Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being. Have you studied AH Maslow?

Life has meaning, to you, if you create a meaning for it.

Meaning/purpose is something that we do as individuals.

Thank you 3017amen for your response. With this response you brought out something very important: the fact / value distinction. Psychology is a social science and primarily interested in facts. But, is finding meaning in life a factual matter? In other words, if I could only know the facts of life, meaning will miraculously appear and things will be meaningful to me. But, unfortunately, a fact is not a value. There are many practical examples of this.

Lets look at only one: a group of people may all have the same facts at their disposal, but the respective values they are going to attach to these facts will differ. In no scientific way can it be proven that it is more correct / true to attach more value to one fact than to another one. Clearly, "values" do not have the characteristic of being either true or false. So, Maslow with eg his "pyramid of human needs", were merely stating a factual case: what the most important human needs are and the hierarchy of the fulfillment of these needs.

Values must be rather viewed as occurring as systems; therefore differences between two people can very often be attributed to differences in their personal "value systems". So it seems to me that the question that I posed can not be answered by any of the famous psychologists, eg Maslow, Freud, Jung, Piaget - yes not even by Frankl in his "Man's Search for Meaning"! So what is required, is a deeper understanding of the nature of values and especially a solution for the problem of "evaluating values" - if that is possible at all.

Terrapin Station, my friend. You have made a clear choice - meaning is an extrinsical issue, but alas, you have not argued for this position; therefore no-one will take it seriously within a philosophical discussion. Remember: philosophical points of view must always, yes always, be based on rational arguments. If they cannot be justified rationally they are not worthy of the name "philosophical argument". Please, never abandon the "basics" of philosophy. They are today just as valid as they were in the days of Plato and Aristotle - there are really no short-cuts. Even the contemporary "Tyranny of Immediacy" cannot change this, no matter how hard it tries!

The cosmos does not give us a meaning for our lives. What the cosmos gave us (through the evolutionary process) is the capacity to ask questions about meaning, and to think that there is an inherent meaning in life, or to the contrary, there is not. I side more with the "there is not" side -- no given meaning. But we can give our lives meaning. In fact, we can give the entire cosmos meaning if we so wish -- not that our actions have any effect on the cosmos.

Daniel first of all you may want to seriously consider, as well as define the concept of ' facts'.

Many psychologists turned philosophers like Maslow, basically take their couch sessions and turn them into theories of human nature. So in that case you have an experienced philosopher instead of a so-called theoretical philosopher.

Maslow being a glass half-full positive thinking psychologist-philosopher, recognized a lot of positive things about the human condition. It is very hard to argue that humans don't seek higher levels of consciousness subsequent to their basic needs.

Case in point why are you asking about the meaning of life? Why do you care?

Are your basic needs met?

A meaning of Life is one of those questions that is older than dirt.The problem with the question is that "meaning"is something ascribed by humans, and as humans did not create Life, any meaning we come up with for Life is going to be guesswork.

s it true that life has "a" meaning and that our task is only to discover / find that meaning to have the experience of living meaningfully? — Daniel C

Quran 51:56. I have created the jinn and humankind only for my worship.
Quran 23:115. Did you think that We created you in vain, and that to Us you will not be returned ?

So, according to the ancient scriptures, we are here to show that we can be keepers of God's law.

In that view, the universe is one big filter to separate the worthy elements from the unworthy ones. On the Day of the Last Judgment, we will all be returned to our rightful owner, who will keep for himself the useful specimen of mankind while discarding the useless ones.

People who believe what is written in the ancient manuscripts, obviously have no qualms with the "meaning of life". It is not a question that particularly torments the believers. Well, I have never met one who had issues or struggled with this question. For the believers, the answer is utmost trivial as well as completely satisfying.

3017amen. Before I start with my attempt to explain and to criticize I want to make one point - please bear the following in mind all the time in this discussion: in everything I say which is "negative" about your position its always aimed at your arguments and never ever against you as a person. Many people getting involved in a philosophical discussion find this hard to do although they know that this is the case. This, of course, is not applicable to "ad hominem" arguments where it is clear to see that someone is attacking the person verbally instead of his arguments. If this is the case, an informal logical fallacy is being committed and cannot be excused and has no place in a real philosophical discussion!

1) Maslow as a philosopher: perhaps you can refer me to an acknowledged philosophical reference work where Maslow is named as a philosopher. I had a look in my "Oxford Companion to Philosophy" (editor: Ted Honderich), but Maslow's name is absent - no reference to him. Then I read the Wikipedia article on him on the internet and all I could find were references to his important contributions to psychology. My deduction: Maslow may have made important scientific contributions in the field of psychology, but he is not acknowledged as a philosopher. Therefore, in so far as the problem of "meaning and life" is philosophical, Maslow cannot really help us. Therefore your claim that Maslow is an "experienced philosopher" is not true. That being said, I am still open to be convinced that Maslow made philosophical contributions to the problem of "meaning and life" if you can provide examples of his contributions.

