First is something that's wrapped up in a biological imperative. such as being a parent. The plants and all the other animals can't contemplate these things. For them, there is no meaning of life in the way this thread is primarily focused on. Only a human would, or can, say a biological imperative is the meaning of their life. — Patterner

Well, I agree with you about plants but the reproductive biological imperative in many animal species is more than just instinctive in some cases. Well, at least it seems that way to me. A mother or father elephant, for example does recognise their offspring for their entire life, no matter how long they have been apart 'an elephant never forgets.' Many animals have very similar biological imperatives to humans as humans are animals but I do agree with you that such is normally demonstrated to a lesser degree in the average non-human animal compared to the average human animal.

But what really strikes me is that humans are the only things in the universe that we are aware of that can choose to do things that aren't biological imperatives. I feel there's something... Difficult to find the right word. I think "human" might be it, although that doesn't convey the specific feeling that I can't seem to name. There's something appropriate in people doing things that only people can do. — Patterner

Are you not just referencing the notion of the complexity and nuance that can manifest in different humans when it comes to what feeds into 'meaning,' 'purpose' and 'cause,' in their particular lives?
Making the reproductive imperative and nurturing your children, even after they become independent adults, as one of your or even thee main purpose of your life, would seem to restricted to me personally but I agree with you that some choose to do this. Are you simply saying, you are impressed by the size of the spectrum of potential 'meaning/purpose/cause,' that humans can manifest or are you saying that this is what overwhelms many people and makes them reduce it to the more simplistic biological imperatives or it results in negative pathologies such as chronic depression?

Some people have counterproductive thoughts. A lot of afflicted often hopeless people are afflicted by their circumstances. Their social/physical environment may be of low quality; bad housing, violence, not enough food, rats / roaches / bedbugs, dirt, poverty, chronic physical illnesses, isolation -- and more, all leaving the afflicted angry, hungry, lonely, fearful, frustrated -- very unhappy for months and years on end. What these afflicted people need are immediate and significant physical changes in their circumstances. They may be diagnosed as "depression" cases and they may well be depressed, but what they really need, and what will be curative, is a better life. — BC

Is this not a significant part of the reasons why we both chose socialism as our political stance BC?

Or, sometimes living with someone who has a combination of intractable problems -- let's say a terminal physical illness and is maybe bi-polar, may stress a partner very severely until they are themselves dysfunctional -- depressed. In that case, the situation will resolve (the terminal illness will result in the partner's death. But sometimes people are in relationships that are chronically stressful, but to which both are committed. That too can lead to depression and the cure may well be separation. — BC

Sounds about right to me.

I don't want to diminish the importance of maintaining healthy thinking about one's choices, but sometimes circumstances have to change rather than coming up with new ideas. And yes, sometimes people are--for all practical purposes--STUCK in the situation they are in.

Maybe Wonoto is 'stuck'. — BC

The question remains. If Niki is real and is as conflicted as the threads produced so far suggest.
What do you think he/she/they gain, from remaining silent after posting an opening that purports to be seeking help from TPF members. Do we have any professional psychoanalyst members on TPF, who are more able to suggest why Niki would chose this approach? I know @Tom Storm has experience of working in mental health/social work but I don't know if there are more qualified members of TPF who could comment. Is there any TPF member you would choose to tag for such a purpose?

Perhaps @Corvus is correct and Nikki is just innocently posting philosophical human dilemmas on a philosophy site to help him/her/them complete a philosophy course. :halo:

You have some very good points. By simply asking “what’s the meaning of life?” humanity has distinguished itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. I raise another question, which I think is related to the topic: What does it mean to be human?

A human being is born into a very specific set of circumstances: we are born into a family (or lack thereof), living in a specific era of history, in a town, within a state, within a national community, which all takes place on the grand stage of planet earth. This is the setting for our lives. The people in our circles are the characters in the story (including ourselves). As we go through life, we are faced with challenges and must make decisions. These challenges and decisions create the plot, and move the story onward. Furthermore, these experiences cause us to transform; to grow, or diminish; to find glory or shame. Everything that happens to a human being, and every decision they make forms the story of their life.

Simply put, a human being is a story: from birth to death. And we can become stories that inspire others to rise up to greatness, or to live in the shadows. We can inspire others to live a noble life, or a desperately wicked life. And we can also be inspired by others, as I have been inspired by all of you to join in on this discussion.

In regards to the meaning of life, I will say that I find meaning in connecting with others through intellectual discussions. I have had a great morning drinking my coffee and reading what you all have to say. Thank you for all of your posts.

