Famous(?) Atheists answer: How does your life have meaning?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lets say there's a reason for our existence, would that reason trump all the reasons we make up? If there is, i don't know what I'd call it, so I said objective as opposed to subjective - those we make up.

How can a cosmic reason possibly trump our personal reasons if we don't even know what the cosmic reason is? Really, what am I supposed to do to acknowledge that my reasons have been overridden?

~~ Paul

 

[Arouet]

It's an interesting one Arouet, because if there happen to be "top level" meanings that are synonymous in an important sense with laws or forces governing reality, then these could arguably be called "objective," whether or not they are also subjective to the governor systems.

Can you give an example that gives a sense of what you mean? Remember, we're talking about meaning here - which I think involves some sense of conscious appreciation/feeling of importance not just whether something affects us.

 

[Kai]

Can you give an example that gives a sense of what you mean? Remember, we're talking about meaning here - which I think involves some sense of conscious appreciation/feeling of importance not just whether something affects us.

But the question of whether cosmic events have an objective "meaning" is a question, surely, of whether those events finally are or are not certain things, for example the willed outcomes of certain notional beings. If such beings are understood *(for the purposes of argument) to be governing forces embodying what we experience as "natural law" I can't see how that can simply be dismissed as "subjective" in the sense of "something we just choose to believe." First of all, it may not be in the nature of these governing beings to exist in any other way, and even if they did have choice to exist in other ways, and hence express other laws, it would seem to me that those new laws would then become the "objective" ones, because whatever we might experience would still be, in the largest and most powerful comprehension, an expression of their actions...and hence that really would be the "meaning" of the universe, in the sense that this is what the universe is and what it exists for. I can't imagine the world meaning having a more concrete end point than that.

 

[Arouet]

But the question of whether cosmic events have an objective "meaning" is a question, surely, of whether those events finally are or are not certain things, for example the willed outcomes of certain notional beings. If such beings are understood *(for the purposes of argument) to be governing forces embodying what we experience as "natural law" I can't see how that can simply be dismissed as "subjective" in the sense of "something we just choose to believe." First of all, it may not be in the nature of these governing beings to exist in any other way, and even if they did have choice to exist in other ways, and hence express other laws, it would seem to me that those new laws would then become the "objective" ones, because whatever we might experience would still be, in the largest and most powerful comprehension, an expression of their actions...and hence that really would be the "meaning" of the universe, in the sense that this is what the universe is and what it exists for. I can't imagine the world meaning having a more concrete end point than that.

I'm not sure if I've quite followed you but I'm not sure how you take out the subjective.

If we're talking about something that was created for a purpose, then the creator will assign a certain meaning to it. That doesn't entail that it should assign the same meaning to itself or that others should share the same conception of meaning about it.

If universal laws were not created, for example, we can say that they have effects, but would we equate those effects with meaning?

If we're going to ascribe an objective meaning to something, I think it would entail something along the lines of a thing that instills the same sense of meaning in any conscious being. That they somehow instinctively interpret it and value it in the same way. I think this is unlikely, but as soon as we recognize that different conscious beings will value it in different ways we have left the objective.

I think that meaning entails being conscious of the thing because if one is ignorant of something then it is difficult to say that they ascribe any value to it.

When it comes to creations I don't see how it should be assumed that the meaning that the creator bestows on its creation entails that the creations should automatically adopt the same values.

Just because something has a certain operational imperative, let's call it, doesn't mean that that operational imperative is what gives its life meaning.

Put another way, the object of the willed outcome of notional beings might represent a certain meaning for the notional being who willed it. But what reason do we have to assume that other notional beings will ascribe the same sense of meaning to it?

 

[Vault313]

Oh lord, I seem to have inadvertently sparked off yet another debate about the meaning of meaning. **face palm**

That is not what I intended.

The subject was the atheists referenced in the article and their a priori assumption of zero meaning. Life, in the grand scheme, having zero value. In their own words they claim to derive meaning, from something that inherently has none.

Do none of you see the absurdity in this?