2)Lets now turn to the concept of "facts" in which you are interested. What type of things are "facts"?
What I'm going to say about "facts" are controversial and I realise that there are philosophers who will not agree with my views, but I accept that and am also prepared to argue with them if they bring their arguments to the table of reason. "Facts" are statements about a state of affairs which can be verified empirically. Example: I have a cage with rats inside and tell you that here are ten rats inside. Now, you don't have to believe me that there are ten of them inside: you can go and have look, count them and then decide if my total of 10 is correct. If you agree we can say that it is a fact that there are ten rats in the cage. And for more confirmation we can ask other people to also count the rats and if they also agree, the chances that the statement: "there are ten rats in the cage" are true increase in probability and that this statement is a "fact". In other words, "facts" are always true. An "untrue fact" will be a contradiction in terms. So, as you can see, the key terms related to "facts" are "truth", "verifiability", "empirically" and "probability". I hope that I have succeeded - even if only slightly - in providing you with more clarity on the nature of "facts". Please take note that much more can be said about "facts", but I think what I've provided is at least a point of departure.

Your last question is also very important: why I ask about the "meaning of life" and what do I care. I ask, because, after many centuries of being alive on this planet, people are still struggling with this question on a day to day basis. I believe that a philosophical analysis of the problem may, perhaps, in some way help some people to cope better with their search for finding meaning in life. You can see clearly that I am not of the opinion that philosophy has all the answers for all the people who are struggling with this problem. And this problem can become an immense one on a personal level: just take a look around you and see how many people are suffering from depression and how many suicides are committed. This is the reason why ask about the "meaning of life" and why I care - it is such a serious issue!

Terrapin Station, my friend. You have made a clear choice - meaning is an extrinsical issue, but alas, you have not argued for this position; — Daniel C

Meaning/purpose is intrinsic to persons. That doesn't need an argument. There's zero evidence of purpose or meaning in this sense occurring external to persons. We should need evidence of empirical claims to believe that they're the case.

If you want to make it more likely that someone sees your response, by the way, either click on "quote" or "reply," then they'll see a notification.

https://steemit.com/psychology/@charlie777pt/part-2-the-short-history-of-existentialism-v-humanistic-existentialists-abraham-maslow

Daniel please take an opportunity to read through the above information before we proceed. It's sounding like you're mistaken about Maslow.

I hope that will help you understand a little more about your initial concerns with ' facts'.

Accordingly, I would be interested in approaching this from an empirical/psychological point of view rather than an extraneous philosophical one (from which I think you're associating 'facts'). To that end, Maslow you will find, combines the two in his theories about your thread topic of : life and meaning... .

Otherwise, which philosopher and Philosophy are you trying to draw from? Arestolian ethics? Kantian ethics... ??

By the way I'm a Christian Existentialist

Alcontali. Thank you for your contribution, a very interesting one, because religion has now been introduced, more specifically a theistic one, viz. Islam. Islam like he other two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism has holy scriptures as its source of knowledge and truth. The major problem which arises immediately with this type of approach is that it is a prerequisite to accept the truth of these scriptures, in the case of Islam, the Holy Quran. However, the issue of the truth of these scriptures is never open for reasonable discussion. No need is seen by its followers for it to justify its "truth" in a reasonable way. Its truth has to be accepted "blindly" - an act of faith is required. My question is why I have to accept scriptures written by fallible human beings as being true? All of these authors are just as fallible as you and I or any other human being. Usually the counter-argument is that these authors were people "inspired" by a transcendental reality when they wrote their scriptures. This is, of course, only a way of moving the problem one step backwards, because, again, there are no rational proofs which indicate that this is the case, and so "blind faith" is once again required. Specifically as far as these three religions are concerned, philosophy is of no value, unless a philosopher comes forward in defence of these religions or philosophises within the strict framework of the basic prerequisites.

In the Middle East and most other Muslim countries people are not yet in in the post-modern phase of culture and are still able to live with a personal Islamic worldview untouched by the secularism of the western world. The western world being to a large extend in a post-Christian phase has to struggle with the issue of "meaning in life" in a secular way having abandoned the easy options offered by a religious worldview. That is why I have introduced this issue on a philosophical forum. The worldview and its accompanying values may change, but the issue is still as relevant for people today as it has been for many centuries.

