I think evolution is a claim of objective meaning where evolutionary theorist seek to explain life from a fixed or lawful paradigm. — Andrew4Handel

Evolution is just the function of our existence. It's the form we have in the universe, just as a star convert hydrogen into helium and later dies, the evolution of biological entities on earth goes through evolutionary steps to further change its function in the environment. There's no meaning to this, it's only a function. It also has no meaning just because scientists came to this conclusion, the scientific evidence points to it, it simply is. What is the meaning of a function? What is the meaning of the sun's ability to transform hydrogen into helium? Detach your own existence from the universe and you realize it has no objective meaning. People get clouded in our human sense of existing and it shrouds our ability to think beyond ourselves. We are nothing more than matter able to think about ourselves as matter, all meaning is our invention, objective meaning is non-existent.

where are you getting the meaning from? — Andrew4Handel

I'm getting it from my fertile mind.

"Making meaning" is the exclusive privilege of human beings.

This depends on what the mind actually is. And what is in your mind where does that come from?

Evolution is just the function of our existence. — Christoffer

Evolution seeks to explain characteristics or attributes we have in terms of evolutionary usefulness. These are expected to determine some or all of our characteristics.
There would be no point in the theory if it didn't meaningfully explain anything. T

I don't think scientists are the only people that can interpret their findings. That would be a reductionist approach to science. So for example a scientist might notice the presence of increased Oxycontin levels when someone is in love but that would not mean the measurement they make is all their is to the phenomena.

Another example could be a painting.
You could describe a painting in many ways at different levels. You could talk about the atomic structure of the painting, You could discuss the style and history of the work. You could talk about how the image reaches the brain due to photons hitting the retina and so on. Or you could say this a picture of a sheep. The most informative statement there is this is a picture of a sheep. But no single claim is exclusive or superior.

I think it is hard not to have meaning if you use language and do the sciences and involve theories and representations. But it is hard to pin down an overarching meaning to all these meanings and conceptual representations. in my opinion.

There is the value problem in meaning. Hitler seemed to have a lot of meaning and purpose in his life to the point he controlled a large army and several countries. How can one persons meaning be superior to another if we just have to make our own meaning?

Somehow Hitler needed an alternative source of meaning , purpose and satisfaction.

Got to go. The corpse is waiting. — Bitter Crank

:rofl: :lol: :clap:

Evolution seeks to explain characteristics or attributes we have in terms of evolutionary usefulness. These are expected to determine some or all of our characteristics.
There would be no point in the theory if it didn't meaningfully explain anything. — Andrew4Handel

I think that a definition of the word "meaning" would be needed because I don't see any meaning in evolution. As I said, it's a function that, as you said, explain the characteristics or attributes of usefulness. The process and function of the evolutionary changes over time is just what it is, there is no further meaning to it.

What I mean is that when we talk about "objective meaning", that meaning is essentially transcending beyond the simple function or characteristics of something. The "meaning of life" means that there is some meaning to all our existence beyond just existing or having life. If the "meaning" of a flower is to be yellow, that is not really a meaning, it's a function or a characteristic, it has no real value and is just what it is, it's yellow, no meaning. Same goes for evolution, the evolutionary process has no meaning, it is a function, it is a process, but it is what it is.

Objective meaning means that there is a reason for our existence, beyond of just existing. In terms of a God creating us, could maybe mean that we have a meaning for that Gods plan that we don't know about. But any rational person who wants to create a logical and reasonable argument for the meaning of life would not find one since it demands proving there's a God that has a meaning set out for us. Without any specific meaning to life, there is none and we simply just are.

That's why all arguments for a "meaning of life" falls flat every time since it requires there to be an agent of that meaning to apply it to our life. If there is no agent of meaning, there is no meaning. The argument for a "meaning of life" is infected by religion and its fallacies in reasoning.

There is no objective meaning.

Originally posted by @Paul24, merged into this thread:

"Hello everyone,

Today I would like to discuss with you a very delicate but interesting subject that have been on everybody's mind since the beginning of mankind. The purpose of life. So I wanted to ask you this. What is the purpose of life? I tend to agree with the premise that there is a purpose to every form of life from microscopic beings to macroscopic ones. This brings me to my second question : should life exist without purpose? Let me explain a little bit. Life is a cycle and everything in it contributes in order to maintain the universal order of things. Can life exist without purpose? I do not think so but I'm open for debate.