Perhaps Corvus is correct and Nikki is just innocently posting philosophical human dilemmas on a philosophy site to help him/her/them complete a philosophy course. :halo: — universeness

Yeah, I don't presume or even imagine anyone with real personal crisis of their life would come to Philosophy Forum, and cry out seeking for help. :)

I raise another question, which I think is related to the topic: What does it mean to be human? — JWW

That question is just as pointless as the other. What is the meaning of a rock? What is the purpose of an earthworm? What is the significance of blue? There are no answers, because they are not mere symbols that represent, stand for [mean] some thing or convey some idea: they are the actual thing or manifestation.
You can ask meaningful questions about humanity: How does a human differ from other great apes? Do humans have any traits unique in the animal kingdom? Do the specific characteristic confer advantages on the human? In what way do humans use standard animal faculties differently from other species?
Of course, those questions have answers based in empirical fact, which makes them far less enticing than these wide-open-to-interpretation 'philosophical' ones.
The most outstanding human characteristic seems to me an obsession with mirrors of every kind: we never tire of examining, admiring and discussing our own image.

Just for the fun of it Vera, I will have a go. Meaning is often found in what an object might represent or what its utility is:

What is the meaning of a rock? — Vera Mont

To demonstrate that there is substance in the universe.
To exemplify the human notion of what 'solid' means.
To be building material for foundations, walls, bridges, lighthouses, aqueducts, and retaining walls.
To become constituents in cosmetics, cars, roads, and appliances.
To be a source of minerals and salts for human health and nutrition.
To become Jewelry, idols, statues, and astrological stones.
To aid in rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge.
To act as grinders and kitchenware.
To store/capture valuable minerals like gold, sapphire, diamond, etc. for later extraction
To be used as a weapon.

Can meaning not reflect utility?

What is the purpose of an earthworm? — Vera Mont

To provide food for birds, animals, and humans by assisting plant growth.
To aerate the soil, promote drainage, and draw organic material into their burrow.
To break down dead organic matter in a process known as decomposition.
To have a positive effect on bacteria and fungi in soils.
To increase pastoral productivity and facilitate mine restoration.

Can meaning not reflect functionality and process?

What is the significance of blue? — Vera Mont

To indicate that the galaxy andromeda is moving towards the milky way.
To help identify where the sky is.
To act as an aesthetic.
To help indicate a temperature on a scale of temperatures or a visible light frequency on a spectrum of visible light frequency.

Are categorisations/colour labelling an aspect of meaning?

There are no answers, because they are not mere symbols that represent, stand for [mean] some thing or convey some idea:they are the actual thing or manifestation. — Vera Mont

Why are they not both of these?

Are you simply saying, you are impressed by the size of the spectrum of potential 'meaning/purpose/cause,' that humans can manifest or are you saying that this is what overwhelms many people and makes them reduce it to the more simplistic biological imperatives or it results in negative pathologies such as chronic depression? — universeness

I guess my point is merely noting that humans can choose meanings that are biological imperatives/things other living things do, or that are beyond what any other species can do. Since it's not a requirement that someone choose a meaning at all, it can't be said that one type is better, or more appropriate, than the other. I just thought it was worth noting. I don't know if it's something any philosopher has written at any length about.

Can meaning not reflect utility? — universeness

No. Both meaning and utility are external; they are assigned by the maker, agent or user. You described how a rock might serve humans - entirely in human terms, in a human context. Not rock terms. Rocks existed long before humans. Did rocks have meaning for those billions of years when there were no hominids to make use of them? Did some creator god make all the rocks in the universe in anticipation of a species that would eventually give them a purpose on one little wee planet?
Does that mean that humans were also created to serve a species that has not yet claimed ownership? In that case, we have a purpose: to wait. The meaning will be given by the new owners when God hands us over.

TBC - i have to go.

Yes, imo, as they facilitated new combinatorials, such as rocky planets, moons, asteroids etc. — universeness

That's one of the things rocks did. You describe relationships that could not have formed without the existence of two or more entities, and processes that take place with conscious agency to mediate them. To say 'something happened' means only that something happened; it conveys no further information.
Similarly, you have put the meaning of rock, an earthworm and blue in the context of their exploitation by other entities. Not in terms of what a worm means to himself. As if everything in the universe existed to be used by another.

What does the word 'ghanommetriea' mean? Nothing. That's why there is no such word. Words were invented to convey a message, to stand for and signify something real. So were musical notes invented to stand for sounds, and Morse code is patterns of single sounds that stand for letters, that stand for sounds that combine into words that stand for things and ideas. They all have specific meanings assigned to them by their creators.
Were humans and earthworms created to convey specific meanings?

