Meaning within a materialist framework

[ryan]

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.

np

Oxford Dictionary has "purpose" as a way to define meaning. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/meaning

Meaning, outside of its metaphysical definition, seems to have a meaning that at least intersects with purpose. It is a slightly different way we can use "meaning" than others.

If I sit on a chair, the following statements seem to be equivalent:
The chair was "meant" to be sat on.
A "purpose" of the chair was to be sat on.

 

[Treedbear]

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

Well, I have issues with the use of the word "feelings" too. I "feel meaning"? You don't have to be a logical positivist to find that a rather obscure description of the human experience.

Actually, I need to read up on that. I think it might summarize what I've been trying to say.

Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims. ...

Logical positivists culled from Ludwig Wittgenstein's early philosophy of language the verifiability principle or criterion of meaningfulness. ... the young Ludwig Wittgenstein, introduced the view of philosophy as "critique of language", offering the possibility of a theoretically principled distinction of intelligible versus nonsensical discourse. ...

So, it seems that this particular philosophy developed beyond what I find useful. But the basic intention is clear enough. I believe the goal of philosophy is to understand the human experience as rationally and objectively as possible in order to free us from our cavern of subjectivity. The primary task has to be the careful analysis of what we are describing when using words such as feeling, meaning, and purpose. Otherwise we are left with nothing but emotional arguments against concepts such as dualism.

 

[Treedbear]

...
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?

I would hate to appear rude or arrogant. I just get frustrated when the topic is the absurdity of life or the lack of meaning to existence and this feeling of empathy leads me to respond. But there simply is no answer other than to try to identify what is behind these feelings and intuitions. And so I try to describe what works for me. Not insisting on my definition. I'm just trying to get them to be clear about what they mean.

 

[rousseau]

I think if one thing's clear it's that.. that we are so preoccupied with purpose and meaning is indicative that people tend to want to justify their existence with some type of goal or rationalization. And maybe it's not even that we 'want' to, but in a sense we're forced to because the alternative would be declaring our lives meaningless. I guess that'd be the logic 101 approach.

In practice, I don't think this question actually comes into play for a lot of people. They're 'within' their lives, living what they believe is the normal, natural lifeway without need for questioning.

For those who do question, maybe it really just comes down to assigning and/or identifying what matters to us.

 

[Juma]

Well, I have issues with the use of the word "feelings" too. I "feel meaning"? You don't have to be a logical positivist to find that a rather obscure description of the human experience.

Actually, I need to read up on that. I think it might summarize what I've been trying to say.

Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims. ...

Logical positivists culled from Ludwig Wittgenstein's early philosophy of language the verifiability principle or criterion of meaningfulness. ... the young Ludwig Wittgenstein, introduced the view of philosophy as "critique of language", offering the possibility of a theoretically principled distinction of intelligible versus nonsensical discourse. ...

So, it seems that this particular philosophy developed beyond what I find useful. But the basic intention is clear enough. I believe the goal of philosophy is to understand the human experience as rationally and objectively as possible in order to free us from our cavern of subjectivity. The primary task has to be the careful analysis of what we are describing when using words such as feeling, meaning, and purpose. Otherwise we are left with nothing but emotional arguments against concepts such as dualism.

Do you have any actual argument against the notion that purpose and meaning is only something that we feel? That they exists as feelings, given to us by evolution and are needed for survival?

 

[abaddon]

I think the problem of leveling it all down to feelings is it’s too reductive. A person (generally) does not live inside his own personal little world, determining his own truths and meanings. To some extent, and maybe a lot, meaning comes from our shared narrative about the nature of reality. We want to know what facts are true about the cosmos so we may know what values serve life best.

That is not totally personal. It’s more inter-subjective.

Our contemporary narrative about nature that science is helping to unfold does really illumine what’s meaningful. Direct experience of the world does as well, as mindful engagement reveals insights to us that do not reduce to just feeling-reactions. Feelings might be the origin but are not in themselves “meaning”.

Don’t forget that “out there” isn’t just a lot of dumb objects, but an intersubjective interface and not all of it human minds and interests or “purposes” either. If you have “a moment” while playing with a parrot or dolphin and a meaningful wordless and shared knowing arises within the interaction, that’s not just passing feelings. They're there, they might be the substrate of what comprises the event, but it's more... it's an event imbued with inherent meaning in an intersubjectively shared space. You know, and not just feel, that there was a significant event, and it might inform your values and behaviors for all your life.

