|
Often, if you ask people, What's the meaning of life, they'll say: "There may be no 'objective' meaning, but that means we can make/choose/create our own meaning". What does this mean? I kinda suspect it just means, your feelings will move you, just go along with that and try not to ask too many questions. Or as Emerson puts it in his essay Experience: "Do not craze yourself with thinking, but go about your business anywhere. Life is not intellectual or critical, but sturdy. Its chief good is for well-mixed people who can enjoy what they find, without question. Nature hates peeping, and our mothers speak her very sense when they say, "Children, eat your victuals, and say no more of it." To fill the hour, -- that is happiness; to fill the hour, and leave no crevice for a repentance or an approval. We live amid surfaces, and the true art of life is to skate well on them." Practically speaking I think it becomes: (Everything will become nothing, but) try to enjoy life, because what else can you do. What do you guys think? What do people mean by "creating your own meaning"? Does it hold up? Is it a satisfying answer?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
It's not an individual pursuit. You do it in a culture and in conversation with others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
It means "the question is badly formed and cannot be answered". That's it. You can't actually create meaning, because the 'state of meaninglessness' is a permanent part of the universe. Even if you imagine a meaning, you'll get no feedback from the universe, because it is indifferent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
^^^ While true, that mindset is a great way to make a human to go crazy once they no longer have to worry about the basics of survival.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It means "the question is badly formed and cannot be answered". That's it. You can't actually create meaning, because the 'state of meaninglessness' is a permanent part of the universe. Even if you imagine a meaning, you'll get no feedback from the universe, because it is indifferent.  the “making your own meaning” bit is about not using this as an excuse to become a fat sadbrained lazy sack of poo poo. personally i recommend full nihilism now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 22:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:personally i recommend full nihilism now. That must be exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:the “making your own meaning” bit is about not using this as an excuse to become a fat sadbrained lazy sack of poo poo. personally i recommend full nihilism now. Why is being fat or sad still bad in your nihilism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That must be exhausting. nah Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why is being fat or sad still bad in your nihilism? nihilism isn't a rejection of cause and effect. Brain chemistry and feeling pleasure isn't some clever 'gotcha," either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
If nothing matters then everything that you give meaning matters. So just like go with that. I do and it works pretty well even if it is rather egotistical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:^^^ While true, that mindset is a great way to make a human to go crazy once they no longer have to worry about the basics of survival.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 09:19
|
|
|
the requirement of meaning is less a philosophical one, and more a psychological one - we are all children at some point, growing up under the guidance of a parental figure. that's an ingrained part of your formative years. yet even after becoming adults, that psychological need for validation is still there, hence the invention of a paternal 'god' figure, to imbue a meaningless and chaotic universe with some symbolic order, that while fictitious, is comforting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
If one is choosing a way that one lives one's life one is constructing a meaning. Asserting the darkness , the indifference and silence we move in, doesn't let one escape this.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jul 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
if meaning was a necessary product of choice & action, then the search for meaning would superfluous, and therefore meaning is not something that would have had to be 'found'
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Just because one is something, does not make the process of finding out what one is superfluous. And ignoring the search doesn't change that one is however briefly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Embrace the absurd. And push your boulder up that hill while smiling. It's quite possible to stare into the abyss and realize that not only is it not staring back but all you are just abyss too. And it's quite possible to realize this and then go "welp gonna go eat pizza now and play some videogames. " It doesn't matter if you go full sadbrain, nothing matters, but going sad brain sounds boring to me so I'm not going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
It's all just suckin' and fuckin'. All the way back to the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:What do you guys think? What do people mean by "creating your own meaning"? Does it hold up? Is it a satisfying answer? Well define "satisfying". If there is a one fits all definition then we can all just follow a common framework. Otherwise creating your own is more likely satisfying than someone else dictating it. Not to say you'll be satisfied either way but it's not like you are owed satisfaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 10:12