However, the issue of the truth of these scriptures is never open for reasonable discussion. No need is seen by its followers for it to justify its "truth" in a reasonable way. Its truth has to be accepted "blindly" - an act of faith is required. My question is why I have to accept scriptures written by fallible human beings as being true? — Daniel C

It is the axiomatic epistemic domain which works like that. The question then becomes: Why do you accept the axioms of an axiomatic theory?

In my opinion, the best starting point for an answer can be found in the page on the Brouwer-Hilbert controversy.

So, Weyl asks, what might guide the choice of these rules? "What impels us to take as a basis precisely the particular axiom system developed by Hilbert?". Weyl offers up "consistency is indeed a necessary but not sufficient condition" but he cannot answer more completely except to note that Hilbert's "construction" is "arbitrary and bold".

The question then becomes: What does the term "arbitrary" mean in this context?

So, that brings us to the nature of random numbers. If you look at the following Mersenne Twister test page, you will see that it produces a sequence of ten random numbers. Are these numbers truly random? For outsiders, yes. For someone who knows the seed, no, because with the seed, he can generate exactly the same sequence again, and flawlessly predict the next random number. Therefore, since we do not know if a true random number generator even exists, the issue of randomness is fundamentally subjective. In general, if we do not understand the source of a particular phenomenon, we will just consider it to be arbitrary.

At the same time, rationality cannot possibly be the only mental faculty.

For example, if the main ingredients for discovering new knowledge were rationality along with existing knowledge then either humanity would have never discovered any knowledge at all, or else, discovered all knowledge already. Hence, there must be mental faculties that are not rationality. Since we do not rationally know them, they will appear to us as arbitrary.

That explains to me the Islamic concept of Fitra.

"Fitra" or "fitrah" (Arabic: فطرة‎; ALA-LC: fiṭrah), is the state of purity and innocence Muslims believe all humans to be born with. Fitra is an Arabic word that is usually translated as “original disposition,” “natural constitution,” or “innate nature.” According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness), which is encapsulated in the fitra along with compassion, intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody the concept of humanity.

Fitra refers to mental faculties other than rationality that are innate and which predispose us to instinctively accept the basic rules of religion, while from the outside, this choice will appear as arbitrary.

I doubt whether life has 'meaning'. As Shakespeare put it...

“Life ... is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

IMO, The 'price' humans pay for their superior cognitive abilities (which allows them to 'steer' limited aspects of their lives), is the problem of 'ultimate goal direction' and the fear there is none. All religions cash in on this fear by inventing the nebulous possibility of 'transcendence', usually with strings attached.

More interesting (to me at least) are some of the more bizarre speculations of esotericists, like Gurdjieff, who claimed that 'the purpose of (most) human life was to act as a transducer of cosmic energy so that celestial bodies like the moon could evolve' !

Meaning comes from interpretation, beings interpret. Others will tell you there's something truer than that... but nobody will ever subvert my interpretations.

So what is required, is a deeper understanding of the nature of values and especially a solution for the problem of "evaluating values" - if that is possible at all. — Daniel C

It is possible, Nietzsches work was an attempt at that. You 'just' need criteria, like health or life-affirmation in N's case, which you can use as a standard of evaluation.

Your last question is also very important: why I ask about the "meaning of life" and what do I care. I ask, because, after many centuries of being alive on this planet, people are still struggling with this question on a day to day basis. I believe that a philosophical analysis of the problem may, perhaps, in some way help some people to cope better with their search for finding meaning in life. You can see clearly that I am not of the opinion that philosophy has all the answers for all the people who are struggling with this problem. And this problem can become an immense one on a personal level: just take a look around you and see how many people are suffering from depression and how many suicides are committed. This is the reason why ask about the "meaning of life" and why I care - it is such a serious issue! — Daniel C

Yes, 'some' people indeed.

The problem of the meaning of life is a question of motivation really. Why? Why go through all the trouble to do the things we do? The solution of religion and myth was to make up stories that answered those why's. But that option has been undermined in the west by the search for truth. So what are we to do now?

One way to go, is to try to turn back to faith, but that seems exceedingly difficult in an age of skepsis.

Another is to radically go the other way and question the values you inherited, re-evaluate and adjust your behaviour accordingly as much as you can.

The problem is being stuck somewhere halfway, by still behaving according to the residual structures and value-systems put in place under religion. Because the whole edifice has lost it's justification, the why question doesn't get an answer anymore...

life has meaning in an intrinsical way. — Daniel C

It does, in our temporary parentheses, but overall, none to speak of.