Call that “only feelings” but that’s dismissive (“only”) and reductionist in that you’re trying to explain where meaning comes from and conflating that with a description of what meaning is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the problem of leveling it all down to feelings is it’s too reductive. A person (generally) does not live inside his own personal little world, determining his own truths and meanings. To some extent, and maybe a lot, meaning comes from our shared narrative about the nature of reality. We want to know what facts are true about the cosmos so we may know what values serve life best.

That is not totally personal. It’s more inter-subjective.

Our contemporary narrative about nature that science is helping to unfold does really illumine what’s meaningful. Direct experience of the world does as well, as mindful engagement reveals insights to us that do not reduce to just feeling-reactions. Feelings might be the origin but are not in themselves “meaning”.

Don’t forget that “out there” isn’t just a lot of dumb objects, but an intersubjective interface and not all of it human minds and interests or “purposes” either. If you have “a moment” while playing with a parrot or dolphin and a meaningful wordless and shared knowing arises within the interaction, that’s not just passing feelings. They're there, they might be the substrate of what comprises the event, but it's more... it's an event imbued with inherent meaning in an intersubjectively shared space. You know, and not just feel, that there was a significant event, and it might inform your values and behaviors for all your life.

Call that “only feelings” but that’s dismissive (“only”) and reductionist in that you’re trying to explain where meaning comes from and conflating that with a description of what meaning is.

If you are saying that feelings/emotions are material things I agree completely. There isn't anything, thought or object, that isn't material. What's wrong with that? Religion for many has become or is becoming a kind of goofy materialism, and I think that's the point of the OP.

 

[Juma]

I think the problem of leveling it all down to feelings is it’s too reductive. A person (generally) does not live inside his own personal little world, determining his own truths and meanings. To some extent, and maybe a lot, meaning comes from our shared narrative about the nature of reality. We want to know what facts are true about the cosmos so we may know what values serve life best.

That is not totally personal. It’s more inter-subjective.

Our contemporary narrative about nature that science is helping to unfold does really illumine what’s meaningful. Direct experience of the world does as well, as mindful engagement reveals insights to us that do not reduce to just feeling-reactions. Feelings might be the origin but are not in themselves “meaning”.

Don’t forget that “out there” isn’t just a lot of dumb objects, but an intersubjective interface and not all of it human minds and interests or “purposes” either. If you have “a moment” while playing with a parrot or dolphin and a meaningful wordless and shared knowing arises within the interaction, that’s not just passing feelings. They're there, they might be the substrate of what comprises the event, but it's more... it's an event imbued with inherent meaning in an intersubjectively shared space. You know, and not just feel, that there was a significant event, and it might inform your values and behaviors for all your life.

Call that “only feelings” but that’s dismissive (“only”) and reductionist in that you’re trying to explain where meaning comes from and conflating that with a description of what meaning is.

"Meaning" has multiple meanings.

1) the intentional content ('this sign means "toilet"')
2) a nice feeling of purpose ('giving food to poor has made me a happier person'

Which one of these is this thread really about?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

As far as I can see you only clarified what kind of meaning you personally accept to see in life, not how it's still possible to find life meaningful in a materialist age. Why would for example a Christian guy not find meaning in religion even in this materialist world? After all, according to a materialist, the world has always been material and yet, once upon a time, most people probably would have said they find meaning in religion (I have to guess here of course). And no big deal. The species survived and even ended up producing science, which may be our only hope of surviving whatever will be the next armageddon.

My guess is that "finding meaning" is just something that happens to you. I can't even say it's necessarily a blessing (ooop!). Some people newly found meaning-in-life will lead them to kill innocent people for example, who knows but it sucks.

Also, while I find meaning in my own life, I would be at a loss to explain how it possibly relates to our age being materialistic. I can see how I could have found the same sort of meaning in whenever was the best age for being a Christian or better still at the time of Aristotle (had I been able to survive in those more challenging times).

Perhaps finding meaning in life has everything to do with finding some explanation for your own existence.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I believe the goal of philosophy is to understand the human experience as rationally and objectively as possible in order to free us from our cavern of subjectivity.

