It seems to me that death eradicates point and meaning because only the living can have desires.

Death disconnects the individual from her wishes and goals. — Andrew4Handel

Quite so. In the ever-deepening sleep at the end of life, there are no desires, wishes, goals, need, want, dissatisfaction , incompletion, identity, time or events, or any knowledge that there ever were or could be such things.

You cannot connect back with the world after you are dead( it seems) to see what happened to the world in your absence. — Andrew4Handel

You'll eventually have no idea that there ever seemed to be a physical world and a worldly life.

Michael Ossipoff

10 W

I always wondered how death destroyed meaning. Is it that only the living have meaning? Some living people seem to have a meaningless lives. Yet some die for a purpose e.g. freedom, love, etc.

That said, it's an almost universal belief that death is the ultimate meaning-destroyer. It completely and irrevocably erases all that makes a person who s/he is.

Life has no meaning. As Camus(?) said we're all Sisyphuses laboriously rolling that stone to the top of the hill only for it to roll back down. I wonder why Camus thought life was meaningless? Did he give death as a reason? Or is life meaningless even for an immortal?

How meaningful may be the life of an immortal? That it isn't eternity that makes life meaningful is proven by the fact that people commit suicide. A meangiful life = immortality + happiness. There are two ingredients if we are to think death kills meaning.

So, immortality alone isn't what we want. Can I now say that death isn't really a problem for life to have meaning? Not really. I want to be a happy immortal. It's the combination of the two that gives life meaning right?

So, it seems that death makes life meaningless because it destroys the very thing, the self, that can be imbued with meaning.

Ordinary thinking considers death to be a state of the individual very much like sleeping or being happy. This leads to the commonly accepted but inconsistent assertion that the individual continues to exist in some sense after his death, albeit in a terminal dead state.

A typical atheist might deny asserting this, but this assertion is implicit in sentences like "Elvis is dead", which would not have sense unless Elvis was in some sense still referable after his death.

One way to salvage the meaning of the sentence whilst denying the existence of individual souls, might be to interpret "Elvis is dead" as saying "The name Elvis no longer refers to a public object". The problem is, the sentence now has sense but at the cost of only referring to the name "Elvis".

Birth and death are temporal boundaries to my being the way my skin is the spacial boundary of my being.

I am small and the universe is large; I am brief and the universe is long-enduring. That there are times and places I wot not of, does not render my life pointless. I have made a point, I don't have to make all points.

Birth and death are temporal boundaries to my being the way my skin is the spacial boundary of my being.

I am small and the universe is large; I am brief and the universe is long-enduring. That there are times and places I wot not of, does not render my life pointless. I have made a point, I don't have to make all points. — unenlightened

self + something = meaning.

something = 1) immortality + 2) happiness + 3) whatever may fancy someone

You can take away the something and yet see meaning in the self alone or in other somethings that are still attached to the self.

However death erases (completely) the self - the very thing that desires meaning. So, death makes life meaningless.

Isn't that why people want a legacy? People want to leave something behind that will, it is hoped, outlast a finite lifespan and lead to some form of immortality. But this is only a consolation for those who can't face extinction because the self does get destroyed irreversibly.

However death erases (completely) the self - the very thing that desires meaning. So, death makes life meaningless. — TheMadFool

It makes no sense to me. A daffodil is a beautiful thing, though the flower only lasts a few days. It is still a beautiful thing if I do not see it or if no one sees it, and it will still be a beautiful thing when I am dead as it was before I was alive. Death makes life limited, not meaningless. If you argued that a life with no joy or beauty is meaningless, I might believe you, but infinite duration bears no relation to meaning.

It seems to me that death eradicates point and meaning because only the living can have desires.

Death disconnects the individual from her wishes and goals. You cannot connect back with the world after you are dead( it seems) to see what happened to the world in your absence.

For example almost everyone that died before the two World wars and holocaust had no idea that this is what the future held. You can die optimistic seeing the world on the cusp of a positive revolution but you cannot know how this progressed and whether or not there was a reverse in fortune.

I think one main problem with our friends and family dying is that we might never see them again. It is not enough that we have memories of them. — Andrew4Handel

In other news, water is wet. :joke:

It is still a beautiful thing if I do not see it or if no one sees it, — unenlightened

This is controversial. The beauty of a perception is subjective.

