/lit/ - Literature

no

Getting rid of the concept of meaning.

>>6821213
Look at the picture of the koala, then back at your comment.

>>6821206

Solomon did

Ecclesiastes 12:

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

Ecclesiastes is the tightest shit

>>6821206
to be alive and procreate

>>6821279
DEPTH OVERLOAD. DEPTH OVERLOAD.

>>6821206
>took that quote

The problem is not to find the answer, it's to face the answer

Yeah I found the meaning, complete with religious justifications and a transcendental ontological path

The meaning of life is evident in each moment by moment experience

What does "meaning" do?

The problem is not to find the answer but ask the question, to then ignore it, and to know full well that it cannot be answered.

-Anon 1245

>>6821668
>it cannot be answered.
spooky

>>6821305
That is why we are alive, not what we are alive for.

Darwinism is about causation, not teleology.

Nature offers no meaning. Just bumps on the road til the heat death of the universe.

>>6821708
But entropy IS meaning.

>>6821206
>Probably the most commonly popular question asked in philosophy
>commonly popular
DROPPED

>>6821789
Shhh.

No meaning.

Only dreamless sleep now.

>>6821708
The meaning of life wouldn't have much to do with nature - which isn't alive

It's a meaningless meme phrase.

That problem is not a "popular question asked in philosophy", but more of a popular understanding of philosophy specific to our time and our culture, which is swimming in signs. So the issues that philosophy (and to a certain extent religion, science and the arts) are translated into people's head as "what is meaning?"

The way the question is formulated is itself a glimpse on the way we understand our lives. It is the understanding that there is this something, this life, this experience and that they are somewhat external to ourselves, something that happen to ourselves, an outside world of signs that we do not identify as "I". And that this something is hiding some deeper or higher level of understanding, a meaning that we might or might not get. And even more, that this meaning is something to be explained, that the experience of life is somehow inviting us to ask for its meaning.

All of that is in itself extremely ideological and narrow. A meaningful life is desirable, a meaningless life is not worth it. Meaningful art is good and meaningless art is bad. Can you hear it as almost a dogmatic religion?

The great philosopher's worked right past this question, beyond it, through it. To propose a meaning is to propose a model, a point of view, an ideology. To say "you make your meaning" is reduntant, there is no other kind of meaning rather than the one you make. But how it is this work that we keep on doing on signifying the world? This is another question.

The way philosopher's work, of all kinds and eras, is not bound by a particular understanding. To ask the wrong questions is not just some little annoying thing you can dismiss, because the way we formulate these questions and answers is precisely at the very core of the work of the philosopher.

>>6821708
>not teleology
I am not admitting or advocating teleology, but biology textbooks are chock-full of teleological claims.

>Nature offers no meaning.
Sure it does. Consider a case where a given thing x which belongs to nature provokes me into learning more about it. As a consequence, I devote n years studying it. Sure enough, x is meaningful to me. This is completely compatible with nature. However, I cheated a little: x is of course a part of nature, not nature itself.

To go a little further, you don't even know if the metaphysical thesis, regardless of the variant (e.g. the homo sapiens evolved, as we have evolved, for a purpose; perhaps we are being morally or epistemically tested), is false. Probabilistic inferences are not the same beast as inferences based on epistemic ignorance. "Probably P" and "P" (where P's semantic values, and thus, the truth value of the statement itself, are indeterminate) are two different things.

>>6821876
>biology textbooks are chock-full of teleological claims
Concessions for ease of reading. Or, in the case of evolutionary biologists/psychologists, a tendency to make up narratives, where the thing's existence is due to it's utility instead of convergence of circunstances. I've read some critique on it. Voltaire probably did it best, before evo bio/psi was a thing (e.g. do noses exist to hold up our glasses). Bassicaly the first instint upon learning of evolution is to take inteligent design and replaced God with Nature.

On the other thing, meaning is something that is produced from external signals from Nature rather than something extracted.

>>6821872
If we make meaning, then what makes us?

>>6821918
Atoms.

>>6821918
Precisely.

Another side to the "what's the meaning of life" question is exactly "what do I mean to life?" that is, a complete reversal of the question.

The first question is asked almost with a sense of pure confusion, a need for help, to be saved. If only you found with certainty the meaning of life, you could work towards it with your eyes closed. It's almost a quest for something to rule over yourself.

But the second question puts your existence as significant to something other than itself. In what way have I been existing in relation to that which is different from myself?

>>6821206
The meaning of life is self-realization. God is all that exists; everything else is mere illusion. God expresses godself in a trillion of ways in a form of divine play (The "Leela" of Hinduism; or the "love playing with itself" of Hegel's Phenomenology). This God, this Absolute Spirit, is only interested in seeing how much it can alienate itself in order to find itself again. The higher the alienation, the greater the bliss. Hence, it is in the moments of absolute despair and depression that usually great realizations occur (after the "dark night of the soul" in Christian mysticism or the "Great Death" in Zen). This is basically the meaning of Christianity; Absolute Spirit expressed itself as a pathetic human born in a barn in the place of pigs and lived like a beggar, executed like a common criminal, left abandoned ("Why hast thou forsaken me"?) - This is also the inner meaning of Zen koans ("Buddha is dried dung" or "Buddha is three pounds of flax"). God willed godself to be YOU; the whole purpose of your life is this God-actualization. The degree to which you succeed is the degree to which your life will be meaningful. There have been many. Christ is one of the most successful examples. Perhaps the best example ever. Why is Christ superior to, say, Krishna or Buddha? Because Krishna showed his "power level" to Arjuna; he couldn't resist the temptation to manifest Godself. Christ resisted till the end ("Why hast thou forsaken me?"). Buddha conducted himself too much like a God, never lost his temper, etc. So Christ was the perfect avatar. It's up to you to invent a novel way for God's play to manifest to hide and find godself again. That is the true meaning of life. Everything else is illusion. And illusion, too, has meaning. Of course. It's the whole point.

>>6821206
>Probably the most commonly popular question asked in philosophy is, 'What is the meaning of life?

It hasn't really been this way since the Romans.

>Concessions for ease of reading. Or, in the case of evolutionary biologists/psychologists, a tendency to make up narratives, where the thing's existence is due to it's utility instead of convergence of circunstances
Those are empirical claims that you have no proof of. You are quantifying over all statements found in modern biology textbooks and saying that they are there for such-and-such reasons.

>meaning is something that is produced from external signals from Nature rather than something extracted.
Can your definition be any more vague? This is actually a highly controversial topic across many fields of philosophy. If you don't have a theoretical account of it, don't pretend that you do.

>>6821206

are you sure you wanna go there?

>>6821206
define meaning

>>6821988

>>6821293
>Ask random question
>"GOD"
Yet another problem solved thanks to Bible-guy.

the more relevant question is why am I posting a picture of a koala on the international spaceweb at 4:39 AM

>>6823809
because you've lost control of your life

>>6821829
>meme
If only I could I'd ban this word from the internet...

>>6821988
>implying this makes sense

>implying god is essentially a washing machine

>>6821872
Stop giving serious responses to these stupid threads.

>>6821918
Guess who.

>>6823817

"don't ENCOURAGE them"
-wrinkly grandma

>>6821988

>>6823827
Don't talk back to me, young man.

>>6821872
there is another level tho

>>6823841
Of course, I've seen it.

42