There's a whole field on rationality: General theory of rationality and theory of rational choice, or something like that. They try to explain why people come to do what they do as society (why agriculture in Britain developped modernised faster than in France for example).
Sorry I have to go.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

I'm sorry. Tried to respond today but will have to wait for Monday. Thanks everyone.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you are saying that feelings/emotions are material things I agree completely. There isn't anything, thought or object, that isn't material. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong is to assert it as if you knew it was true.

Mind, maybe it is, but I definitely don't know that myself and I don't see how you would know. And I have yet to read any convincing argument that it is true.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think the problem of leveling it all down to feelings is it’s too reductive. A person (generally) does not live inside his own personal little world, determining his own truths and meanings. To some extent, and maybe a lot, meaning comes from our shared narrative about the nature of reality. We want to know what facts are true about the cosmos so we may know what values serve life best.

That is not totally personal. It’s more inter-subjective.

Our contemporary narrative about nature that science is helping to unfold does really illumine what’s meaningful. Direct experience of the world does as well, as mindful engagement reveals insights to us that do not reduce to just feeling-reactions. Feelings might be the origin but are not in themselves “meaning”.

Don’t forget that “out there” isn’t just a lot of dumb objects, but an intersubjective interface and not all of it human minds and interests or “purposes” either. If you have “a moment” while playing with a parrot or dolphin and a meaningful wordless and shared knowing arises within the interaction, that’s not just passing feelings. They're there, they might be the substrate of what comprises the event, but it's more... it's an event imbued with inherent meaning in an intersubjectively shared space. You know, and not just feel, that there was a significant event, and it might inform your values and behaviors for all your life.

Call that “only feelings” but that’s dismissive (“only”) and reductionist in that you’re trying to explain where meaning comes from and conflating that with a description of what meaning is.

The basic idea to meaning (as in "meaning of life") is that it is indeed something in your mind (or some process in your brain, it doesn't make much difference here I think). How it get there is certainly interesting but that's not what most people are interested in when talking about the meaning of life.

What seems to matter here is what, if anything, changed as a result of our age becoming allegedly more materialistic. The way meaning works would not have changed, obviously, even if our views about the issue did, but the meaning we see in life may have. Specifically, if your materialist, you may want to drop any religious notion from the meaning you see in life.

So, what remains? Personally, I don't see that's any problem. I'm not religious, never have been, and I always seemed to have a longing to find something meaningful to do in life, and as things stand, my hands are full today. So my interpretation of the issue raised in this thread is that there's a confusion between the issue of what should be our view of the nature of meaning and the question of what kind of meaning you can reasonably (or rationally) have nowadays.

Sure, there is a restriction of sorts, but dropping God from the equation shouldn't be so difficult. Finding something meaningful to do can be but there's still a wide range of choices and life is a long time to find meaning to it once you stop being confused about what meaning is. Although finding a purpose in life is not mandatory I think it does help and finding a meaning to life will help you find a purpose. And I think that's a good idea. It's good for how you feel about yourself, which seems good enough for me although I can see how one can go to far in this respect.
EB

 

[rousseau]

I think the problem of leveling it all down to feelings is it’s too reductive. A person (generally) does not live inside his own personal little world, determining his own truths and meanings. To some extent, and maybe a lot, meaning comes from our shared narrative about the nature of reality. We want to know what facts are true about the cosmos so we may know what values serve life best.

That is not totally personal. It’s more inter-subjective.

Our contemporary narrative about nature that science is helping to unfold does really illumine what’s meaningful. Direct experience of the world does as well, as mindful engagement reveals insights to us that do not reduce to just feeling-reactions. Feelings might be the origin but are not in themselves “meaning”.

Don’t forget that “out there” isn’t just a lot of dumb objects, but an intersubjective interface and not all of it human minds and interests or “purposes” either. If you have “a moment” while playing with a parrot or dolphin and a meaningful wordless and shared knowing arises within the interaction, that’s not just passing feelings. They're there, they might be the substrate of what comprises the event, but it's more... it's an event imbued with inherent meaning in an intersubjectively shared space. You know, and not just feel, that there was a significant event, and it might inform your values and behaviors for all your life.

