the meaning of the meaning of life

Thanks for that Tao!

I’ve been meaning to look into Existentialism, and have just been putting it off. Now seems like an appropriate time.

From your Wiki reference:

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This amounts to the assertion that the outer manifestation (existence) of an entity is more determinative than its inner being (essence). Asserting that "existence precedes essence" is a rebellion against the Platonic Ideas, the Forms, which in Plato's philosophy are the true reality behind appearances of things in the world.

When it is said that man defines himself, it is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something - anything, a bird, for instance - and then be it. According to Sartre's own account, however, this would rather be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially.[4]

To claim, then, that existence precedes essence is to assert that there is no such predetermined essence to be found in man. Instead, what one finds if one searches, is the concrete lived life of each individual. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like an effort to either derail or magnify free-will, I can’t figure out which? I am struggling to understand because I see a contradiction in these last two paragraphs: “since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially,” and “there is no such predetermined essence to be found in man.” It reads to me as elevating free-will self direction, while at the same time downplaying the “essense” of free-will.

Existentialism tends to focus on the question of human existence and the conditions of this existence. What is meant by existence is the concrete life of each individual, and his concrete ways of being in the world. Even though this concrete individual existence must be the primary source of information in the study of man, certain conditions are commonly held to be "endemic" to human existence. These conditions are usually in some way related to the inherent meaninglessness or absurdity of the earth and its apparent contrast with our pre-reflexive lived lives which normally present themselves to us as meaningful.
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like a “have ones cake and eat it too” justification. There is no essential need or drive to be ethical except when one is subject to one’s inherent essential need or drive to be ethical…

The existentialist concept of freedom is often misunderstood as a sort of liberum arbitrium where almost anything is possible and where values are inconsequential to choice and action. This interpretation of the concept is often related to the insistence on the absurdity of the world and that there are no absolutely "good" or "bad" values.

However, that there are no values to be found in the world in-itself doesn't mean that there are no values: Each of us usually already has his values before a consideration of their validity is carried through, and it is, after all, upon these values we act.
Click to expand...

Are these values essential, or no? I am thinking in terms of the opening joust between essense and existence.

What isn't implied in this account of existential freedom, however, is that one's values are immutable; a consideration of one's values may cause one to reconsider and change them (though this rarely happens). A consequence of this fact is that one is not only responsible for one's actions, but also for the values one holds.
Click to expand...

A person who assumes their own personal responsibility for their own personal free-will could say much the same thing.

This entails that a reference to "common values" doesn't "excuse" the individual's actions, because, even though these are the values of the society he is part of, they are also his own in the sense that he could choose them to be different at any time.
Click to expand...
Nor should a reference to “common values” “excuse” the individual’s actions outside of existentialism…within say, the context of a sincere and forthright religious walk.

Thus, the focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: The relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies what one is responsible for.
Click to expand...

I knew there was something about Existentialism that didn’t quite set well, I just never pursued it. What I am seeing, to be honest and sincere, is an attempt to be religious without being accountable. Clue me in where I am wrong…this could make an interesting discussion. :D
 
StarshipEnterprise said:
A big pet peeve of mine is when people ask "What is the meaning of life?". To this I reply: what are you asking? Has anyone stopped to think what is actually being asked here?

Can anyone tell me specifically what this question means? At first glance it appears as if it is asking for a definition of the word "life", but I'm pretty sure that's not it.

It might be synonymous with "what is the purpose of life", which makes more sense, but only in a theistic context. "Purpose" implies that some sort of consciousness had some kind of goal in mind. So this question is basically asking "what is the creator's goal in creating life". Completely irrelevant outside of a theist’s perspective.

I think it is just a poorly worded question asked by someone who wants one easy answer to everything.

Can anyone enlighten me?
Click to expand...

The meaning of life is objective meaning. The meanings of things and concepts comprise subjective meaning. Objective meaning itself is the emotional experience of wisdom and wisdom is the inner experience of the interactions of essential universal laws and their results. It is what the heart seeks in comparison to the subjective self justifications of our normal emotional expressions.

Some people have had the experience of the meaning of life itself when they have transcended their subjective conditioned meaning.

Where subjective meaning refers to us, objective meaning refers to the wisdom that always was. It is described beautifully in proverbs 8: 22-23. Wisdom is speaking of the divine pattern of the cosmos expressed as objective meaning:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Click to expand...

 
I agree SE about the whole question-heck even the question of what is the purpose of Life? Far too grand of a metaphysical question. More fruitful is the question to what purpose(s) does an individual choose to live the life they're given. earl
 
Tao_Equus said:
Hi Ian,

Moi! Angry!! lol, if you think I can get angry over such inconsequentials then you have yet to get me. Short of putting words in my mouth nothing you say will even irritate, never mind anger me. I merely sought to point out to you that the sentence I quoted back at you, which is well seperated from "IMO" by the "but" you inserted, is in effect telling me and everybody else what you think they should think. Do you not think that arrogant? Do you think me too stupid to formulate my own opinions on such matters?

As for the way you talk to Grey... you appear to me not only be trying to tell us all what we "should" think but here you want to control what we say too! I think you should spend less time praying for me, or anyone, and a little more reflecting on what mutual respect really is. What strikes me on occasions such as this is the weaknesses in an argument being artificially propped up with "believe this", its stinks to me of a desperation to convince yourself, not me.

tao
Click to expand...

No, sir I am not an authoritarian, I do believe that is your role. Whatever you say, sir that is your opinion. I am not arrogant but if that is how you perceive me to be, I guess that is better than being considered a “tosser” by other’s here at the forum.

I will not apologize for speaking the truth, sir.

