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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

If God creates us for a purpose then we're not free and we're being used just like a hammer or a nail — TheMadFool

I think our parents have already played God and we are here because of their motivations or actions.

My parents are very religious Christians who made me go to church up to 5 times a week as a child. So I had that meaning imposed on me until I left home.

I have no idea now what it would be like to be truly free to choose my own meaning without indoctrination.

(..)gather knowledge, wisdom, feel the beauty of the universe. Like I read somewhere, ''the universe is trying to understand itself''.. We're the brains and heart of the universe, one could say. Why not function accordingly? — TheMadFool

I think trying to understand and explore the universe could be meaningful if that was humanities main goal. But there is too much other stuff going on like overpopulating and polluting the planet, over consumption and war.
I think gathering knowledge does require using meanings in some sense. But who knows where our accumulated knowledge will take us?
Maybe we will explore hidden dimensions of reality or create time machines or something radical like that.
Personally I quite like the idea of a world dedicated information gathering and creativity but this one is just too dystopian at the moment.

I think evolution is a claim of objective meaning where evolutionary theorist seek to explain life from a fixed or lawful paradigm.
If the only reason we exist is through evolution then evolution offers an explanation of our desires (reductively) and these are around mindless survival and reproduction.

I don't know why organisms seek to survive but organisms tend to have survival traits so at the basic level you could say we are here to survive.

On the other hand you could say we have discovered that we are simple blind reproduction machines and have now exposed the secret behind our desires and we should stop aiding mindless replication of our genes.
I feel that after discovering the idea of evolution it should cause us to reevaluate things and to me if you you favour the most ruthless reductive notion of evolution I think we should end this process.

On the other hand I think the whole scientific paradigm is probably not favorable to exploring meaning.

I was saying objective meaning would be the equivalent to finding the everyone needs a heart to live. Maybe someone could see we all need love and we all flourish with love.

I don't agree with that necessarily but there could be something fundamental that humans objectively need to have a fulfilled existence.

The universe doesn't provide us ready-made, objective meaning. It can't. On the other hand, we can, we will, we shall, we must provide meaning. And we do. — Bitter Crank

If the universe does not contain meaning where are you getting the meaning from? Something from nothing? I think whatever we find meaningful is inevitably provided by the Universe.

However if we don't find meaning in this it cannot be blamed on us.

I thinking an objective meaning would be applicable to everyone. The objective meaning would fail if it didn't apply to everyone.

For example every human needs a heart to live.

I think everyone's life should have value and meaning.

One objection to objective meaning I have heard is that it stops us from making our own meaning or is deterministic. This is an Objection to a gods meaning being our meaning.

But I am not sure that we can make our own meaning in a strong sense because what makes us able to bestow meaning in this way and what makes our meaning valid. You could cite groups such as the Nazis as indulging in meaning making or any other dangerous, controversial or wacky group.

Modern art is probably relevant here where people consider certain works to be valueless and only given the title art based on a new flexibility to the concept of art. I don't think all things labelled art are art or are equivalent.

Often we don't make a meaning but derive it from preexisting things or other people.

I wonder what parents think the meaning of life is when they create a child. Surely you would want your child to have a meaningful life in a meaningful world.
In some cases parents have a religious meaning but the problem with that is what happens if the child rejects that. You cannot guarantee your child will find your meanings valid.

I feel that either life has an objective meaning or it has no meaning.

It can be a quagmire to define meaning but here I am referring to life having an overriding goal or purpose or structure.

For example the laws of physics or cell structures do not depend on the individual and continue to exist after the death of the individual. In this sense you can't impose meaning onto something that already has an intrinsic structure.

However evolutionary theory has undermined the idea of a purpose in nature. It makes life seem subservient to mindless reproduction and survival.

The main thing is to write and keep writing, and don't throw away stuff that you have written because you think it isn't any good. — Bitter Crank

I have a lot of self doubt. I am also quite critical of other peoples writing.