Yes, it all seems to be becoming something like a thrilling human adventure: the many aspects of life (and death) getting involved; the fact that the issue of "meaning in life" can never be side-lined or marginalised - its just to close to each of us for that to happen - life is, after all, the very precondition for anything else for you and me to be; religion in the form of Islam and Christian existentialism; direct and indirect references to philosophers: Kierkegaard, Brouwer, Hilbert, Nietzsche and the psychologist, Maslow. The more you get involved, the more you find out just how deeply involved you are already!
Perhaps, to guide us (or make us more confused), the following lines of Elliot's "Little Gidding" won't be fully inappropriate: "We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time" (Four Quartets)

I interpret claims of life's intrinsic meaning as an attempt at tyranny, it is a claim of authority over the meaning of the lives of everyone else. If I decide my life's meaning, live in accordance with that and live happily and productively, when someone else claims that all human life - not just their life - has a particular meaning, it is an argument against my claim of my own life's meaning.

My meaning caters to who I am and my situation, it has been thought out and it gives me strength. The various roles I fulfil, the way I see myself and my position in the world. Whatever dogmatic, supernatural nonsense one believes should supersede me and my answer which is likely neither practical nor true,it's not something I'll ever accept.

Judaka. I agree with you as far as "authoritarian" positions are concerned: I refuse to accept a point of view which implies that any "authority figure / institution", natural or supernatural, can tell me what the meaning of my life is / ought to be. As I see it each one of us is thrown back at ourselves (geworfenheit) to find / not to find meaning in our lives. Neither of us had any choice to be or not to be born: all that we know when we come to our senses is that we are already here. And then "pure luck" (arbitrariness) plays its role: you could have been born in a royal family or in an Indian back street where the struggle is big to put a bread on the table every day - which is the case for millions of people. If I take a look around me, I see that I find myself (befindlichkeit) in a universe that is impersonal and totally indifferent to my needs to live and survive. I do see some natural resources in nature, but they are hard to come by and sometimes they are the cause of wars erupting between different nations. The universe gives us a very tough environment in which it is hard to survive: some environmental factors humans can control, but there are threats that we can't control: if the sun starts to disintegrate or a massive asteroid hits the earth blowing it to pieces...………...Therefore we are confronted by absurdity: on the one hand there are our many, unlimited needs to be fulfilled, while, on the other hand, the resources needed to do so are primarily characterised by scarcity, yes "scarcity" in a very literal sense!. These two opposing states of affairs constitutes our absurd situation. It is at this point that things really get tough because we have to answer to how it is possible to find meaningfulness in this absurd state of affairs. And if you answer, you answer for humanity as whole, because we are all in this together. (You will see that I have restricted my focus to the physical, concrete aspects of existence to arrive at "absurdity". Of course this is only a starting point and on this can be expanded now by moving away from the purely physical components of our existence.)

I do not believe that I am who I am because of luck and I do not believe it is possible for me to be anyone but myself. If my parents hadn't had me then I would simply not exist. I had no choice to be born but I had no capacity for choice before I was born because I did not exist. Now that I exist, my perception of the world comes from me and only me. If something is green it is because I see it as green, that others may not see green as green is not relevant to something's greenness as I see it.

How I see things, the way I am and the interpretations I come to are not at all similar to the rest of humanity. My perception is uniquely true, what I see is true but if you saw something that doesn't make it true to me. My interpretations are uniquely true, if I think existence is wonderful and others think it's not, it still is to me. My views which are subjective are not like facts which can be proven wrong, it is always true as long as I continue to believe. As it is with meaning, my meaning.

There is always any number of ways to interpret something and things to utilise in how you interpret it. There's the universe scale, where you're less than an ant and the scale of your household where you are king. There's your powerlessness to stop what you can't stop and your power to do what you can do. There's the misery that you know exists and the beauty you know exists. What shall stand out to you? From what you say, your scale is immense, you look at the vast universe whereas for me, I look at myself and the scale is tiny. I am not distinct from other humans in the universe scale but I am like another galaxy to other humans in my smaller scale. What those in other galaxies to me decide, I think is irrelevant.

Meaning is always around us, it is something that can come from anywhere, when we ”find meaning” we are really just changing the way we see the world to be able to understand the already inherent meaning all around us

So as far as a species or overall existence is concerned, there is no end goal. For the individual human, we are bounded by the limits of survival, our own boredom/restlessness, and comfort-seeking. This is mediated through the societal institutions and structures. These three limits combined with social mediated avenues of obtaining them, create the myriad of secondary, tertiary (and beyond) worries, concerns, goals, etc. that we create (are created) for ourselves.
Beyond this, there are "inherent goods" that we generally try to maximize (also through societally mediated structures):

Relationships, flow-states, aesthetic goods (like humor/sunsets/art), physical pleasure, accomplishment, learning.

These inherent goods should not be misconstrued as meaning, but simply part of what we generally seek out. These inherent goods are not necessarily inbuilt either (except maybe physical pleasure), they arise from the inevitable interaction of an individual with his/her social environment. Almost everything that we find pleasurable or happy falls into the categories above.