I await your reponses with a lot of curiosity.
Sincerely,
Paul"

There is the value problem in meaning. Hitler seemed to have a lot of meaning and purpose in his life to the point he controlled a large army and several countries. How can one persons meaning be superior to another if we just have to make our own meaning?

Somehow Hitler needed an alternative source of meaning , purpose and satisfaction. — Andrew4Handel

Why are you putting one person's meaning against another? Hitler might have felt a sense of meaning for himself, but why should that be set to a standard meaning for all?

To find your own meaning of life requires you to find it for yourself. It's not about finding a meaning that applies to all others. That is objective meaning and it doesn't exist, neither as a grand meaning nor a found meaning for all.

Today I would like to discuss with you a very delicate but interesting subject that has been on everybody's mind since the beginning of mankind. The purpose of life. So I wanted to ask you this. What is the purpose of life? I tend to agree with the premise that there is a purpose to every form of life from microscopic beings to macroscopic ones. This brings me to my second question: should life exist without purpose? Let me explain a little bit. Life is a cycle and everything in it contributes in order to maintain the universal order of things. Can life exist without purpose? I do not think so but I'm open for debate. — StreetlightX

@Paul24:

There is no purpose to life. It's the consequence of billions after billions of random dead matter clashing together into chemical reactions until organic matter developed. Later, that organic matter developed simple functions that would guide it into existing with least resistance to the environment. From that, the evolutionary process continued this process over the course of billions of years and the organic matter developed into larger and more complex beings.

There is no purpose to this, it's simply a process, like how beech rocks form shapes after millions of years of water crashing into them, their form does not have a purpose, it's just a result of matter over time.

The premise that there is a purpose to life is not a premise that can be used in a reasonable argument because it has no truth-value. If the conclusion is that there is purpose to life and the premise is that there is purpose to life, that is a fallacy.

Therefore, the question of whether or not life should exist without purpose becomes a non-question since a purpose hasn't been proven to exist in the first place.

A universal order is not equal to the process of evolutionary cycles. The universe will continue indifferent to our planet being blown up or not, since it has no agent of will. It doesn't care, it can't care, it's a dead place of matter without consciousness.

You can't think about the purpose of life when you haven't proven there to be one in the first place. So far, thousands of years of philosophy have not been able to prove there to be any purpose. All reasonable arguments tend to come to the same conclusion; there is none. The notion that there is a purpose is born out of a religious legacy that fails to present a logical argument for that purpose and instead only requires faith.

So the philosophical discussion is at a standstill since everyone is still debating if there is any purpose or not. It's an irrelevant question when so little points to there being any purpose or meaning at all. The question that should be discussed is rather; how should we live and find meaning in our lives when there is no objective or universal purpose or meaning to our lives? That doesn't mean finding a universal meaning, it means finding a purpose that is meaningful to ourselves as humans.

My personal sense of meaning is a pursuit of knowledge in order to find control over the uncontrollable universe. It's not a universal meaning, it's not something that has any purpose outside of my own values as a person. It is meaningful to me as a person and that's the limit of any kind of meaning and purpose in life.

Why are you putting one person's meaning against another? Hitler might have felt a sense of meaning for himself, but why should that be set to a standard meaning for all? — Christoffer

Hitler is probably the ultimate example of someone making and living their own meaning in a large way. He had a whole ideology, architecture, music,gained power, boosted his ego. But it was all a dangerous fantasy.

He had his own morality which he lived by and his own politics. But if you claim people should make their own meaning what grounds have you for criticizing his type of meaning making effort?

On the " make your own meaning" idea you have no grounds to criticize anyone's meaning making however destructive and murderous.

If you start to moralize about other peoples meaning making efforts or start judging them in anyway you started getting objective and abandoning the problem of leaving each to make her own meaning.

This is one other reasons i think the claim to make you own meaning is a triviality. It is like a platitude but it doesn't explore what the consequences of the claim would be.

Hitler is probably the ultimate example of someone making and living their own meaning in a large way. He had a whole ideology, architecture, music,gained power, boosted his ego. But it was all a dangerous fantasy. — Andrew4Handel

It was a corruption of Nietzsche's ideas. And it's an unnecessarily loaded question fallacy that muddies the argument of creating your own meaning in life. He was a lunatic with too much power, I fail to see how it relates to the broader aspect of finding meaning in life. Also, I could argue that there isn't clear that he followed his own meaning, he might not have even thought of his life in the sense of "meaning" or "purpose" but just following his power-hungry nature and urge to be in control.