Or did we just use a word "meaning" metaphorically to stretch over self-assigned and externally defined functions, superstitions, aspirations, social bonding, creative endeavour, personal relationships, self-aggrandization and -depracation, value and purpose?

My contention is that far too many different ideas have been stuffed into this one little word. It's reasonably elastic, but by now it has so many definitions, it's lost its ability to convey information. I.e. Nobody seems to know what anyone else means by "meaning", but everyone makes assumptions based on their own definition.

Did rocks have meaning for those billions of years when there were no hominids to make use of them? — Vera Mont

Yes, imo, as they facilitated new combinatorials, such as rocky planets, moons, asteroids etc.

Told by 500 generations of prophets and philosophers that he is wanting, fallen short, fallen from a loftier position, and that the only way he can redeem himself is by dedicating his life to something greater than himself: a god, a liege lord, an empire, a noble cause, a brotherhood of warriors, monks or mobsters. His own little life is of no consequence: it is a conveyance merely, like a deed of sale or a summons, disposable once it's served purpose. — Vera Mont

That is one way power-hungry people capitalize on man's need for meaning, but it is not representative of a meaningful life. I am not claiming that was your standpoint, but I wanted to point it out.

A meaningful life does entail one is serving something greater than oneself, but that does not necessitate one is not serving oneself. By realizing one is one with the greater thing one serves, other- and self-servitude becomes one and the same; both in theory and in practice. By practicing servitude for the greater thing, one is serving oneself. By practicing servitude for oneself, one is serving the greater good. One gets meaning both from the hard work and from the breaks!

The value of serving oneself is not wholly dependent on the value of serving the greater thing, nor vice versa; the values are co-dependent.

We are next-to-nothing without each other; therein lies the meaning.

A meaningful life does entail one is serving something greater than oneself, but that does not necessitate one is not serving oneself. By realizing one is one with the greater thing one serves, other- and self-servitude becomes one and the same; both in theory and in practice. — Ø implies everything

A social animal feels incomplete without a society. A human life is more productive and rewarding when its activities include shared undertakings, companionship, helping and being helped by others. Humans are rarely happy and fulfilled in isolation.
Is this true?
Why does it have to be described in terms of data delivery?

Without you and her and him and me, there no society. Society is not greater than us: it's just us. It doesn't need minion 'serving'; it needs individual cooperating. When you put your own essence and purpose in the context of another's requirements, you become a voluntary serf, subsumed by they "greater" entity.
I think it's individual life is more valuable, that it should have more integrity and dignity than chypherdom.

Why does it have to be described in terms of data delivery? — Vera Mont

By describing it in these terms, we show just how fundamental and profound having a compass is. A compass (that is, serving some greater thing) changes how we receive, interpret and transmit data, meaning it is a transformation of your entire experience. It's not just some resource that we can tap into and that we need to fill up on; no, it is a state of mind; a transformation of thoughts, emotions and perceptions.

If we simply explain the need for proper social servitude as some need and desire that makes us happier, we would be underplaying the importance and profundity of fulfilling this need. If social servitude only makes you happy, it is replaceable by other sources of happiness. Meaning, as a resource, is not replaceable. Meaning is not happiness; meaning is the medium of happiness.

If we simply left the need for proper social servitude as some need and desire that makes us happier, we would be underplaying the importance and profundity of fulfilling this need. — Ø implies everything

Which is exactly what we need to do, if we are ever to stop slaughtering one another on the orders of our 'superiors'. As long as there is willing submission, there is enthusiastic domination.

If social servitude only makes you happy, it is replaceable by other sources of happiness. — Ø implies everything

Is it? Does servitude really make you happier than cooperation? Can you compare the mood of a barn-raising to that of a chain-gang? I think a big-brained species needs several diverse sources of satisfaction. Group effort is only one of these. Intimacy is another. Overcoming self-chosen challenge. Physical pleasure. The companionship of friends. Contact with nature. The appreciation of culture and creative endeavour. Acknowledgment and respect.

Anyway, why conflate psychological needs with the purpose of existence? Surely, existence came first; meaning and purpose were imposed only later.

Which is exactly what we need to do, if we are ever to stop slaughtering one another on the orders of our 'superiors'. As long as there is willing submission, there is enthusiastic domination. — Vera Mont

I agree that people with meaningful lives are more dangerous. Meaning is dangerous, and perhaps the world would be better off currently if our lives were a little less meaningful. It is a double-edged sword however; meaninglessness goes hand-in-hand with apathy and desensitivity, which leads to all kinds of depravity.

