. Existence is Beginningless andEndless

. Scientists say that "nothing is added in existence, and nothing deleted."

. Not a single atom has been added, cannot be added. From where can you bring it… when we talk about the total, from where can you bring a single atom? Or if you want to destroy a single atom, how can you destroy it? Where can you push it? Science says that nothing can be destroyed and nothing can be created. The totality remains the same, but the parts change. A tree is destroyed, a body is dead; a flower is coming up, a tree is alive.

. Things come up, things go down; things are born, things die.

. But the totality remains as it is.

. A tree dies because a tree is a part. When it dies it goes back down to the total, but the total remains the same. This sutra says: I suffer not destruction, neither have I birth…. How can the total be born? This point also must be looked at deeply.

. All the religions have tried to think how the world came into being. Where is the beginning? Christianity says that before Jesus Christ, four thousand years back, the world came into being, suddenly, in a week. In six days God created the world, and on the seventh day he relaxed. That’s why the seventh day is a holiday. In six days he created the world – on a particular date. This is absurd, because this total cannot come out of nothing. And even if the world came into being, God was before it. So there was a world of a certain kind. God was there, so existence was there.

. Hindus say "this is beginningless and endless; existence is beginningless and endless."

. So worlds may be created and worlds may be destroyed, but existence continues. The Hindu mind says that one world is created and another is being destroyed simultaneously. A star is born and another star is dying. Our earth is just now old, and soon it will die. Whatsoever we do, the earth is going to die; now it is old. Many things will happen which will help it to die: the population explosion will help, atomic research will help, pollution will help, chaotic trend, revolutions, rebellions will help; everything will help this earth to die.

. Man going to the moon is a very symbolic act. Whenever some planet dies, life tries to go somewhere else. It happens only then, never before. Whenever some planet is going to die, life begins to try to go somewhere else, to be replanted somewhere else.

. Still scientists are not able to find out from where life came to this earth; there seems to be no reason how it can come up suddenly. It must have come from somewhere else. It is possible that some old earth dying, some ancient planet dying, and its sun…. Even one man and one woman transplanted to this earth would create the whole thing. It may have been Adam and Eve coming from some other planet which was dying; and two are enough to create millions.

. It is felt deeply that this earth is going to die soon; that is why there is so much search to go beyond this earth – to the moon, to Mars, or to somewhere, somewhere to find a home again. Life is just going to die here. Neither politicians can help us, not pacifists. This earth is going to die.

. Everything born is bound to die some time. And for the earth, one thousand, two thousand years are nothing. So it may continue, but it is just on the verge. Every symptom shows that it is just on the verge. So one earth may be born, another may die.

. One world may be born. When I say world, I don’t mean total, because there are many, many worlds. Our world consists of the solar system: this sun and the family of this sun. We don’t know. Out there are other worlds; there are many universes. We are totally unaware of them. Every day a new star is born and every day a star is dying, disappearing. But the whole remains, and the whole remains the same. It is neither born, nor is there any possibility of its being dead. It is beginningless and endless.”

Hello, I've thought a lot about this and I think there will be (if this post is seen) many different answers to that question. So straightforward : "Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?".
For me the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans (and Animals or a possible god if you want).What do you think about the topic?
P.S. : Sorry for my language I'm german and not that great in english. — SmartIdiot

Hi there SmartIdiot

While I agree that the meaning of our existence must be interpreted but what is the objective purpose of our universe? What if Man on earth became extinct, does the universe retain its purpose if indeed it has one?

There is a famous expression in Panentheism which states that the universe is the body of God. If Man is a mini universe, when we admit what our physical bodies do and our physical purpose, it should also be the purpose of our great universe. "As above, so below."

Science observes that our physical body is like a machine which transforms substances through our bodily processes. When we eat for example, the process of digestion transforms it into another. Regardless of what we think of ourselves, the purpose of our physical bodies and animal life is to transform substances.

Our bodies serve the necessity for our existence just like the universe serves our Source. The universe is a necessity just like our bodies are a necessity for our existence. For those who can admit this, the obvious question is how the universe works. If we know how the human organism functions, we can know how the universe functions. Is it possible?