Another question:

I am in the process of reading Bernardo Kastrup's Why Materialism Is Baloney and one idea in particular has really struck a cord. I will quote directly from the text:
"Things that exist independently of, and outside, conscious perception generate conscious perception....[this] postulates that things you can never know to exist are actually responsible for the only thing you can be absolutely sure to exist: your own consciousness. It postulates that abstractions generate what is concrete." Emphasis his.

So you want to discuss meaning and creating your own meaning, all the while insisting that there is no meaning, and that only thing that is real are the physical aspects of our universe.

I would absolutely love any materialist to take on Bernardo's statement and explain why they believe it to be wrong. Tell me, how can a brain-something we can never be fully sure actually exists, generate the only thing we know to exist-our perception.

 

[Arouet]

Oh lord, I seem to have inadvertently sparked off yet another debate about the meaning of meaning. **face palm**

That is not what I intended.

The subject was the atheists referenced in the article and their a priori assumption of zero meaning. Life, in the grand scheme, having zero value. In their own words they claim to derive meaning, from something that inherently has none.

Do none of you see the absurdity in this?

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I told you that I couldn't speak for those atheists. I tried to give you my version, but you weren't really interested.

Meaning, it seems to me, derives from reflection and a certain kind of positive feeling that results from the reflection. My own meaning derives from my reflection, my contemplation of what I value, what gives me purpose.

Any system that is capable of such reflection should be capable of generating their own sense of meaning, regardless of whether the universe as a whole is such a system.

I've read Materialism is Baloney. I'll try a bit later to give you a response on that Bernardo quote.

 

[billw]

If we're going to ascribe an objective meaning to something, I think it would entail something along the lines of a thing that instills the same sense of meaning in any conscious being. That they somehow instinctively interpret it and value it in the same way. I think this is unlikely, but as soon as we recognize that different conscious beings will value it in different ways we have left the objective.

Objective meaning would be the correct interpretation of the actual purpose for which something was created. The meaning could be discerned by conscious beings, but not instilled.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

Objective meaning would be the correct interpretation of the actual purpose for which something was created. The meaning could be discerned by conscious beings, but not instilled.

Cheers,
Bill

I addressed this above. The intended purpose for which something was created is the subjective meaning for the creator. Why should that purpose be valued equally by anyone else? Why should the created thing (assuming it is conscious) derive the same satisfaction from that derived by the creator. What if the creator didn't have a purpose, or only a vague one. What if the purpose was nothing other than: hmm, let me see what happens if I do this? What if the creator didn't successfully accomplish its intended purpose, is the createe now devoid of meaning? What if the createe was a mistake?

I presented the hypothetical that humans were created as livestock for some deity and that our deaths were actually the process of being consumed. If we somehow came to know that this was the case, should we then happily welcome our fate, looking forward to the day that we are consumed and have fulfilled our purpose?

Once you bring in intention I'm not sure where you get objectivity. And once you tie meaning to intended purpose you are basically saying that we should welcome and accept any purpose, no matter what it is.

Not to mention the issue that if there is no practical way of knowing what the intended purpose was then what practical use does this objective meaning have in our lives?

Even if its not objective, should that matter?

 

[billw]

The intended purpose for which something was created is the subjective meaning for the creator. Why should that purpose be valued equally by anyone else? Why should the created thing (assuming it is conscious) derive the same satisfaction from that derived by the creator.

If the creator created livestock for the purpose of consuming them because it needed to do so to survive, then that is the actual meaning. There is nothing that suggests all the livestock must value that reality equally. Those that actually discern the creator's motives may feel better about being consumed than those that falsely think the creator made them to torture them.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Arouet]

If the creator created livestock for the purpose of consuming them because it needed to do so to survive, then that is the actual meaning. There is nothing that suggests all the livestock must value that reality equally. Those that actually discern the creator's motives may feel better about being consumed than those that falsely think the creator made them to torture them.

Cheers,
Bill

It's the actual purpose assigned by the creator - just like any meaning that we assign. I just don't see how it meets any definition of objective.

