Meaning within a materialist framework

[rousseau]

Most people who are paying attention accept that the universe is a physical system that's governed by natural laws, or in other words, materialism, at least in one sense of the term. People like this are moving into what we could call the 'post-spiritual' world.

Back when we were in Christianity land God and Heaven were the 'purpose'. I'm curious about the topic of meaning and purpose within a materialist framework.

• What writings have been done on the topic?
• What do you think of the topic?

One string of posts I found intriguing happened in the thread I made recently The Apparent Absurdity of Life:

In a sense the realities of being human (courting, social ties, work, relationships, kids) can be seen as being pointless, but in another light it's easy to forget that these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

Try walking down the road by a beautiful member of the gender to which you're attracted. Everything in your being will draw you to look at them and it takes effort not to. I'd argue that this attraction is a natural part of what it means to be human. We crave positive relationships, we crave pleasure, we crave sex, we crave comfort, and on and on. These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition, and so when those things that we need are lacking we will most definitely feel an absence in our lives. People are not islands, we only exist, thrive, and experience happiness in supportive families and communities.

In that way meaning doesn't come from God or religion, but in the human struggle itself.

these things aren't something we do, they're who and what we are.

These things don't represent a metaphysical, objective purpose, but they are a part of the human condition,

It seems to me that precisely because they are "what we are" they qualify as an objective purpose. And its not just a part of being human, its a part of being life. Humans have our own set of behaviors which allow the species to survive. Every species is different but the metaphysical fact is that existence requires survival. How one contributes to that survival is where one finds purpose. BTW, "meaning" means that which we are and how we came to be. First, a life form. Next, human beings. Then members of families, nations, communities, religions, forums, etc. These give us meaning. Purpose is derived from meaning. And meaning is sustained by purpose. They are different but intertwined. That's what makes all life special. Just my 2 cents.

The idea being that the parameters of what we are as living beings make up how we define meaning in our lives. Although there is no non-transient reason for our lives happening, it's what is happening and what we're experiencing so meaning is derived from within that framework.

In another sense I think one could construct meaning by rejecting social and biological norms and living how they want to within natural constraints. Something like: "I know this doesn't really matter, so I'm going to do whatever I want before I die"

Although, even then the human condition comes into play and people crave social ties, security, and other basic needs.

Anyway, that's enough musing. What do you think?

 

[untermensche]

We still live in the time of religion.

The religion of "The State".

Those who worship symbols and slogans, and special songs.

And who cheer as a nation attacks another for no good reason.

There are other religions too. The religion of celebrity and the religion of greed.

It can be argued that the Christian religion was a mix of some good and some bad.

It is hard to find anything good to say about the religions that have replaced it.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Back when we were in Christianity land God and Heaven were the 'purpose'. I'm curious about the topic of meaning and purpose within a materialist framework.

• What writings have been done on the topic?
• What do you think of the topic?

...
The idea being that the parameters of what we are as living beings make up how we define meaning in our lives. Although there is no non-transient reason for our lives happening, it's what is happening and what we're experiencing so meaning is derived from within that framework.

In another sense I think one could construct meaning by rejecting social and biological norms and living how they want to within natural constraints. Something like: "I know this doesn't really matter, so I'm going to do whatever I want before I die"

Although, even then the human condition comes into play and people crave social ties, security, and other basic needs.

Anyway, that's enough musing. What do you think?

I found it was necessary for me to disambiguate and deconflate (not a word, but it should be) the the meaning of the words "meaning" and "purpose". People throw them around almost interchangeably in philosophical debates. I've found that simply getting to the true definitions of things tends to bring some clarity and insight. Purpose is fairly straight forward. But I've looked up definitions for meaning and it's usually pretty vague for a word that's so basic to semantics. From dictionary.com I get:

1.what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import:
The three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
...

But that's not how the word is used in science or other areas of study. It isn't about what should be. This invites a tautological argument, reductio absurdum, and sophism. I reject this in favor of simplicity and objectivity. Meaning should only refer to what has come before. We don't find meaning "in our lives", but rather the meaning "of our lives". Purpose should refer to what might follow, as framed within some broader context. A cloud typically "means" that water has evaporated and condensed as a vapor. It's "purpose" is to rain, given the context of its integral "role" in supporting life on Earth and the shaping of its surface. Of course, there is nothing about the cloud that drives and sustains this relationship. This is simply the way that the human intellect models the natural environment with an interest in our own survival. Only life seems to have an inherent purpose, and this makes it unique in nature. I look at it as an emergent manifestation of the metaphysical truth that things exist because they survive and things that survive exist. It's a "how could it be any other way" kind of premise. It's why Darwin's theory of evolution is so beautiful. But it reveals that it's more than an epistemological truth. It's an ontological, a priori truth. It's the broadest possible context, and so it is a most (and perhaps the only) fundamental truth.