People do not agree on what is beautiful. But nevertheless the characteristics of a perception such as color are influenced by the individual visual system and not necessarily inherent in an object.

I am small and the universe is large; I am brief and the universe is long-enduring. That there are times and places I wot not of, does not render my life pointless. I have made a point, I don't have to make all points. — unenlightened

The pointlessness occurs after life.

As an analogy imagine going to the cinema and seeing a thrilling film whilst feasting and buttery popcorn and icy Cola. Then 5 minutes after you leave the film you have complete amnesia. Was it worthwhile seeing the film now it has been eradicated from your memory.

I think the value of life is based on memories and hopes not just on the moment. Part of the fun of Christmas is the anticipation and long build up.

I think people cannot imagine or either do not imagine that they will not be around after death to see what is happening or have any input. (barring and afterlife/reincarnation scenario). For me ceasing to exist entirely is probably the biggest fear of death. I think the "benefit" of religion has been motivation and hope. Terrible events seem slightly less bad with an afterlife hope.

That it isn't eternity that makes life meaningful is proven by the fact that people commit suicide. — TheMadFool

Some people who commit suicide believe in the afterlife and say they want to die to be reunited with a dead relative or friend. I think suicide is usually done to end suffering not necessarily with the desire to extinguish the self.

Was it worthwhile seeing the film now — Andrew4Handel

Here's the switcheroo on display for all to see. No, it wasn't worthwhile now because you've just specified that I don't know what you're talking about now.

It was worthwhile seeing the film then.

It was worthwhile seeing the film then. — unenlightened

Things are usually valued over time. I would not like to have continuous bouts of amnesia so that large chunks of my life were missing from my memory. Ironically it is the worst memories we would like eradicated but their badness can make them more persistent.

Things are usually valued over time. — Andrew4Handel

You come out with these things as though they are evidently true. It's not true. things are valued at the time; memories are valued at a later time. I too value memories, and prefer happy ones. But you persist in playing a game with time whereby you look from a place that you cannot look from in order to make a negative pronouncement on the place where you are. If this conversation is worth having, it's worth having it when we have it, and if it's worth remembering, it will be worth remembering when we remember it. What it isn't worth to an imaginary Andrew who doesn't exist and doesn't remember at some other time, is a nothing - a mere verbal trick.

You come out with these things as though they are evidently true. It's not true. things are valued at the time; memories are valued at a later time. — unenlightened

But an experience takes place over an amount of time even if it is a short amount of time.

It seems obvious to me that things take place within the concepts of past present and future. The problem is that death doesn't have any of these. Society is based on innovations from the past and plans for it's future. (Unless you have another idea of this)

I am not talking about value here but point and meaning because I agree you can temporarily value something. But people are making plans for a future they won't be in. Like I mentioned with the world wars example people in the past had no idea what trajectory the future without them would take.

I feel a lot hinges on whether there is a personal afterlife as to whether ones life was meaningful because I think there is no meaning, point or value without sentience. People often use the example of general anesthetics. That state of complete unawareness is suggested to be what death is like. ( partly because of the lack of dreams, or memory or experience of passage of time I imagine)

I don't think that death is a relief from suffering either, because after your dead it seems you have no awareness that you are no longer suffering. There is no one to be relieved from suffering. I don't know how to put a positive spin on death or build life around it. trying not to die is a big motivation I suppose.

From a presentist perspective, one's notion of an 'after life' or lack of, refers to one's present state. This is also true from a behaviourist's perspective, since the behavioural semantics of any thought or uttered sentence consists of one's response to one's immediate environment.

It seems obvious to me that things take place within the concepts of past present and future. — Andrew4Handel

It seems far from obvious to me that things take place within any concepts at all. It seems to me that things take place in the world.

It seems far from obvious to me that things take place within any concepts at all. It seems to me that things take place in the world. — unenlightened

Concepts are in the mind and motivate or guide our action the world.

For example I remember (the past) That there is no milk in my fridge. I plan for the future to buy some milk. Recognizing a person means you have seen them before. Never recognizing someone would be the equivalent of living in the now.

It seems to me that death eradicates point and meaning because only the living can have desires. — Andrew4Handel

(Physical) death only eradicates meaning if there's no soul, God, Absolute or some other physically transcendent source of meaning.

Death leads to pointlessness???!!!

Does it, really?

From what logic?