That said, I'm not sure that it matters whether it is objective or not.

And if the person doesn't value the concept at all, I'm not sure it can be said to give the person's life meaning. At least not in the way I think people mean that phrase.

Personally, if I was created for a purpose, whether or not I valued that purpose would depend on what that purpose was. As would how important I considered it in terms of my actions. In some circumstances I might seek ways to fight against it.

 

[billw]

It's the actual purpose assigned by the creator - just like any meaning that we assign. I just don't see how it meets any definition of objective.

I'm simply saying that "objective" is the "actual purpose", rather than the interpreted meaning (which could be incorrect) or the "value assigned" which is a subjective thing assigned by any given observer.

That said, I'm not sure that it matters whether it is objective or not.

Ok, but at least lets be specific as to what we're talking about.

Personally, if I was created for a purpose, whether or not I valued that purpose would depend on what that purpose was. As would how important I considered it in terms of my actions. In some circumstances I might seek ways to fight against it.

Both the creator who created the livestock for the pleasure of torturing and the creator who created the livestock out of the need for self-preservation would expect the livestock to fight back. Depending on the correct interpretation of the purpose, the total reaction of livestock (including emotional responses) would likely be significantly different.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Kai]

I'm not sure if I've quite followed you but I'm not sure how you take out the subjective.

If we're talking about something that was created for a purpose, then the creator will assign a certain meaning to it. That doesn't entail that it should assign the same meaning to itself or that others should share the same conception of meaning about it.

I have more in mind the idea that the action or expression cannot be separated from the meaning.

If universal laws were not created, for example, we can say that they have effects, but would we equate those effects with meaning?

Well that's a completely different scenario though. The issue I'm talking about is if "natural law" is effectively one and the same as the action and expression of cosmic governor forces.

If we're going to ascribe an objective meaning to something, I think it would entail something along the lines of a thing that instills the same sense of meaning in any conscious being. That they somehow instinctively interpret it and value it in the same way. I think this is unlikely, but as soon as we recognize that different conscious beings will value it in different ways we have left the objective.

But in terms of "objectivity" it doesn't really matter what meaning we (subjectively) assign to the actions and expressions of cosmic governor forces, because unless we understand those actions and forces aright, our assignations simply aren't going to be correct. So in a Christian framework for instance, if Christ absolved the world of sin, both sin and redemption would actually have cosmic meaning. Other "meanings" that we might attach to the situation are likely just to be wrong, therefore one wonders the point in attaching them?

I think that meaning entails being conscious of the thing because if one is ignorant of something then it is difficult to say that they ascribe any value to it.

Well, I use it here in the sense of "X exists for a purpose" where X is the universe or some very important feature of it, and the purpose is the purpose as exercised by the fullest or deepest power in said universe. Again, I don't see a good case for trying to say that isn't an objective meaning attached to the cosmos. Yes, one can attach whatever subjective meaning one wants if one is not that deepest power...but such attachments don't necessarily correspond to any cosmic reality.

When it comes to creations I don't see how it should be assumed that the meaning that the creator bestows on its creation entails that the creations should automatically adopt the same values.

We might be free not to do so. But the creator's values would be the "values" that govern action in the cosmos, so we would simply be deceiving ourselves. For instance, in the scenario I mentioned above (which I don't actually believe by the way) we could well declare to ourselves that sin doesn't exist and choose to live a life of secular freedom. But since sin does exist at cosmic level, we would soon enough find ourselves with consequences whether we subjectively allocated meaning to such behavior or not. There are "significances" acting which are at cosmic level...therefore they would be an objective meaning.

Just because something has a certain operational imperative, let's call it, doesn't mean that that operational imperative is what gives its life meaning.

But I wonder if the situation can really operate that way. I'm more inclined to believe that we exercise the cosmic meaning because it is impossible for us not to do so.

Put another way, the object of the willed outcome of notional beings might represent a certain meaning for the notional being who willed it. But what reason do we have to assume that other notional beings will ascribe the same sense of meaning to it?

