b.) you decide the meaning of life.

So let's say I take up service for humanitarian causes as the meaning of life(this is the only thing I've found to be relatively meaningful than other stuff) , but by the logic of point a.) even that is meaningless. No matter what I do, but in the grand scheme of things,it's all going down. So why bother?

Then, my friends, like an innocent primary school kid asks his teachers, I ask you what is the meaning then?

P.S. : I'm sorry if you find this question stupid or if I couldn't articulate my thoughts properly. I'm new to
this.Will need some time. — krishnamurti

I don't see how it is meaningless to say that you have the freedom to define your own meaning. It seems to me that you find it necessary for someone, or something, else to define your meaning. Who, or what, has that right, or power, over you? Why would you just give that power away and say that it's meaningless?

You say, "in the grand scheme of things, it's all going down". So what? You exist in the grand scheme of things. You are part of the grand scheme of things. The grand scheme of things wouldn't be the same without you.

The problem is that you have a God-shaped hole :)

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?

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.

But the problem is, nobody has any evidence of God, unless they're just circularly arguing that existence itself is the evidence of God.

So since the 18th/19th centuries, the position has increasingly been taken that since there's no evidence for God, there's no need to worry about Him. But because the "why" question is compulsive, we keep bumping up against a God-shaped-hole. The final question has no satisfying answer.

Which is why some people have taken to transcendentalizing secular goals (e.g. equality). But that's no use either (and leads to megadeaths).

The road less travelled here is simply to suspend judgement and be ok with suspending judgement. Acknowledge that we simply don't yet have a satisfying answer to that ultimate question. The God answer could be the right answer, but we have no way of deciding or figuring it out, or deciding between that and the universe being a stupendous accident.

So the problem becomes one of being ok with not knowing. And also realizing that all the normal human stuff seems to get along quite well without having to know. For example, you are born with a certain level of benevolence (it varies along a bell-curve, and some don't have it - human sharks, so to speak) and your parents probably trained you to be nice. The lack of an answer to that fundamental question doesn't mean you have to go against that inclination and training, and turn yourself into a serial killer who never gets up in the morning.

Or to put it in the cute terms of Werner Erhard's est seminars: it's all empty and meaningless, but the fact that it's empty and meaningless is itself empty and meaningless. Now, to be strictly accurate, we don't actually know that it's empty and meaningless either (for all we know, it might be full and meaningful after all, and one or all of the God solutions human beings have come up with might be right); but if it is empty and meaningless, then that solution applies: the fact that it's empty and meaningless doesn't affect us one way or the other, it has no implications for our daily lives, and changes nothing.

I was told once by God himself that the meaning of any human life is to realise or to discover that God exists and /or to feel Him around.