So, where is the optimal balance currently? And where will the optimal balance be in the future? Perhaps we are finally able to achieve a framework of absolute certainty (accompanied by good formulations of it), through which we are able to (relatively) peacefully resolve differences? That's my dream but I know it might be a bit optimistic.

Is it? Does servitude really make you happier than cooperation? Can you compare the mood of a barn-raising to that of a chain-gang? I think a big-brained species needs several diverse sources of satisfaction. Group effort is only of these. Intimacy is another. Overcoming self-chosen challenge. Physical pleasure. The companionship of friends. Contact with nature. The appreciation of culture and creative endeavour. Acknowledgment and respect. — Vera Mont

This paragraph shows you have misunderstood me. By social servitude, I mean servitude for some social cause, which does not necessarily involve direct servitude of people. And, if it does involve servitude of people, one's servitude of those people would (ideally, of course) only extend as far as serving them would serve the cause. And completely willingly serving someone is cooperating with them; since you are willingly serving them, you have the same cause as them and you reckon that the cause is best served if the other person/people play(s) a more executive role.

Also, when you create meaning through servitude, then that is definitely a self-chosen challenge. You have to want it. You have to choose it.

meaninglessness goes hand-in-hand with apathy and desensitivity, which leads to all kinds of depravity. — Ø implies everything

To assert that one does not need to justify one's existence in terms of submission is not meaninglessness as defined by the 'meanings' vaguely outlined in this thread. I don't become despondent and depraved by rejecting a label imposed on me by someone I consider no higher an order of being than myself.

Anyway, why conflate psychological needs with the purpose of existence? Surely, existence came first; meaning and purpose were imposed only later. — Vera Mont

Great question and I will take my time to respond to it. I hope others are interested in taking a jab at it. It is veering away from self-help and into metaphysics however, so I will be more formal and careful in dealing with it; it is far from a resolved issue for me.

The question remains. If Niki is real and is as conflicted as the threads produced so far suggest.
What do you think he/she/they gain, from remaining silent after posting an opening that purports to be seeking help from TPF members. — universeness

Googling Niki Wonoto reveals somebody somewhere doing philosophical business as Niki Wonoto; NW posts unremarkable pictures on Instagram and has posted on The Suicide Project--9/15/23--the same text that was posted here. There are other social media accounts under that name. What I saw in a quick drive-by was posts about music and ordinary pictures. I didn't sign in to the Twitter account.

Apparently NW finds some satisfaction in expressing nihilistic thoughts and seeing them displayed on screen. Why would a devout nihilist care to know what meaning others see in the texts?

Is NW "seeking help"? Apparently not. The suicide project site appears to be moderated, allowing no posts about methods, partners, pacts, and so on. It's a conduit for dark texts.

IF the NW person is the same in the accounts that I looked at (and they may not be), he appears to be at least somewhat engaged in life.

“That question is just as pointless as the other. What is the meaning of a rock? What is the purpose of an earthworm? What is the significance of blue? There are no answers, because they are not mere symbols that represent, stand for [mean] some thing or convey some idea: they are the actual thing or manifestation.”

@Vera Mont

If we are viewing these things from an objective standpoint, then you are correct. But meaning is subjective. A rock is not a symbol (objectively), but it could be a symbol (subjectively), if we apply a meaning to it. The color blue can be a symbol, in various contexts. In a painting, blue can symbolize sadness. Furthermore, human beings can become symbols. Martin Luther King Jr. is a symbol of the civil rights movement. Husayn is a symbol of martyrdom for the Islamic faith. Mother Theresa is a symbol of virtue (if you believe that she lived a virtuous life), and Viktor Frankl is (in my opinion) a role model. He is a symbol of various qualities that I would like to emulate.

Now, to wrap up my thoughts…

Meaning is subjective, so I don’t believe there can be a definitive answer to “the meaning of life”. But that’s why I love this question! In attempting to answer it, we reveal more about ourselves than we do about the nature of reality. And in doing so, I get to connect with people who view life differently than myself.

Thank you for the conversation. If you have any other thoughts, feel free to share

If we are viewing these things from an objective standpoint, then you are correct. But meaning is subjective. — JWW

I can only view the "meaning" or existence of an entity other than myself as an object.
If meaning is subjective, why are so many humans of different cultures able to use the same alphabet, or the same warning labels on toxins, or the same traffic signs? If a you have a private personal meaning for a word, nobody else can understand your use of it.
The very function of words, the reason they were invented, was to have objective meaning and thus facilitate communication.