Call that “only feelings” but that’s dismissive (“only”) and reductionist in that you’re trying to explain where meaning comes from and conflating that with a description of what meaning is.

The basic idea to meaning (as in "meaning of life") is that it is indeed something in your mind (or some process in your brain, it doesn't make much difference here I think). How it get there is certainly interesting but that's not what most people are interested in when talking about the meaning of life.

What seems to matter here is what, if anything, changed as a result of our age becoming allegedly more materialistic. The way meaning works would not have changed, obviously, even if our views about the issue did, but the meaning we see in life may have. Specifically, if your materialist, you may want to drop any religious notion from the meaning you see in life.

So, what remains? Personally, I don't see that's any problem. I'm not religious, never have been, and I always seemed to have a longing to find something meaningful to do in life, and as things stand, my hands are full today. So my interpretation of the issue raised in this thread is that there's a confusion between the issue of what should be our view of the nature of meaning and the question of what kind of meaning you can reasonably (or rationally) have nowadays.

Sure, there is a restriction of sorts, but dropping God from the equation shouldn't be so difficult. Finding something meaningful to do can be but there's still a wide range of choices and life is a long time to find meaning to it once you stop being confused about what meaning is. Although finding a purpose in life is not mandatory I think it does help and finding a meaning to life will help you find a purpose. And I think that's a good idea. It's good for how you feel about yourself, which seems good enough for me although I can see how one can go to far in this respect.
EB

I've been thinking about this thread over the last few weeks, and the above comment.

I'd say that where materialism comes into play is that it's an ontological shift from religious traditions, which sets a new 'framework' in which we understand ourselves and our lives.

For thousands of years people believed they had souls, and were following rules for entry into heaven. That, amongst some earthly concerns that are still present today, defined what living meant to people. Today many people don't have a belief, but the knowledge that existence is fundamentally impermanent and without objective meaning.

So that knowledge sets an entirely new framework in which to approach our lives. If we know that we are impermanent, and that in the grand scheme of things, not much we do really matters, how do we come to terms with and find joy in our lives?

If I'm honest, this is something I grapple with quite a lot. I view the world as essentially unreal, and most things that happen as not really important or meaningful. But I have to live my life despite this knowledge.

So given that situation: how does one thrive and not just give up and become an alcoholic?

 

[bilby]

The basic idea to meaning (as in "meaning of life") is that it is indeed something in your mind (or some process in your brain, it doesn't make much difference here I think). How it get there is certainly interesting but that's not what most people are interested in when talking about the meaning of life.

What seems to matter here is what, if anything, changed as a result of our age becoming allegedly more materialistic. The way meaning works would not have changed, obviously, even if our views about the issue did, but the meaning we see in life may have. Specifically, if your materialist, you may want to drop any religious notion from the meaning you see in life.

So, what remains? Personally, I don't see that's any problem. I'm not religious, never have been, and I always seemed to have a longing to find something meaningful to do in life, and as things stand, my hands are full today. So my interpretation of the issue raised in this thread is that there's a confusion between the issue of what should be our view of the nature of meaning and the question of what kind of meaning you can reasonably (or rationally) have nowadays.

Sure, there is a restriction of sorts, but dropping God from the equation shouldn't be so difficult. Finding something meaningful to do can be but there's still a wide range of choices and life is a long time to find meaning to it once you stop being confused about what meaning is. Although finding a purpose in life is not mandatory I think it does help and finding a meaning to life will help you find a purpose. And I think that's a good idea. It's good for how you feel about yourself, which seems good enough for me although I can see how one can go to far in this respect.
EB

I've been thinking about this thread over the last few weeks, and the above comment.

I'd say that where materialism comes into play is that it's an ontological shift from religious traditions, which sets a new 'framework' in which we understand ourselves and our lives.

For thousands of years people believed they had souls, and were following rules for entry into heaven. That, amongst some earthly concerns that are still present today, defined what living meant to people. Today many people don't have a belief, but the knowledge that existence is fundamentally impermanent and without objective meaning.

So that knowledge sets an entirely new framework in which to approach our lives. If we know that we are impermanent, and that in the grand scheme of things, not much we do really matters, how do we come to terms with and find joy in our lives?