God Bless,
Ian
 
earl said:
I agree SE about the whole question-heck even the question of what is the purpose of Life? Far too grand of a metaphysical question. More fruitful is the question to what purpose(s) does an individual choose to live the life they're given. earl
Click to expand...

Earl, you just shot down the dharma. It seeks to connect our life with universal principles or the meaning of life. Buddhists and Hindus will growl at you but that is OK, secularists growl at me.

World Scripture - Moral Law

Unlike the laws described by modern science, the immutable divine Law is inherently moral, and is the basis for human ethics. The Hindu concept of Dharma, for example, embraces at once the cosmological, ethical, social, and legal principles that provide the basis for belief in an ordered universe and an ordered, prosperous society.
 
Only Special To God said:
No, sir I am not an authoritarian, I do believe that is your role. Whatever you say, sir that is your opinion. I am not arrogant but if that is how you perceive me to be, I guess that is better than being considered a “tosser” by other’s here at the forum.

I will not apologize for speaking the truth, sir.

God Bless,
Ian
Click to expand...

lmao... now you speak for everybody!! Go inject some more steroids... inject your mind with mindless God.... and have a nice day.
 
Nick_A said:
Earl, you just shot down the dharma. It seeks to connect our life with universal principles or the meaning of life. Buddhists and Hindus will growl at you but that is OK, secularists growl at me.

World Scripture - Moral Law

Unlike the laws described by modern science, the immutable divine Law is inherently moral, and is the basis for human ethics. The Hindu concept of Dharma, for example, embraces at once the cosmological, ethical, social, and legal principles that provide the basis for belief in an ordered universe and an ordered, prosperous society.
Click to expand...
Nick, never heard a Buddhist teacher spend time discussing the "purpose of life.";):) earl
 
earl said:
Nick, never heard a Buddhist teacher spend time discussing the "purpose of life.";):) earl
Click to expand...

The quality of the teacher can only respond to the quality of the student. Western Buddhism has become so secularized that it is rare to find students willing to go deeper.

The meaning of life is one thing and is the interactions of universal laws as a whole. The purpose of life is another thing and the purpose of human life within life as a whole is still another and is concerned with human potential within the context of of "meaning." "Purpose" is an extension of "meaning."
 
Still, Nick, never heard any Buddhist teacher say anything about "meaning of life" either, not to say there's anything wrong with it.;):) Perhaps when you're implying that Buddhist dharma teaching specifically addresses the question of "what is the meaning/purpose of life," you could provide some Buddhist references to support that contention. earl
 
Perhaps you could show me where that particular book indicates that Buddhist dharma suggests that a Buddhist should either specifically address the question of "what is the meaning/purpose of life?" or where the Buddhist dharma specifically says "this is the meaning/purpose of life." See, the thing is, the Buddha is famously known for saying that he taught only 1 thing, the overcoming of suffering. Now sure, Buddhism evolved quite a complex cosmology which 1 of our very own moderators could fill you in on better than, me. But nowhere in any extant Buddhist sutra or commentary am I aware that Buddhism ever explicitly proclaimed "this is the purpose/meaning of life..."fill in the blanks. Now they did exhort folks to strive toward enlightenment but those aren't exactly the same 2 questions it seems. Earl
 
earl said:
Perhaps you could show me where that particular book indicates that Buddhist dharma suggests that a Buddhist should either specifically address the question of "what is the meaning/purpose of life?" or where the Buddhist dharma specifically says "this is the meaning/purpose of life." See, the thing is, the Buddha is famously known for saying that he taught only 1 thing, the overcoming of suffering. Now sure, Buddhism evolved quite a complex cosmology which 1 of our very own moderators could fill you in on better than, me. But nowhere in any extant Buddhist sutra or commentary am I aware that Buddhism ever explicitly proclaimed "this is the purpose/meaning of life..."fill in the blanks. Now they did exhort folks to strive toward enlightenment but those aren't exactly the same 2 questions it seems. Earl
Click to expand...

Buddha Words - Teachings Of The Buddha

From the Buddha's enlightenment, two great powers were awakened in him: transcendent wisdom and universal compassion. Setting in motion the Wheel of the Dharma, the Buddha wandered first to the Deer Park in Benares and gave instructions to the yogis who had practiced with him in the forest. After this, for forty-five years he brought the teachings of wisdom and compassion to all who would listen. These teachings, which the Buddha called the Dharma, or Way, are an invitation to follow the path of enlightenment. They are an invitation to all who hear them to discover their own buddha-nature, the freedom and great heart of compassion that is possible for every human being.
Click to expand...

Buddha taught awakening. The four Noble truths refer to suffering. What is transcendent wisdom other then awakening to universal principles? What is universal compassion other then for samsara itself, our ignorance of these principles, and what this ignorance produces.

Buddhism doesn't debate meaning and purpose since it knows that it is BS when limited to our associative mind or what we call "intelligence." To understand requires experiential awareness of the human condition and the gradual experiential revelation of human meaning and purpose.
 
Ah, we have agreement.:) If you wish to phrase it in the form of a question, how about, "Alex, what is the nature of reality?" earl
 
Reality is best thought of as a great big box. You can spend your life traveling to touch one of the sides, but don't expect to reach any of the corners.
 
I'd reveal the meaning of life here but don't want my membership revoked so I'll keep quiet..;)
 
StarshipEnterprise said:
I think some people are missing the point. The point is that "what is the meaning of life?" is a nonsensical question. Meaning? What kind of meaning are we talking about? If this "meaning" is not the definition of a word, then what is it?

Can anyone rephrase the question in a way that makes sense?
Click to expand...


How can life be Quantified?

quantify
Verb
[-fies, -fying, -fied] to discover or express the quantity of [Latin quantus how much + facere to make]
quantifiable adj
quantification n

Just a thought?
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top