A rock is not a symbol (objectively), but it could be a symbol (subjectively), if we apply a meaning to it. — JWW

Subjectively, from the rock's POV, it simply exists. If some other entity - e.g. a human - uses it as a symbol, it has meaning for that human, but the rock itself simply continues to exist.

The color blue can be a symbol, in various contexts. — JWW

Sure, to somebody other than blue itself.

Furthermore, human beings can become symbols. — JWW

Does this mean they had no meaning in themselves? Until other people raised them to symbolic significance, they simply lived their lives. This is all I've been trying to get across.

Life happens - not for any particular reason or purpose; it doesn't serve any predetermined function; it is not a means to some end. Life happens. Those of us lucky enough to live it in bodies that perform within acceptable parameters have a biological imperative to supply its needs. Beyond that, we have psychological needs, and the more complex among us living things also have social needs.
But we are not mere food or tools or footsoldiers. We are not messages in bottles or words in a Big Book of Destiny: we are individual entities with various degrees of choice and various levels of craving for self-definition.

Well done sir, in your investigation and analysis. You may well be the closest to solving the case of the mysterious Niki Wonoto. I found your findings and analysis intriguing. :grin:

Meaning is subjective, so I don’t believe there can be a definitive answer to “the meaning of life”. But that’s why I love this question! In attempting to answer it, we reveal more about ourselves than we do about the nature of reality. And in doing so, I get to connect with people who view life differently than myself. — JWW

Here's a good moment from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Short conversation between Dr. Crusher and Data (an AI android, for those who don't know):

Data: What is the definition of life?

Crusher: That is a BIG question. Why do you ask?

Data: I am searching for a definition that will allow me to test an hypotheses.

Crusher: Well, the broadest scientific definition might be that life is what enables plants and animals to consume food, derive energy from it, grow, adapt themselves to their surrounding, and reproduce.

Data: And you suggest that anything that exhibits these characteristics is considered alive.

Crusher: In general, yes.

Data: What about fire?

Crusher: Fire?

Data: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy. It grows. It creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive?

Crusher: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals. But, obviously, we don't consider them alive.

Data: And what about me? I do not grow. I do not reprodue. Yet I am considered to be alive.

Crusher: That's true. But you are unique.

Data: Hm. I wonder if that is so.

Crusher: Data, if I may ask, what exactly are you getting at?

Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Sung's laboratory and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life?

Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little. And I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.

Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?

Crusher: No. I think I'm saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it. That it's the struggle that is important. That's what helps us to define our place in the universe.

That's what this whole conversation about meaning is. Finding our place in the universe.

I like the Star Trek reference! Thanks for sharing

Lots of good philosophy in Trek. More in Northern Exposure.

More in Northern Exposure. — Patterner

I have never seen an NE reference on a forum. Thought I was the only fan.

My favorite show of all time.

You must have an easy life then, still it doesn’t make sense to state there is no meaning to life.

Maybe the meaning of life is love or to give yourself meaning such as be successful and enjoy it ? Or maybe just be happy that you’re alive ☺️ the odds of life existing on this planet is billions or trillions to one so perhaps celebrate that and be glad…maybe in that astronomical number lies the answer you’re looking for.

You must have an easy life then, still it doesn’t make sense to state there is no meaning to life. — simplyG

It makes perfect sense.

Maybe the meaning of life is love or to give yourself meaning such as be successful and enjoy it ? — simplyG

Why can't you simply live, love, succeed and enjoy, with no hidden messages?

Or maybe just be happy that you’re alive — simplyG

Now you've got it!

It makes perfect sense. — Vera Mont

I’d imagine if I was an African man struggling to eat this would be the last question on my mind. It’s the spoilt westerners that have this sort of nihilistic outlook about life. Life’s too easy or comfortable is why this question gets asked.

Why can't you simply live, love, succeed and enjoy, with no hidden messages? — Vera Mont

You can but it does make you wonder the fact we haven’t met any other extraterrestrials yet means we’re pretty much an extraordinary achievement to exist at all. So could point towards divinity perhaps though we may not know it.

we’re pretty much an extraordinary achievement to exist at all. — simplyG

AFAIK, we haven't met any extraterrestrial alligators or mosquitoes. Either they didn't get here yet, or we're all pretty damn special. So, to whom is the meaning of mosquitoes significant?