"Do you wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." - Abba Evagrius the Monk

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

It is meaningful since the importance for human knowledge. As Descartes said cogito ergo sum
Since the exactly moment we are available to think and therefore the stimulus of awareness provides us the situation that at least we literally exist. Probably all of our reality is fake and is meaningless but the existence of human themselves develop our consciousness.
The debate is open about if since the moment we exist how worthy our reality actually is.

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

Drinking beer. Driving 911's (not in that order).

Meaning is manifest in action...

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning — SmartIdiot

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

The question of meaning arose late in the historical game (just my guess). Tyrannosaurus Rex probably didn't worry about the meaning of existence. Five million years ago, our predecessors weren't worrying about meaning either, We, on the other hand, do worry about it--a lot. (At least people on this forum do.)

We need some context in which to fit our good and bad experiences. Even the idea that there is no over-arching meaning that is certain, is a context that is better than endless confusion.

I grew up in a protestant home and received a clear religious framework of meaning. I have since become a non-believer. Starting out life with a clear structure of meaning enables one to change without falling into nihilism. Nihilism (no meaning, nothing matters...) is probably the worst of all possible worlds.

We can fashion a positive 'meaning of life', and live it.

The question of meaning arose late in the historical game (just my guess). Tyrannosaurus Rex probably didn't worry about the meaning of existence. Five million years ago, our predecessors weren't worrying about meaning either, We, on the other hand, do worry about it--a lot. (At least people on this forum do.) — Bitter Crank

Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?" It's an odd book that contends that homo sapiens did not become self-aware until sometime in the last few thousand years. Here's what Wikipedia says:

Abandoning the assumption that consciousness is innate, Jaynes explains it instead as a learned behavior that "arises ... from language, and specifically from metaphor." With this understanding, Jaynes then demonstrates that ancient texts and archeology can reveal a history of human mentality alongside the histories of other cultural products. His analysis of the evidence leads him not only to place the origin of consciousness during the 2nd millennium BCE but also to hypothesize the existence of an older non-conscious "mentality that he calls the bicameral mind, referring to the brain’s two hemispheres".

I don't buy it, and a lot of psychologists and anthropologists don't either, but he wasn't laughed out of the room.

Seems to me that sense of meaning is a function of consciousness.

I don't buy it either. On the other hand, there are some people I know who at this late date seem not to have developed much consciousness.

My main objection to his idea is that consciousness probably exists in other species, but to a lesser (and much lesser) degree. I don't think consciousness sprang into existence with us and only us. Brains have been evolving towards complexity for a long time. A dog, for instance, is not a 'conscious being' like us, but it seems like they have some consciousness.

My personal explanation to that question would be that meaning itself is created by thinking beings as I said. Therefore if those beings died out the meaning they created ceased with them. What I conclude from that is that there can be no universal meaning or purpose. Things just are and only humans (as an example for those beings) bring in the purpose/meaning. So there can be no objective/universal meaning or purpose or goal to follow. I also don't think nihilism must be depressing because if there were no such thing as objective meaning we would be totaly free in our actions and that I see as something good.

You're right there we really don't now in what way we exist only THAT we exist. But in whatever world we live meaning would still (and only) be created by thinking beings.

...the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans — SmartIdiot

Yep, that's pretty much it. Meaning is not a thing found in the world, but imparted to the world by us. It's what we choose to do.

Those who talk of objective meaning have a profound misunderstanding of what is going on, in that they suppose meaning to be found, not made.

The search for meaning is maybe even the ONE aspect that defines a "higher conciousness". Either way I have had a thought related to the topic of concious beings (I think this word fits better thx T Clark). I don't know if you are known to the thought experiment "Ship of Theseus".
It ask the question when : exactly is the boat ceased of existing when replacing the single parts of it.
There is just one problem : The ship doesn't exist but in our minds. Because a ship is nothing but a bunch of atoms formed in a special way. To these atoms we give the name "ship". So there is something but the existence of the ship is just created by our thoughts exactly like the meaning we claim to be objective/universal. But if you find a error in my logic please show it to me because it would really help.

Is meaning purpose? Or is purpose meaning? If existence has no meaning or purpose (whichever you err on the side of) how does that relate to an object created of variable purpose such as a rod, tube, pipe, or carbon filament? It has meaning to have purpose, however that purpose will vary depending on what application it is used for. If such objects are argued to have absolute meaning or intent of use rather, then of course they do. And if not, their purpose is to have meaning or rather their meaning is to have purpose, of which they do, just of variable definition and practice. Just as one man's definition of success in life is not necessarily the same as that of another, the idea of purpose or meaning becomes subjective in an absolute way.. does it not?

