What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Nick_A]

So what is the objective purpose of life in the universe which gives the life of Man its objective meaning?

The universe does not give the life of Man its objective meaning. That is the point. The universe is mindless. It does not care about us. And humans do not have an objective meaning. Our purposes and meanings, if we have them, are subjective.

What could provide it other than a conscious source?

There is no evidence of a conscious source or an objective meaning.

If the entire history of the earth (which is much younger than the universe) were compressed into a calendar year, modern humans make their first appearance at about a tenth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year, Dec. 31. That's how irrelevant we are. If you take into account the history of the universe as a whole, our first appearance on the timeline of the universe as a whole is almost incalculable -- probably a billionth of a second to midnight on the last day of the year.

Does this mean that before Man appeared on earth the universe had no purpose? It just appeared for no reason and will eventually perish for no reason. Only man's subjective concepts provide purpose. That's tough to swallow.

[davidm]

Doesn't it strike you as absurd to consider that the only purpose of this vast universal machine has only purpose you, less than a speck within it, give it.

I don't give the universe purpose, and it does not give me purpose. I give myself purpose.

Yes, you give yourself purpose and that is the only purpose within the great universe. Seems a bit egotistical

Er, no, Nick, it is not the "only" purpose. There are about 7 billion people on the earth. Each has his or her own purposes, goals, meanings. Each differs from one another, sometimes subtly, other times dramatically. Perhaps there are other intelligent species in the universe. They will have their own purposes, individually. Sometimes goals and purposes intersect and humans (and perhaps other intelligent agents) make alliances to achieve those goals. Pretty simple to understand, really.

[Harbal]

Okay: before I respond to your response, perhaps we need to clear up a possible misunderstanding that could ensue. We use the word "purpose" two ways: one, the actual function or intention of a thing,

I assume you mean in the same sense as when a factory manufactures a washing machine the finished product has been made for a purpose, ie. washing clothes. I do not believe this definition of "purpose" applies to us (Human Beings). I suppose the closest thing to that that applies to us, and all living things, is what I would call an imperative rather than a purpose and that imperative is to survive and reproduce. That's a biological imperative of course and without it we wouldn't even be here. Just to be clear, I don't feel any moral obligation to obey that imperative, even though in fact, I have.

So a person can decide what she will "purpose" (sense 2) to do in her life,

Yes, this is the type of purpose I am talking about.

but the one thing they cannot have, if they are only here by cosmic accident, is a genuine type 1 purpose. Because, they don't actually exist for any reason, by definition of what an "accident" means.

Well I certainly don't feel I have a "genuine type one purpose" and it's absence doesn't seem to cause me any kind of anxiety, existential angst ( ) or any other negative feelings, of course I can't speak for anyone else but it seems unlikely that this only applies to me.

So whatever they imagine, it's just a delusion.

Anyone who imagines they have objective purpose in the World/Universe/God's creation is suffering a delusion, yes, I believe so.

They tell themselves they have purpose, because they're not courageous enough to be what he calls "the absurd hero," and to face up to the ultimate meaninglessness and purposeless of existence, he says.

I personally don't have a problem with not having any type one purpose but I can see the value in having type two purpose, even though I don't have that either. I imagine I may well be happier if I did feel a sense of purpose, albeit a self imposed one, but I don't see where courage comes into it. Not having purpose doesn't make me feel afraid, just aimless.

And if there is no Creator, then Camus is right. Inventing a "purpose" or "meaning," is inauthentic, dishonest, and self-deluding,

I don't see what's dishonest about it, or at least it doesn't have to be dishonest. One could do voluntary work for a charity because it gives one a personal sense of purpose, in the full knowledge that it is entirely a subjective matter for oneself, what would be dishonest about that? If I were feeling confrontational I may well point out that inventing a Creator is rather dishonest, but I'm not, so I won't.

in that case, and will only form an illusionary barrier between the "condemned to be free" (Sartre) agent and the true reality he or she inhabits, limiting his or her ability to choose freely. It would be the opiate of the Atheist.

I'm afraid your intellectual superiority has got the better of me here, IC, I can't respond to this because I have no idea what it means. All I can say about it is that it is similar to the Marx quote about religion being the opium of the masses, or something like that.

[davidm]

Does this mean that before Man appeared on earth the universe had no purpose?

The universe still doesn't have a purpose. It just is. People have purposes.

It just appeared for no reason and will eventually perish for no reason. Only man's subjective concepts provide purpose. That's tough to swallow.

Well, pretty much, as concepts like "meaning" and "purpose" are human inventions. Saturn doesn't have a purpose. Atoms don't have a purpose. Empty space doesn't have a purpose.

[Harbal]

An extraordinary expression of secular intolerance.

Would it make a difference if I said please shut up?

[Nick_A]

davidm

The universe does not give the life of Man its objective meaning. That is the point. The universe is mindless. It does not care about us. And humans do not have an objective meaning. Our purposes and meanings, if we have them, are subjective.

The universe is a vast machine and like all machines it serves a purpose. A car doesn’t give the tire its meaning. Its meaning is defined by those who built the car.

The universe doesn’t give meaning. Meaning occurs within the process of existence serving a purpose, not the end result. Man’s objective meaning is defined by its purpose within the continual process of existence the great universal machine created by an ineffable source serves.

[Nick_A]

An extraordinary expression of secular intolerance.

Would it make a difference if I said please shut up?

More secular intolerance. Is there no end to this abuse? So much for progressive love.

[davidm]

davidm

The universe does not give the life of Man its objective meaning. That is the point. The universe is mindless. It does not care about us. And humans do not have an objective meaning. Our purposes and meanings, if we have them, are subjective.

The universe is a vast machine and like all machines it serves a purpose. A car doesn’t give the tire its meaning. Its meaning is defined by those who built the car.

The universe doesn’t give meaning. Meaning occurs within the process of existence serving a purpose, not the end result. Man’s objective meaning is defined by its purpose within the continual process of existence the great universal machine created by an ineffable source serves.

"created by an ineffable source" not in evidence. Also, the universe is not a machine. And there is certainly no evidence it was designed. Hume figured this out centuries ago, even before evolutionary theory and modern science. Smart cookie, Hume.

[Harbal]

The universe is a vast machine

Of course it is, Nick. Whatever you say.

[davidm]

I agree that a car's meaning is defined by those who built it. The problem is the inapt analogy from the car to the universe. The universe is not a car, metaphorically or otherwise (not designed). As mentioned, Hume got this right a long time ago.

[Harbal]

Is there no end to this abuse?

Everything comes to an end eventually but the reserves are looking good for the foreseeable future.

[davidm]

You know it's also funny, if this originating source is ineffable this means by definition one can't know anything about it. That's what ineffable means.

So how is it, Nick, that you claim to know so much about that which is unknowable?

[Walker]

That's what ineffable means.

Wrong.

[davidm]

That's what ineffable means.

Wrong.

Actually, you're right. It doesn't quite mean that. It means "inexpressible." But of course, if it is inexpressible, in what sense is it known? Is it really possible to be unable to express something that I know?

Be that as it may, if we accept that "ineffable" just means "inexpressible," why does Nick insist on expressing the inexpressible?

[Nick_A]

You know it's also funny, if this originating source is ineffable this means by definition one can't know anything about it. That's what ineffable means.

So how is it, Nick, that you claim to know so much about that which is unknowable?

When you experience "dunamis" and the necessity of the place of ONE experienced through the intellect, you will understand

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

a. The One

The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.