On the " make your own meaning" idea you have no grounds to criticize anyone's meaning making however destructive and murderous. — Andrew4Handel

Yes you can. You are mixing together "meaning in life" with morality and ethics. We can discuss ethics and criticise someone's ethics and morality, it has nothing to do with meaning in life.

This is one other reasons i think the claim to make you own meaning is a triviality. It is like a platitude but it doesn't explore what the consequences of the claim would be. — Andrew4Handel

Creating your own meaning in life gives you a reason to exist in your life. It has nothing to do with ethics and morality, it has to do with giving a sense of balance and foundation for your life. If the reaction is to dispute this in order to try and find an objective meaning, based on confusing it with discussions about ethics and morality, that is a fallacy. They are not the same thing. There's also nothing that prevents there to be a discussion about a person's meaning in life. It's a foundation that many therapists and clinical psychologists can use in order to balance a person who's clearly in a bad place.

If someone has a meaning in life that is clearly dangerous to others and/or themselves, it can absolutely be challenged. But it seems you are making the argument that when encountering this, it's about applying a universal objective meaning that can override this person's own meaning. But that is not what it's about. Just as therapists and clinical psychologists work with dangerous ideas and sense of meaning, they work with balancing values of life in order to change the dangerous meaning of life into something that isn't destructive to the self or others.

You can't use a loaded question or slippery slope fallacy to dispute this. Just because you find your own meaning in life, it doesn't mean it opens the door to dangerous ideas. If you already have a damaged moral and is dangerous to others and yourself, THAT is what defines your actions, not the meaning you create out of it. You are using the notion that the meaning itself comes before corrupted morals when instead the created meaning is the result of that corrupted moral.

Hitler didn't create meaning and followed it and therefore did horrible things. The corrupted morals came before the meaning. I think you are confusing "meaning of life" with ethics and even so, it has nothing to do with any objective meaning.

The argument is essentially simple:
- Objective meaning doesn't exist (no rational argument proves there to be one).
- Without a sense of meaning, you have no sense of purpose.
- Without purpose, you become indifferent to living (and suicide becomes an option).
Meaning and purpose must then be created in order to have a solid foundation for living.

This has nothing to do with ethics and morals, it's a point about living a balanced life. It's an idea about how to navigate a pointless world. You can corrupt yourself with religious rules to feel a sense of purpose and meaning, but for those who are rational and doesn't accept fairy tales as a foundation for life, they need another set of guidelines. Because there is no objective meaning, there has to be a sense of meaning, in order to give life a sense of purpose. You find something to live for.

So if this is about finding something to live for in a meaningless universe, it cannot be countered with "it's false because of some people becoming morally dangerous". There is no link between these two and ethics has nothing to do with how to handle the topic of meaning in life. A bad, morally currupted person is not an argument against personal meaning in life.

This depends on what the mind actually is. And what is in your mind where does that come from? — Andrew4Handel

The universe is matter and energy.
The brain is matter and energy.
The brain produces the mind.
The mind produces meaning.
The universe is the source of meaning.
I had nothing to do with it.

Is that the deal we get?

One of the reasons being born is bad is that everyone is being used. It is the premise of life. Your pain is on top of the fact that your work is needed, and you need others' work. The purpose of your life is to be used by your fellow humans, use your fellow humans, and try to maximize utility within the framework of use that has been set up by you by your contingent historical socio-economic circumstances.

One of the reasons being born is bad is that everyone is being used. It is the premise of life. Your pain is on top of the fact that your work is needed, and you need others' work. The purpose of your life is to be used by your fellow humans, use your fellow humans, and try to maximize utility within the framework of use that has been set up by you by your contingent historical socio-economic circumstances. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't have to be so bad. It's really simple. There are two options. Option A) make the most of it. Option B) give up.

You're constantly overcomplicating things and exaggerating one side. It's very irritating. It's more propaganda than philosophy.

It doesn't have to be so bad. It's really simple. There are two options. Option A) make the most of it. Option B) give up.