 

[PyramidHead]

I personally don't see how the question of meaning has anything to do with metaphysics or ontology. In a spiritual universe, there is just as much reason to think that meaning is subjective. To borrow your verbiage, the phrase "I know this doesn't really matter, so I'm going to do whatever I want before I die" can be legitimately uttered by anyone in any universe. Even if Christianity were true, I still am the one who decides whether and how much it imparts significance to my life. No matter what kinds of entities exist, we can always continue to ask: why this, and not something else? And, eventually, the answer will come up wanting, and we will have to create meaning on our own again.

 

[Treedbear]

I personally don't see how the question of meaning has anything to do with metaphysics or ontology. ...

Ontology

is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

The parts I bolded in the above are where I look for meaning (according to the way I use the word).

 

[Juma]

Ontology

is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

The parts I bolded in the above are where I look for meaning (according to the way I use the word).

You search meaning in how entities are structured?

 

[Treedbear]

...
You search meaning in how entities are structured?

Yes, of course. As can be found in taxonomy:

In a wider, more general sense, it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification.

Hence, the meaning of a thing. What it means to be it.

 

[rousseau]

I found it was necessary for me to disambiguate and deconflate (not a word, but it should be) the the meaning of the words "meaning" and "purpose". People throw them around almost interchangeably in philosophical debates. I've found that simply getting to the true definitions of things tends to bring some clarity and insight. Purpose is fairly straight forward. But I've looked up definitions for meaning and it's usually pretty vague for a word that's so basic to semantics. From dictionary.com I get:

1.what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import:
The three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
...

But that's not how the word is used in science or other areas of study. It isn't about what should be. This invites a tautological argument, reductio absurdum, and sophism. I reject this in favor of simplicity and objectivity. Meaning should only refer to what has come before. We don't find meaning "in our lives", but rather the meaning "of our lives". Purpose should refer to what might follow, as framed within some broader context. A cloud typically "means" that water has evaporated and condensed as a vapor. It's "purpose" is to rain, given the context of its integral "role" in supporting life on Earth and the shaping of its surface. Of course, there is nothing about the cloud that drives and sustains this relationship. This is simply the way that the human intellect models the natural environment with an interest in our own survival. Only life seems to have an inherent purpose, and this makes it unique in nature. I look at it as an emergent manifestation of the metaphysical truth that things exist because they survive and things that survive exist. It's a "how could it be any other way" kind of premise. It's why Darwin's theory of evolution is so beautiful. But it reveals that it's more than an epistemological truth. It's an ontological, a priori truth. It's the broadest possible context, and so it is a most (and perhaps the only) fundamental truth.

Can we find the meaning 'of our lives'.. 'in our lives'?

My initial thinking is that meaning is the parent of purpose. So let's focus on the second definition:

the end, purpose, or significance of something

Three words: end, purpose, significance

An 'end' implies a 'purpose' so let's tie these two words together. Purpose implies something we do toward an 'end'.

The word 'significance' is much more interesting. Life can be significant for reasons other than what we do:
i.e. My life is significant because I get to experience many things before I die

but it can also be significant because it allows us to fulfil a purpose

i.e. My life is significant because I fulfilled my purpose of bringing a child into the world and giving them a good life.

So maybe 'meaning' is whatever we find significant about human experience, and 'purpose' is something usually tied to the word meaning because life is so much about doing. But I think one could live a life without a specific purpose in mind but still find meaning.

 

[Deepak]

Can we find the meaning 'of our lives'.. 'in our lives'?

In the materialist view where we were born of star-stuff and after we're dead we'll decay into that same stuff I don't think you can find meaning. You can create meaning in your life, which is what I think you're getting at when you're talking about significance.

 

[Juma]

Yes, of course. As can be found in taxonomy:

In a wider, more general sense, it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification.

Hence, the meaning of a thing. What it means to be it.

That is just a taxonomy, that says nothing of any meaning.

Meaning is a feature of your mind.
Its a feeling of order and connectedness, how things is supposed to be.
Belonging is maybe more what you describe?
That you think that entities in beling in the place where you ordered them? But belonging is still just a feature of your mind.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes, of course. As can be found in taxonomy:

In a wider, more general sense, it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification.

Hence, the meaning of a thing. What it means to be it.