I think what constitutes a good novel may be entirely subjective. I don't think people should have to struggle though a classic if they are not enjoying it just to appear cultured.

It would be more something like this.

"Matthew stared at the at the heap of papers on his desk. It suddenly struck him that maybe this was all completely pointless. He tried to repress this thought for the rest of the day."

Anna Karenina is one of the greatest novels ever written. It explores themes of marriage, justice, loyalty, faith, responsibility toward society versus the self.... And so on. I'm afraid you just weren't reading carefully if you couldn't see any of that. — NKBJ

I read it years ago before I study philosophy. I cannot remember much of it.

Can you cite specific philosophical point made in it? What was its stance on marriage?

I think a book should be fairly enjoyable and fairly easy to read and explicit if it wants to engage with a point.

My book that I started about World war one was using the war and conscription to argue against anyone having responsibility to their society or parents but rather the reverse About the futility of sacrifice. The integrity of self. About the pointlessness of suffering. About fear and mental health related to existential anxiety.

Do you have any thoughts about your theme? — tim wood

My theme would probably involve some kind of journey and an introspection on one's mental states and place in reality. It would probably involve someone in opposition to something.

Start with an accurate use of pronouns. — tim wood

When I say "You" I mean "a person" or "One" but I find the use of "one" quite archaic.

Like the Queen talking of "One's subjects"

I think if there is no meaning to existence then that could be deeply problematic. I think societies survive by enforcing meanings and reaching some kind of temporary consensus.

People speak and act as if there was some agreed upon meaning consensus. But I am quite nihilistic and find things inauthentic. Can we force our own meaning on society and can we have our own meaning without imposing it on the other?

An objective meaning could be something that justifies societies and actions and deflates nihilism.

I don't necessarily agree on pursuit of pleasure a worthy objective meaning for life; however, I think pursuit of intrinsic good make sense as a humanistic meaning for life — matt

I suppose that an experience of pleasure could be inherently meaningful partly because when we are in a state of pleasure we are less likely to seek further meaning.

On the other side I don't derive meaning from suffering.

I think if you are going to write a book it should offer a new perspective or be a modern take on something old.

I am interested in The Self and I have been unhappy and unconvinced by what people have written on this topic

Did the authors explicitly claim to be exploring a well known philosophical issue? Like Morality without God. Theism vs Atheism. The meaning of Language. Social norms. Infinity etc

I rad Anna Karenina years ago but I can't remember if it stimulated philosophical thought in me. I have read Charles Dickens and see him as a Social campaigner.

I want to write something explicit which reads as an argument for an explicit position or an exploration of a debate. I wouldn't want to be to lengthy, archaic or verbose.

I think Alice in Wonderland is great for stimulating the imagination. I quite like that format each scenario and character interaction provokes the imagination or thought. There is no lengthy diversionary prose and you are left with lots of images.

There lots of topics I would be interested in exploring. Responsibility, Parenting, meaning, philosophy of mind and language, Economics, property and ownership, war, depression and anxiety .

I have started one story that I have paused for a long time while I debate it's validity to myself. It is about someone who does not want to fight in World War 1 and doesn't feel responsible to have to fight and debates the ethics of it.

Are these novelists explicitly philosophical?

What is a novel and fiction anyway?

I suspect that fear and hierarchies/power structures and indoctrination are behind peoples religious/superstitious beliefs. — Andrew4Handel

This is the kind of claim you find evidence for. I cited my own experience here. But there is a lot of historical and current day evidence.

Today millions of people live in theocracies where leaving the religion can mean a death sentence.
In the past we had the inquisition and crusades and people were burnt to the stake for heresies. In Britain in the past people could be fined if they didn't attend church regularly.

Alternative sexualities and extra marital sex were criminalized and still are in many Muslim countries and some Christian ones. So religious values became mixed with societal and cultural values making it harder to critique religion. Not many religions advocate sexual freedom and extra marital relationships. This suggests the need for control and conformity to sustain religion.

So it is hard to tell what religious or deistic beliefs people would form spontaneously.