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:nah How do you assess quality of life? That requires judgements about meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:How do you assess quality of life? That requires judgements about meaning. No it doesn't. And the answer depends on the individual asking the question. For me having a good quality of life is having enough food and water, having a place of percived safety to sleep, having people around me to interact with, having a routine to stick to (getting good sleep going to work etc) having things in my life that entertain me (at the moment climbing, videogames, reading) And that's just the major things there's a bunch of other stuff that can add and take away from my quality of life and it does (someone cutting me up in traffic will lower it slightly, some complimenting my hair would raise it slightly.) But none of this gives my life any meaning. It's just stuff happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Hallucinogenics usually provide meaning to stuff in ways you didn’t necessarily expect. Basically do drugs all day every day
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:No it doesn't. Why prefer having food to starvation? Why prefer feeling safe when you sleep? These are all matters of interpretation. To decide, you have to assess the meaning of hunger, of safety, of danger, and come to conclusions based on those meanings. Even if it is as simple as "food means the bad feelings in my stomache stop, I have decided that I prefer to not have those feelings." However, if you had sworn an oath to fast for 40 days to prove your will is stronger than your instinct, food would mean failure and defeat. Your life may not have a meaning, but it has plenty of meaning. It's intrinsic to not being a p-zombie. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 12:56
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Why prefer having food to starvation? Why prefer feeling safe when you sleep? These are all matters of interpretation. loving 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
OP: It's a part of the postmodern narrative that there are no such things as "better" or "worse", but if you think that way, you are merely bigoted against the thing in question. People who talk like that are literally communists and you shouldn't listen to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving I find philosophy pretty dry, but here we have someone who interprets it as comedy gold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I find philosophy pretty dry, but here we have someone who interprets it as comedy gold. absolutely nothing in this shitshow of a thread qualifies as philosophy, hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I find philosophy pretty dry, but here we have someone who interprets it as comedy gold. "Why prefer food over starvation" is indeed comedy gold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Why prefer having food to starvation? Why prefer feeling safe when you sleep? These are all matters of interpretation. To decide, you have to assess the meaning of hunger, of safety, of danger, and come to conclusions based on those meanings. Even if it is as simple as "food means the bad feelings in my stomache stop, I have decided that I prefer to not have those feelings." However, if you had sworn an oath to fast for 40 days to prove your will is stronger than your instinct, food would mean failure and defeat. I honestly can't tell if we agree or not. But maybe I think you are conflating having a meaning with having a reason. (We are now arguing semantics hooray!) You may have a good reason to fast for 40 days (or even a terrible reason like just to prove you can) but that reason, whatever it maybe, is devoid of any inhertiant meaning. You can choose to give something meaning, but that doesn't mean anything other than to you. And as you cannot do anything without cause, then add meaning just seems to be justifying after the fact. BoneMonkey fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
botany posted:absolutely nothing in this shitshow of a thread qualifies as philosophy, hope this helps Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
BoneMonkey posted:I honestly can't tell if we agree or not. But maybe I think you are conflating having a meaning with having a reason. (We are now arguing semantics hooray!) Technically, semantics is the study of meaning (in language), so we're on topic. I'm ever so excited! You seem to be stuck on the idea that there are two possibilities: meaning being inherent, and meaning being exclusive to oneself. However, neither of these are what we observe in reality. In reality, there is no unidentifiable intrinsic meaning, and any meaning we ourselves decide is subject to the judgement of others. In fact, 99% of the times when we're confused about what something means, our first step is to ask someone else. Meaning is created intersubjectively. Language is the most basic reference point for this. None of the scribbles on your screen or the sounds we associate with them have any intrinsic meaning. And yet, through the magic of semantics, we can more or less agree on their meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Technically, semantics is the study of meaning (in language), so we're on topic. I'm ever so excited! Yeah I pretty much agree with all of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
botany posted:absolutely nothing in this shitshow of a thread qualifies as philosophy, hope this helps but like what if the blue I see IS the same as the color blue you see?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Technically it is the same thing you do when you adopt any other meaning, but slightly more self consciously. All meaning is created from nothing eventually, but people find it understandably difficult to do under pressure. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