That's different from the kind of meaning rousseau is talking about, I think. The search for meaning is a search for value or significance (and by that I do not mean numerical value or statistical significance). Nobody having an existential crisis has ever been comforted by the fact that he is a chordate but not an amphibian.

 

[ryan]

Can anyone explain in the simplest way possible what this thread is about. It seems interesting, but I am not clear on what is actually being discussed.

 

[Treedbear]

Yes, of course. As can be found in taxonomy:

Hence, the meaning of a thing. What it means to be it.

That's different from the kind of meaning rousseau is talking about, I think. The search for meaning is a search for value or significance (and by that I do not mean numerical value or statistical significance). Nobody having an existential crisis has ever been comforted by the fact that he is a chordate but not an amphibian.

People tend to find comfort in knowing where they came from. Knowing one's heritage or the history of their country. So I probably should have started there rather than at the pre-cambrian stage. But part of what makes us human is our ability to explore the world and discover who we are. I'm not ashamed of having found some comfort in knowing how we've uncovered our evolutionary roots. And I also find wonder in being a part of that continuity of existence. It seems far more meaningful to me than having been poofed into being by some supernatural entity.

I have a friend who went through a crisis recently and was threatening to shoot someone if they came to evict his family. He derives major meaning and purpose from being a part of his family. Had a close relationship with his father and his grandfather. But he's one of these people who have that strange reverence for guns. He's really an intelligent person who has a big heart. It was obviously a cry for help. I think what finally made sense to him was my saying that he should go ahead and do it ... if he wanted to stop being human. I wasn't preaching or appealing to morality. I was reminding him of his source of values.

 

[Treedbear]

Can anyone explain in the simplest way possible what this thread is about. It seems interesting, but I am not clear on what is actually being discussed.

Personally, I was only trying to explain why I think we need to clarify what is meant by meaning and purpose. Are they the same thing? Can you have one without the other? Do you need one to have the other? I think the issue is the same whether we are in rousseau's post-spiritual world or not. But it seems to me this persistent vagueness about the use of the terms is possibly a vestige of that era.

 

[ryan]

Can anyone explain in the simplest way possible what this thread is about. It seems interesting, but I am not clear on what is actually being discussed.

Personally, I was only trying to explain why I think we need to clarify what is meant by meaning and purpose. Are they the same thing? Can you have one without the other? Do you need one to have the other? I think the issue is the same whether we are in rousseau's post-spiritual world or not. But it seems to me this persistent vagueness about the use of the terms is possibly a vestige of that era.

Okay, I think it sunk in now. Purpose/meaning is where things will lead to. I may have a goal. If I achieve it, I have served my own purpose and possibly something else's purpose. If I don't achieve it, I served a purpose for something else. Then maybe it is subjectively significant that I achieved the purpose I set out to achieve as it is probably easier to fail than to succeed, well, depending on the purpose.

Is this the idea?

 

[Treedbear]

...
Is this the idea?

 

[ryan]

Can anyone who is not a douchebag help?

 

[Treedbear]

I'm sorry Ryan. I see no analysis of the difference between meaning and purpose in what you wrote. I mean, you say "purpose/meaning" like they're the same thing! Which is, like, the perfect example of the problem. But it's evidently not you. I get the feeling I'm just getting further out on a limb on this and it's time to find another tree. No offense intended and none taken.

 

[Juma]

I'm sorry Ryan. I see no analysis of the difference between meaning and purpose in what you wrote. I mean, you say "purpose/meaning" like they're the same thing! Which is, like, the perfect example of the problem. But it's evidently not you. I get the feeling I'm just getting further out on a limb on this and it's time to find another tree. No offense intended and none taken.

Seems your problem here is more psychological (what makes humans feel meaning) than philosophical.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm sorry Ryan. I see no analysis of the difference between meaning and purpose in what you wrote. I mean, you say "purpose/meaning" like they're the same thing! Which is, like, the perfect example of the problem. But it's evidently not you. I get the feeling I'm just getting further out on a limb on this and it's time to find another tree. No offense intended and none taken.

Maybe the problem is because it may not necessarily be the product of a bygone era, but a product of subjective experience. To some, the two (meaning and purpose) may be the same thing, and perhaps it's not an error. To others, they may be different. While I'm all for simple explanations, sometimes things are simply to complex to be summed up as such. There doesn't have to be religion involved for one to feel like they derive meaning from their life by fulfilling their (self perpetuated) purpose as they see it. It's their life, their purpose and their meaning. To insist they use your definitions for "clarity" is a bit presumptuous isn't it?