You're constantly overcomplicating things and exaggerating one side. It's very irritating. It's more propaganda than philosophy. — S

To the contrary, the world is pretty darn complicated, based on many levels of socio-economic realities and parties. Your desires and wants cause others to be used, just as you are. Even being born itself can be said was not for yourself. I never said we don't have the ability to cope. I cope with your arguments and obvious hostility for example :wink: . The point is, we are not gods, we simply have to deal with realities that we are enculturated to endure and accept as "just how it is" post-facto.

It's funny, that if someone affirms life it is not propaganda, but if someone denies it it is..I never denied that good experiences exist. However, I am pointing out some of the realities of how that good is played out in the real world.

To the contrary, the world is pretty darn complicated, based on many levels of socio-economic realities and parties. — schopenhauer1

No, not to the contrary. I didn't say that the world wasn't complicated. The world is extremely complicated. You're twisting my words. I was saying that what the issue you raised boils down to isn't complicated, in the sense that there's only two options on the table which can be summed up in just a few words.

I never said we don't have the ability to cope. — schopenhauer1

You're doing it again. Notice how your wording doesn't mirror my wording? I used the phrase, "make the most of it". Making the most of it is not equivalent to coping, nor enduring, nor acceptance. Please, just stop it. You've done this kind of thing too many times to be let off so lightly.

It's funny, that if someone affirms life it is not propaganda, but if someone denies it it is..I never denied that good experiences exist. However, I am pointing out some of the realities of how that good is played out in the real world. — schopenhauer1

Stop doing that. It's not that you're denying that good experiences exist. It's that you're exaggerating the bad.

No, not to the contrary. I didn't say that the world wasn't complicated. The world is extremely complicated. You're twisting my words. I was saying that what the issue you raised boils down to isn't complicated, in the sense that there's only two options on the table which can be summed up in just a few words. — S

I meant this particular discussion to be more of a quick one-liner to Bitter Crank..but I see I now have to put my dukes up.. I'll try to put the effort into going down this rabbit hole later.

I meant this particular discussion to be more of a quick one-liner to Bitter Crank..but I see I now have to put my dukes up.. I'll try to put the effort into going down this rabbit hole later. — schopenhauer1

You've stirred up a hornets' nest.

Emphasis on the S.

I think you are treating humans as separate from nature if you criticize or moralize about their behaviour. We don't criticize a lion for eating a wildebeest alive. Or a Tsunami for killing people. Or plant for being toxic.

The Hitler example is a factual and bizarre and brutal incident in humans natural history which I am saying is a result of fantastical meaning making not grounded in any objective criteria.

I think if you have a criteria to criticize someones meaning making it is either objective and factual or just your own whims. I think you have to apply morality to meaning making if you don't want a chaos of disturbed, irrational and destructive meaning making projects.

For example people see the proliferation of weapons and nuclear weapons in particular as crazy and an existential threat. Other people see capitalism as unsustainable, unjust and environmental damaging. Lot so politics, philosophies and lifestyle choices are highly contentious. But without an objective standard all these phenomena are equal.

The way people say "make your own meaning" seems to only mean like make a soporific sticking plaster on your own life to make yourself feel a bit better without rocking the boat, critiquing the system or doing anything radical.

Why should someones own meaning making be something that is just about condoning, placating and supporting society and following received trends and not be something angry, revolutionary or nihilistic?

Creating your own meaning in life gives you a reason to exist in your life. — Christoffer

If there is a reason to continue existing there is a reason to continue existing. If there is no reason for you to continue to exist there is no reason.

If you already think there is no purpose or meaning to life it is a bit of a delusional project to try and create a meaning that you know is based around and subservient to an innately pointlessness.

There is no purpose to life. It's the consequence of billions after billions of random dead matter clashing together into chemical reactions until organic matter developed. Later, that organic matter developed simple functions that would guide it into existing with least resistance to the environment — Christoffer

It seems rather bizarre that organisms would come to exist that are immensely complicated but with no purpose driving it. And these organism have elaborate bodies and behaviors to ensure survival and reproduction (Metamorphosis being one of the most complex and bizarre)

Why would a gene care whether it survives or not.
Why go to all this effort to survive?
And why does the universe contain the properties and emergent properties suitable for life.
Why does anything exist at all?

I think there are lots of unanswered questions and unknowable's (time, consciousness, language and mental representation) that make me agnostic about whether life has an ultimate meaning or purpose.