It seems to me that humans are the only creatures that can have religions and have deities and have an imagination to imagine things that aren't there or that could be there but hidden or potential.

Once you have an imagination it is hard to control or contain it.

But still I think beliefs from evidence are the most secure. I am agnostic about things I don't have evidence for.

Here is a harrowing, shocking documentary of the modern day impact of the commandment to kill witches on Africa's most vulnerable children.

We don't know what the word Witch meant when this was written.

But if you want to have a death penalty commandment it would be unjust to use a vague term like witch and not actually clarify specific offences.

However in the context of the commandment lots of crimes we consider either trivial or non offences faced the death penalty. So the death penalty was not only used for the most destructive of crimes for example:

Numbers 15:
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

Also these actions were given the death penalty:

Adultery. Cursing your parents. Hitting your parents. Adultery (sex before marriage). Anyone who blasphemes and curses. A priests promiscuous daughter. Homosexual acts.

"If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11 Leviticus

The equivalent of me saying most atheist beliefs are based on nothing deeper that jumping on the Dawkins bandwagon — Rank Amateur

I have no problem with the idea that atheists reached their position based on weak arguments etc.

I know from my own experience that I was immensely forced into religion and had no choice. I think you will find statistically that most religious people are the same religion as their parents. Explain that.

They just happen to believe the same thing their parents and society believe.

You forgot they came to that belief after a thoughtful and informed deliberation. — Rank Amateur

That is about the most unlikely scenario of all.

In the bible it says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

I don't know how you can interpret a bald statement like that, or a commandment and it is clearly an incitement to kill which I cannot offer the principle of charity to.

I'm an agnostic. I can't believe something I have no evidence for.

If I don't understand something then I do not make a claim about what is behind that thing. I wouldn't rule out God being behind an event so I am agnostic. But I have no evidence that gods or something mythological is beyond an event so I can't believe that. I can only speculate.

I suspect that fear and hierarchies/power structures and indoctrination are behind peoples religious/superstitious beliefs. I grew up in a strict Christian environment where you were not allowed to ask questions or express doubts.

I would not say atheism is the default because people might spontaneously form their own theories about reality.

Something could be completely consistent but untrue. If the bible never contradicted itself that would not entail that it was true.

I think the problem is how can something that contradicts itself be true. To me it is kind of crazy to try and juggle and justify contradiction.

..of course you should be skeptical of something as contradictory as the bible. — DingoJones

And everyone should in my opinion.

I don't see why requesting reason and logic could be a bad thing. There may be other ways of exploring reality but reason and logic are very productive.
It seems to me people want to fall back on interpretation and allegory sometimes simply to avoid scrutiny.

I don't understand why people would believe in things that there was no evidence for.

If you went on the evidence alone then it would be hard to justify beliefs beyond claims about immediate perception. So where did all these fantastic tales found in religion and tradition come from?

By truth I mean the factual. Factual claims. Factual values. I think that most historical atrocities have some relation to false truth assertions.I am an agnostic. I don't think saying "I don't know" can lead to atrocities.

I think if there is a contradiction then either A or B is true or neither, but they can't both be true. So I was asking how you find truth in contradiction.

No Christian I have met has followed the bible literally nor could they, even when they claim to do so. But people use the infallibility doctrine to convert people.
I have lived this for my entire childhood 'til I was 17 so this is very real for me. As an adult you can adopt a religion and choose which bits you like and how to interpret it but this has not been the reality for many children like myself.

I think the truth is relevant wheninfallibility and truth claims are made. There are lots of Christians that don't believe in infallibility and they pose no problem to anyone I imagine.

BTW I did not invent the infallibility or inerrancy doctrines but I was subject to them my entire childhood.

I think the definition of Omnipotence entails God can do anything. If God is omnipotent then by definition he can do anything however crazy. Even if we cannot imagine that that happening.

I think Omnipotence is hypothetically possible if someone know about every aspect of reality and reality is like a computer program they can manipulate.