The one thing that goes along with that idea is folowing :
Nothing has any "true" meaning, whatever we do isn't important at all, talking to you now is not important, living is not important , even knowing that all isn't important, shortly : nothing is of real importance. But that raises folloing question : Why are we searching Meaning? why are we doing anything? why am I talking to you and you to me?Why aren't we just all killing ourselves (à la camu) why do we want to know things?And the answer is in my opinion : Because of feelings and thought.
Why am I eating - because I'm hungry. Why am I not killing myself - because I'd rather like to live.
So all our deeds follow from our Feelings and thought?
And that is the exact moment where philosophy and ideology start to apply.
There is no meaning but which invented meaning should we choose to "create" and then follow.

Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning? — SmartIdiot

In answering this kind of question human history is littered with claims in the affirmative and negative. How would you go about trying to determine which ones are true or not? Should you even care?

One of the first stumbling blocks is located in what is meant by 'existence'. The presuppositions people have about what existence is leads them to meanings or the lack of them. So the question is hard to explore without a whole bunch of foundational epistemology.

I have read Julian Jaynes' work and one aspect which is interesting is that he suggests that early humanity experiences thoughts as 'voices' because they were not able to conceive of the inner experience of consciousness.

One thing which I am also wondering is if we think about any form of consciousness in any other life forms apart from human beings, we would have to query in what form would meaning be grasped if it is not in the form of language, as we know it?

Both of them can only exist if something thinking is "inventing" them. It doesn't even has to be on purpose.

But why? Isn't it true that only thinking beings can think of (and therefore create) meaning?

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

"Objective/universal meaning" presupposes existence so I agree existence cannot be meaningful. On the other hand, "meanings" become intelligible in a context and the only context of "existence" that comes to mind is nonexistence which, when considered from this (Buddhist? Democritean? Heideggerian?) perspective, makes explicit the "objectice/universal meaning" – ineluctable shock (thaumazein) – of that X (or "the mystical" according to TLP 6.44) priori to any & all what Ys. :eyes:

But why? Isn't it true that only thinking beings can think of (and therefore create) meaning? — SmartIdiot

Why what?

Why do we have to know what existence means? I chose the word "existence" because i didn't want to write down "the meaning of life" because then a lot of people would have said that the meaning of life is reproduction.
By existence I mean "things that are" but the problem here is of course that we don't know what is and what isn't existing. But we don't have to know that to discuss the problem of meaning. We don't know what exists but we know that some things DO in fact exist (I think therefore I am).

By existence I mean "things that are" but the problem here is of course that we don't know what is and what isn't existing. But we don't have to know that to discuss the problem of meaning. — SmartIdiot

You've answered your own question here. The specific question I responded to addresses the 'objective' and 'universal'. As you say we 'don't know what is or isn't existing'

Resolving this ancient conundrum largely depends on where your epistemology takes you - which then could lead into atheism, mysticism or theism depending on your conclusions and influences. And of course, everyone is free to make up any shit they want in the absence of certainty. I know I do.

Nothing has any "true" meaning, whatever we do isn't important at all, — SmartIdiot

This looks like you have a syllogism in mind:

Nothing has any true meaning

therefore,

Whatever we do isn't important.

Can this be made to work? Well, let's start by removing the weasel word "true". We get "Nothing has any meaning" - now this is obviously false, unless you would like to say that your own posts have no meaning. Better, we found some agreement in "meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans"; so we might replace "Nothing has any true meaning" with

"Meaning is created by us".

But then, whatever we do is of the utmost importance, since meaning comes from what we do...

And in so far as what we do follows from our feelings and thoughts, you are again right.

This doesn't only apply for existence because every meaning is created by us. And therefore we don't have to explain existence in that discussion.
I'd also like to add that what follows from that is that there's nothing, really nothing we OUGHT to do but we've got infinite things we CAN actually do. And that's the bauty of it. You want to be a humanist then go for it. But you can also be a fascist or racist. Not that I'd like that I hate racism and this stuff but you're free to do whatever you universally speaking. From here as I said begin the roots of philosophy (subjective of course) : What shall we see as good? How shall we act? What are we? Do we even exist?
But in my opinion it all rest on the fact that there's no objective meaning. From there on everything is discussed.