I think it is rational to be the skeptical about the scope of scientific claims. And among these claims there are conflicts of explanation. You appear to have chosen the most harsh, mechanical and devaluing picture.

Evolution is said to explain life on this planet which is a tiny speck in a vast universe so what explains the rest of the universe? I don't think a universe from nothing is a compelling rational or logical proposition.

There's no contradiction. It's a paradox at best. All it takes is a little bit of analysis into what is meant, and you should find that there are actually two different senses of "meaning" here, which we could distinguish by calling them objective and subjective respectively. It's not delusional to have a subjectively meaningful life, in spite of there being no objective meaning. Objective meaning isn't necessary or even an appropriate way of looking at this.

I think you are doing what I mentioned earlier with Bitter Crank which is disappearing into the mystery of the mind. If by subjective you mean the content of our mind.

I don't see why the content of our mind would be more meaningful than what is in the external world.
in fact it seems the content of our mind is more likely to be wrong than our perception of the external world.

Humans have had false beliefs for far longer than they have had beliefs informed by reason, science and logic. Religion persists.

To me, discovering the kind of evolutionary model proposed by Christoffer and the likes of Dawkins is like a cow discovering it is going to a slaughterhouse. You can't put a positive spin on it.

There's no real comparison to be made, since an objective meaning to life is a chimaera. The subjective meaning is all we have. So, by default, it's more meaningful, as any meaning whatsoever is more meaningful than no meaning at all. And perception of the world quite clearly falls under the category of subjectivity. It's what subjects do, it requires a subject. Perception is obviously not an independent feature of the world.

No one I can think of knows if there is an objective meaning for life, so all the one's we pro-port as meaning are subjective - maybe even unique to the individual. Like every other no-seeum argument ever we are left to argue that if we don't see one, or maybe better yet, if we don't agree on one being objective - is that in anyway a proof there is no objective reason.

As most have caught on - i think Camus in the myth of Sisyphus - outlines this issue best.

His proposition is that there is no meaning - yet we feel a need to find one - this he feels is absurd.

So like Sisyphus rolling the bolder up the hill, only to have it roll back down, just to roll it back up the hill again for all eternity - why would we live a purposeless life?

So Camus says most all take a leap of faith into something we call meaning - and thereby commit a type of philosophic suicide.

Many take a leap of faith into some form of theism or mysticism - to find meaning
Many take a leap of faith into some form of hedonism - " i find meaning in sunsets, chocolate ice cream, helping other's etc etc.
or the Existentialists who say we are all in charge of our own meaning

What Camus says is he is looking for the absurd hero - who knows there is no meaning, but who challenges the absurdity and at the same time accepts it ( not sure how one is supposed to do that). That in the absence of meaning they finds contentment in knowing the truth that there is no meaning.

Many take a leap of faith — Rank Amateur

What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith?

What Camus says is he is looking for the absurd hero - who knows there is no meaning, but who challenges the absurdity and at the same time accepts it ( not sure how one is supposed to do that). That in the absence of meaning they finds contentment in knowing the truth that there is no meaning. — Rank Amateur

Maybe I am nitpicking here, but knowing the "truth" in this context sounds naive. One can find contentment knowing that there may not be meaning, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to beyond a reasonable doubt experience the meaning of life or an absence thereof.

Personally, the closest thing I can imagine to being an objective meaning of life is the quest for self-development. One strives to become a better person, recognizes his faults and works to resolve them. Generally this greatly benefits the person, but also the community in which they live.

What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith? — Tzeentch

well according to Camus yes - him speaking not me, would say that "experience" you are elevating to a meaning for existence is as faith based as the theist. His logic is based on his belief that there is no meaning - I think he is wrong. But if you like his position that there is no meaning to life - everything we call meaning is a leap of faith.

Maybe I am nitpicking here, but knowing the "truth" in this context sounds naive. — Tzeentch

That was his "truth" truth is a tricky thing

It's not very absurd. There's no contradiction to be found, merely a paradox at best, and not a very challenging one.

And there's no leap of faith in finding meaning in sunsets, chocolate ice cream, helping other's, etc. You should stop saying things like that. You do so in order to create a false equivalence with your faith in theism in order to reflect criticism. It's a fact that I find stuff like that meaningful. Faith plays no role, and it certainly isn't required.

As for objective meaning, there either is none, or there may as well be none, so it's kind of trivial.