I'm not sure it means anything (pun intended) for characters in a video game, say, to define themselves as not-characters-in-a-video-game, but real flesh and blood people. Again, I would say that they are finally subject to a "cosmos" and their own bespoke beliefs about their situation are likely to have only a very limited relevance in the final analysis...if any relevance at all. But again I would question whether it could even operate that way...whether in fact the characters aren't just always playing the role they were designed for. They are never "outside of the game"?

 

[alkhemst]

Lets say the purpose of a car is to travel quicker than you can run on a road to get from point A to B. There's a whole heap of other purposes we've added on top of that sure and the great thing is we're free to do that. Lets say I decide instead that the purpose of a car is to travel faster than I can swim into the middle of the ocean. The point is we could test those two purposes, see what works better and soon discover what the real purpose for a car was all along or at least well figure out it's not for ocean travel.

Why not apply that to our life? Lets say you decide the purpose of life is to make money at all costs, irrespective of who you hurt along the way. Try it out, see what happens or maybe look around, see how others fair having that as a life purpose, and if it doesn't look good, say they don't seem as happy as others who seem to be guided by a different life purpose, refine your purpose and research and test that out - eventually I imagine you'd get closer and closer to discovering the purpose of your life or maybe not - its just my speculation.

 

[alkhemst]

This is exactly what I've been talking about. You're talking about the value ascribed to us by some other entity.

Sure

Doesn't the value to you of that reason depend on what the reason is?

Yep

Are you onboard with any reason, no matter what it is? Do you feel the need to support that reason no matter what it is?

Nope

My suggestion is that meaning is always subjective.

In your subjective opinion?

Value is always subjective.

In your subjective opinion?

Others may value me in certain ways that are different from my own value of myself.

And they do. Most of us completely undervalue ourselves and others - can you see the result of that on the earth today? Maybe we are much more valuable than we imagine, could that be what our experience is showing us?

 

[alkhemst]

Of course there is no proof that there is no inherent meaning. But how do you find it and how do you determine whether you are just making it up?

See above as one idea to try.

I don't think gravity is what people mean by inherent meaning. If the mere existence of a pattern or a thing is inherent meaning, then, sure, there is meaning all over the place. But why is that meaningful in any interesting way?

Why is gravity meaningful? I don't know why exactly, it seems to help me stay grounded!

How can a cosmic reason possibly trump our personal reasons if we don't even know what the cosmic reason is?

What we don't know can't hurt us hey? Seriously I don't know, I make no claim about there being one or not because I don't have the evidence to say for sure. I know we build things for a purpose, maybe God if does too. I'll just ask and let you know when I find out.

Really, what am I supposed to do to acknowledge that my reasons have been overridden?

Maybe start by having some God damn faith!

...Oh sometimes we just have to laugh

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Maybe start by having some God damn faith!

...Oh sometimes we just have to laugh

I'm supposed to have faith that the cosmic reasons override my personal reasons when I have no idea what those cosmic reasons are? Why would I even bother to conjure up that faith? What purpose would it serve?

Oh wait, am I supposed to laugh?

~~ Paul

 

[alkhemst]

I'm supposed to have faith that the cosmic reasons override my personal reasons when I have no idea what those cosmic reasons are? Why would I even bother to conjure up that faith? What purpose would it serve?

~~ Paul

You're supposed to do something? Sounds like a purpose.

Oh wait, am I supposed to laugh?

If you find it funny, you're supposed to, but if not you're not or so I'm led to believe

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're supposed to do something? Sounds like a purpose.

Huh? I was asking you why there is anything I'm supposed to do when I don't know of any cosmic purpose.

~~ Paul

 

[alkhemst]

Huh? I was asking you why there is anything I'm supposed to do when I don't know of any cosmic purpose.

~~ Paul

Am I supposed to know why you are supposed to do something based on what you say you don't know?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Am I supposed to know why you are supposed to do something based on what you say you don't know?

I don't think so, but you said:

"Maybe start by having some God damn faith!"

Faith in what?

~~ Paul