The organisation of existence and reality before the dawn of life-forms on this planet hints that a different conclusion may serve logic better. The organisation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc, etc, hint at something bigger than what we think as limits of existence/reality. The idea that the big bang began everything everywhere is just as limited as thinking that this planet is the cradle of life-forms in the universe.
What stops there being other universes arising from other big bangs? We now have proof of the millions of super-novas (some even defy the limit of 'super') going off in the expanse of space which we are capable of observing, and considering we can't even imagine beyond the idea of this universe, what's to stop other phenomena from occurring beyond our meagre senses and sensibilities?

Humans, as we are now, are a mockery of the definitions of intelligence, wisdom, freedom, ability, etc, which we have developed so far in comparison to what nature has managed to develop without our interference. The idea that we should somehow pause to consider our significance relative to a scale we lack the capacity to comprehend is utter foolishness.

Yes, human death may seem pointless. But, so is the significance of human life against the greater existence beyond it. We should learn to accept our place - less than a grain of sand in the desert in equivalence compared to the part of the universe we have had a peek of.

And yet, minute as our lot may be, we must play our part because we are part of the whole akin to bacteria, suns, universes, etc. That's how significant we are.

As to people dying that we may never see again, remember there are people born whom we've not seen before. Whatever pattern life is/has, its limits are not governed by our inadequacies. There is birth and death, and for far longer and in more complex ways than we could claim to know/understand. Perhaps, just as we assign purpose to those less than us (the animals, plants, etc), in much the same way our purpose is governed by existence/reality greater than us.
And I don't mean God, how about we start with the planet, then the solar system. Much as we'd like to extend our boundaries, we seem limited by a much simpler design than we care to admit. For example, we may leave this planet but only if we carry a minute representation of it with us. Doesn't that say something about our interaction with/in this immediate form of existence/reality?

I wonder why Camus thought life was meaningless? Did he give death as a reason? Or is life meaningless even for an immortal? — TheMadFool

I think it was more that nature was meaningless in the absence of something like God. So yeah, if you could be immortal, the world would still be lacking meaning. Although arguably, you would be living in a different world (like say heaven), since you can't be immortal in the actual one.

People have said of Christians "If you believe there is a paradise in the after life why don't you kill yourself? What is the point of now?"

I sympathize with this sentiment. I am contradicting what I said earlier to some extent. If there is an eternal life what is the point of this excursion?

Some people will then say this is a journey and a lesson. I hope that is the case.

I think life is made more pointless if you are suffering and can't avoid suffering and don't have second chance.

The only reason we are aware of some kind of reality is because of personal consciousness and I think that or some other kind of consciousness is where meaning lies. Our belief in a vast universe and vast history is still just a product of the mind. I am quite solipsistic in this sense.

The problem I see is in the lack of continuity. We can imagine life continuing without us but we won't know that. So we may be having false aspirations.

I believe we are aware of 'things' because they connect to us, whether they connect through our consciousness, senses, self, etc matters only after we accept the fact of the connection. Then we can investigate what the connection entails. Part of present day life is the realisation of the vastness of that connection in terms of cosmology, also in the depth of that connection in terms of micro-particles. As to our importance, I base it on questions such as, should beings whose ways are as chaotic, as ours clearly are, think as highly, as we do, of themselves? We have this idea that we belong at the higher part of the hierarchy (or spectrum) in this reality/existence but I think the inverse is more plausible.

The problem I see is in the lack of continuity. We can imagine life continuing without us but we won't know that. So we may be having false aspirations. — Andrew4Handel

We weren't here when life went on before us, and in like manner we know life will continue after us because we've seen it continue past those who've died in our lifetimes. It isn't that big a mystery.

As to aspirations, I think beings with a capacity for free-will have a right to determine where to next, regardless of nature's intricacies. After all, whatever we are is still a part of nature. I think what we have is a misunderstanding, kinda like when we say that plastics are not natural even though everything about them is derived from nature. And just as the best way to categorise plastics is as 'inorganic', I believe the best way to refer to birth and death is as transition of energies. At death, we may not know the where to, but we sure know the where from.
Considering how small we are, the bigger questions in life are not as difficult to fathom as we often make them out to be. For example, our life spans may be up to 100 years but we have billions of years in history; we can plan to the next minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, even to years, and make happen in our lives as much as we can no matter how much uncertainty and surprises there are to cope with and yet we doubt the second past our last breaths even though the significance of our lives is already superior to the need for breath because if such weren't the case, then sacrifice would not be possible and we would not have heroes or look up to them.