If I could continue to exist without eating, I absolutely would drop food like a hot potato, I consider it an irritating distraction from more interesting actions I'd rather make. Same goes for sleeping and making GBS threads. What I'm saying is hurry up and put my brain in a jar and hook me up to a remote control android body, you fucks. Wait, this isn't the transhumanism thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Philosphical meaning =/= semantic meaning. Semantic meaning is an agreement between parties made out of utility, and philosophical meaning is a transcendent goal. They're different things. And since intersubjective meanings are contingent on the subjects, it cannot be exclusive, and in fact must be arbitrary, which contradicts the requirement that philosophical-meaning is objective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:If I could continue to exist without eating, I absolutely would drop food like a hot potato, I consider it an irritating distraction from more interesting actions I'd rather make. Same goes for sleeping and making GBS threads. Wait, you don't like taking a good poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:If I could continue to exist without eating, I absolutely would drop food like a hot potato, I consider it an irritating distraction from more interesting actions I'd rather make. Same goes for sleeping and making GBS threads. I’m sorry for you that you are missing out on life’s finest pleasures. Maybe you should try having a real meal, or a good night’s sleep. You should probably also stop focusing on work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Philosphical meaning =/= semantic meaning. Semantic meaning is an agreement between parties made out of utility, and philosophical meaning is a transcendent goal. They're different things. Well, just to start, semantics are a branch of philosophy. More broadly, I used semantics as an example for an argument, and you are at best challenging the utility of the example rather than addressing the argument itself. The word for what you call "philosophical meaning" is teleology, by the way. Your own argument is a bit confusingly stated. What do you mean by "exclusive"? Why is objectivity a requirement for "philosophical meaning"? If it is transcendent, how can it even be understood as an object? Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jul 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:Often, if you ask people, What's the meaning of life, they'll say: "There may be no 'objective' meaning, but that means we can make/choose/create our own meaning". What does this mean? I think "choose your own meaning" mostly means "I don't have an answer to this question but I feel like I should say something - because if I just say "I dunno" I am going to seem shallow and if I try a real answer I am going to seem dumb". So it's sort of a punt. Emerson's answer in your quote is IMO the best - "Don't waste your time thinking about it, just go live your life."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
when people ask for 'meaning in their lives', they're specifically asking for an inherent, underlying significance to their life, that transcends appearances. It has to be outside of yourself, singular, and unbiased ie, not subjective. Therefore, it has to be objective. If it weren't, you couldn't claim it was transcendent, because it's relative to each person. This doesn't exist, so the OP's question is badly formed. When we talk about the meaning of words, we're talking about an agreement that we've made, between each other, to allow communication. We both have an idea of what a 'chicken' is, and we promise to use the word 'chicken' to signify that. If everyone flippantly decided to change the definition of 'chicken', to what we call now a 'snake', that new semantic meaning would be no less valid than the old. But the fact that we can change semantic meaning so flippantly, because it's intersubjective, is why philosophical meaning can't be intersubjective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
rudatron posted:when people ask for 'meaning in their lives', they're specifically asking for an inherent, underlying significance to their life, that transcends appearances. It has to be outside of yourself, singular, and unbiased ie, not subjective. Therefore, it has to be objective. If it weren't, you couldn't claim it was transcendent, because it's relative to each person. This doesn't exist, so the OP's question is badly formed. I understand what you're saying, although I'd argue it doesn't change anything with regards to what I've been saying. It's true that there's a distinction between the two uses of the word "meaning," but my argument still applies. The distinction between words and their meaning which I'm making is generalized in semiotics to, respectively, the signifier (or sign) and the signified (or refferent). The former is anything which communicates a meaning which is not the sign itself, which is then interpreted. The latter is the thing, be it a concept, subject, object, etc, referred to by the sign. The strong, and currently prevelant, version of my argument accepted in mainstream semiotics is that the sign always communicates meanings beyond simply referring to the signified. Or, put simply, it is impossible to communicate without a degree of difference in meaning existing between those communicating (which may or may not entail a practical misunderstanding or disagrement). Note that meaning is not the same thing as knowledge, so this does not necessarily imply that objective knowledge is impossible, only that perfect agreement on the significance of what we know is never quite achieved. Am I making sense? That was actually kind of draining to write out. I'll try and come back to this, since I also wanted to tackle your argument as well as tossing out  about my own.e: if you happen to wander by in the meanwhile, a quick clarification might be helpful to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. In this post, you seem to be primarily interested in meaning which transcends the self, whereas before I interpreted your argument to be that the meaning had to transcend reality (in philosophical terms, this would be an argument that meaning is metaphysical). If the former is the case, I don't think my position contradicts yours (though I still have to convince you of that). Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 11:30
|
|