But in my opinion it all rest on the fact that there's no objective meaning. — SmartIdiot

Yes, but as you say that is opinion. The matter is not settled. There are members here that believe everything is consciousness and all matter is an illusion. Some physics points to this conclusion. If one accepts that consciousness is all there is and that there is a higher consciousness, there there may be an objective truth (my words are no doubt crude and a simplification).

But you can also be a fascist or racist. Not that I'd like that I hate racism and this stuff but you're free to do whatever you universally speaking. — SmartIdiot

Why hate racism if it is just a subjective position? If views are just opinions then many would argue we have no right to tell anyone else what is better or worse, because there is no foundation or arbiter to any any of it. These are all well worn arguments that have not been settled.

Why hate racism if it is just a subjective position? If views are just opinions then many would argue we have no right to tell anyone else what is better or worse, because there is no foundation or arbiter to any any of it. These are all well worn arguments that have not been settled. — Tom Storm

Worn out argument, perhaps.

That racism is objectionable is not like that I prefer vanilla. My preference has no impact on how I think you might act - I will not insist on your eating only vanilla. Ethical judgements do carry over to others. In such things I am the arbiter; no other option is viable.

If you - by way of example - think racism acceptable, then I say you are wrong.

You present an example of the sort of muddle that talk of the subjective engenders. Ethical positions are not 'just subjective', nor are they objective. That dichotomy serves only to mislead the conversation. Ethical positions set out how we want things to be, and hence what we ought to do.

As it stands, the question you ask is ambiguous. For instance, are you asking for the meaning of the word 'existence'? Presumably not. I take it you are inquiring about what purpose our lives here might be serving? That is 'meaning' here means 'purpose'

For me the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans (and Animals or a possible god if you want).What do you think about the topic? — SmartIdiot

I do not follow your reasoning here. You are concluding that our lives here have no purpose, because purposes are the sole preserve of minds. But that simply doesn't follow. You're correct, of course, that purposes are the sole preserve of minds. Minds and minds alone can have ends they are doing things to try and serve (which is what a 'purpose' is). But how does that, by itself, imply that our lives lack a purpose?

To get to that conclusion you would have to make the additional assumption that no mind is responsible for having brought us into being here for any purpose.

Yet the proximal cause of us being here is the sexual activity of our parents. Such activity was not necessarily purposeful, and even if it was it needn't have had the production of you as its end.

But it's entirely possible, of course, that your parents did seek to bring you into being here for some purpose or other. Your life would then, in a very real sense, have a purpose: it's purpose was to fulfil the end for which your parents brought you into being here.

That, however, would presumably not satisfy you, as the purpose you're interested in and sceptical about is a grander one that applies to us all and comes from the same unifying source.

So it seems that you are assuming there is no single mind who brought us all into being here for a purpose.

Fair enough: I agree that this is indeed the condition on our lives having a purpose ('purpose' in the sense that those who wonder about the meaning of life are wondering about). That is, it needs to be the case for there to be such a mind who has made us all live here for a purpose in order for it to be true that our lives have a purpose in the relevant sense.

But you would have to accept, then, that if such a mind exists, our lives do have a purpose, yes?

I don't buy it either. — Bitter Crank

Jaynes had some thoughts on how our consciousness is related to our ability to form metaphors that I found very interesting and convincing. The rest was sort of highfalutin Malcolm Gladwell pseudoscience.

But if you find a error in my logic please show it to me because it would really help. — SmartIdiot

I don't think I find any error in you thoughts, although I do have a somewhat different perspective. As @Bitter Crank says in his comment, scientists have come to believe that some animals are conscious in a way similar to how we are. In that context, consciousness is seen as the ability to think about themselves in an abstract way. One of the ways they test this is to see if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. Crows, chimpanzees, and octopi have passed that test. It's amazing to me that an invertebrate, related to clams, may have self-consciousness. That may be evidence that evolution of intelligence and consciousness is not that unusual.

One thing which I am also wondering is if we think about any form of consciousness in any other life forms apart from human beings, we would have to query in what form would meaning be grasped if it is not in the form of language, as we know it? — Jack Cummins

That's a really good question.

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

Existence is objective and universal meaning!