*** I may not convince anyone about what life after death could look like but, without doubt, I believe everything I will be up to my last breath will determine everything my energies will be in the moment after it. I say 'energies' because I know the range we refer to as physical may no longer apply and I'm too practical such that even when I say spiritual I would still mean it to be a 'something' in reality/existence instead of some impractical ideal. (I don't believe in 'nothing' or some kind of magical transformation where the energies suddenly refine themselves into a superior being. There has to be a natural process of which we are not yet aware that governs such factors as identity, will, intelligence, etc, because I don't believe in randomness, coincidence/chance.)
Also, if the birth of human life is dependent on pre-existent conditions then human death must be succeeded by posthumous conditions. ***

It makes no sense to me. A daffodil is a beautiful thing, though the flower only lasts a few days. It is still a beautiful thing if I do not see it or if no one sees it, and it will still be a beautiful thing when I am dead as it was before I was alive. Death makes life limited, not meaningless. If you argued that a life with no joy or beauty is meaningless, I might believe you, but infinite duration bears no relation to meaning. — unenlightened

It's quite simple to me. There's an x that wants meaning and to which meaning can be assigned. If that x is then erased permanently the meaning would be lost because there's no x to assign meaning to. Right? The flower in your example is meaningful only to the point it is extant. When it withers and falls the flower itself and so everything attributed to it, including meaning, would vanish. Things, including us, are like nails on the wall. Meaning is a painting that we can hang on these nails. Remove the nail and there's nothing to hold the painting (meaning). That's how I see it.

Some people who commit suicide believe in the afterlife and say they want to die to be reunited with a dead relative or friend. I think suicide is usually done to end suffering not necessarily with the desire to extinguish the self. — Andrew4Handel

Good point. I only wanted to say that suicide is proof that just immortality isn't enough. We need an extra something, probably happiness.

Life strives to reproduce itself, whether it has weak genes, abnormal genes or successful genes. We are all the result of a long line of successful genes.

We were not born with any point in mind. People have children because of their innate desire for them, not because those children might be scientists, or be happy, or create art. We are born to keep life going in our successful form. All life strives to reproduce itself.

Being alive, with the hope of passing on those genes, is the only point. Death certainly ends the point. But if life has been created from those successful genes then it was not pointless.

Meaning is just a story in the human mind. When the mind goes, presumably all meaning does as well, or at least that is one popular theory. Assuming for now that is true, we might consider this...

A key purpose of every living organism is to create more life. When we attempt to perform this function we are rewarded with an orgasm. The orgasm is a brief psychological death. In the moment of orgasm there is no meaning, no point, no story, no "me", none of the things we typically feel are essential.

And whaddya know, everybody loves orgasms. A lot!

So, just one theory, death may be a process of trading in meaning for something far more rewarding.

You're talking about a collective meaning - the meaning of life as a whole. That's fine, after all life is billions of years old and might continue for a billion years more. We can see meaning in being part of something greater but isn't that just seeking immortality in a different form? In other words we're always seeking immortality. Death does make everything pointless.

My point has nothing to do with immortality. I'm merely insisting that the significance of life and death has nothing to do with their apparent contrast. That is, life is its own 'thing' happening and being what it is, while death is its own other 'thing' happening and being what it is. And that, neither death nor life is more or less significant because we value the other more or less.

My point has nothing to do with immortality. I'm merely insisting that the significance of life and death has nothing to do with their apparent contrast. That is, life is its own 'thing' happening and being what it is, while death is its own other 'thing' happening and being what it is. And that, neither death nor life is more or less significant because we value the other more or less. — BrianW

I don't think you can make a clean cut between life and death like that. Death is defined as the cessation of life. The two are co-defined as it were.

I don't think you can make a clean cut between life and death like that. Death is defined as the cessation of life. The two are co-defined as it were. — TheMadFool

Yeah, but the definitions have nothing to do with the identity or significance of either. It is more of a place marker in terms of when they happen. When we're alive death isn't happening, but that doesn't tell us a thing about either, and vice-versa. I believe the significance of life/death is in their purpose which we (humans) have not yet discovered and that it may lie somewhere between the immediate position of nature and its relation to the grand scheme of existence/reality. But, again, it's just a hypothetical.