If I'm honest, this is something I grapple with quite a lot. I view the world as essentially unreal, and most things that happen as not really important or meaningful. But I have to live my life despite this knowledge.

So given that situation: how does one thrive and not just give up and become an alcoholic?

I have never imagined nor believed myself to have an eternal soul, and it really doesn't bother me at all.

Why should I care that my existence is of no importance to the universe, or the world, or to the vast majority of people, past, present and future? My life and my actions matter to me, and to my family and friends, in the here and now. What else should I care about, and why?

I don't become an alcoholic because it would hurt the people I care about (including myself). That it won't matter in a hundred years doesn't change the fact that it matters to me right now.

It seems that one of the toxic ideas that religions infect people with is that one's happiness is dependent on eternal life. Ex-theists often seem to really struggle with that one - 'If there's no heaven or hell, then what's the point of anything?' is, to me, a bizarre non-sequitur. Any 'point' is personal and internal; and would be regardless of the existence of eternal life.

The only thing that really changes when you realise your mortality is that you need to recognise and avoid things that can only make you happy after death - ie religions.

Hardship in the here and now to gain happiness in the future is a worthwhile trade. That future happiness might even be purely psychological - such as a feeling of satisfaction when imagining the future pleasure of your great grandchildren.

There really is no point in doing anything that has no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. But given that happiness can be found in so many ways, that fact doesn't restrict your options much at all.

 

[rousseau]

I've been thinking about this thread over the last few weeks, and the above comment.

I'd say that where materialism comes into play is that it's an ontological shift from religious traditions, which sets a new 'framework' in which we understand ourselves and our lives.

For thousands of years people believed they had souls, and were following rules for entry into heaven. That, amongst some earthly concerns that are still present today, defined what living meant to people. Today many people don't have a belief, but the knowledge that existence is fundamentally impermanent and without objective meaning.

So that knowledge sets an entirely new framework in which to approach our lives. If we know that we are impermanent, and that in the grand scheme of things, not much we do really matters, how do we come to terms with and find joy in our lives?

If I'm honest, this is something I grapple with quite a lot. I view the world as essentially unreal, and most things that happen as not really important or meaningful. But I have to live my life despite this knowledge.

So given that situation: how does one thrive and not just give up and become an alcoholic?

I have never imagined nor believed myself to have an eternal soul, and it really doesn't bother me at all.

Why should I care that my existence is of no importance to the universe, or the world, or to the vast majority of people, past, present and future? My life and my actions matter to me, and to my family and friends, in the here and now. What else should I care about, and why?

I don't become an alcoholic because it would hurt the people I care about (including myself). That it won't matter in a hundred years doesn't change the fact that it matters to me right now.

It seems that one of the toxic ideas that religions infect people with is that one's happiness is dependent on eternal life. Ex-theists often seem to really struggle with that one - 'If there's no heaven or hell, then what's the point of anything?' is, to me, a bizarre non-sequitur. Any 'point' is personal and internal; and would be regardless of the existence of eternal life.

The only thing that really changes when you realise your mortality is that you need to recognise and avoid things that can only make you happy after death - ie religions.

Hardship in the here and now to gain happiness in the future is a worthwhile trade. That future happiness might even be purely psychological - such as a feeling of satisfaction when imagining the future pleasure of your great grandchildren.

There really is no point in doing anything that has no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. But given that happiness can be found in so many ways, that fact doesn't restrict your options much at all.

I didn't mean to contrast materialism with religiosity as if religiosity was relevant to it, only to highlight that materialism is a step forward from religiosity. It's the anti-thesis of belief.

I think, though, you've touched on the fundamental aspect of the problem, as mentioned a few times above. Meaning is internal and can only be assigned by the individual. 'Life' is the framework that allows people to exist, and people get to... well.. do things, and think things, and feel things, from within that frame.

On that note I think many people would classify life as absurd, but when you think about it, and this one is hard to put into words.. without life as a material phenomena all of this is for nought, so the alternative is just non-existence. So maybe the only meaning that's possible is that which we create ourselves, and that meaning is dependent on sentience.

At that point, I think a person could make a real conscious effort to define what they love, and go after it. I should probably take my own advice.

 

[Tigers!]

Sorry mate but I see a problem

Hardship in the here and now to gain happiness in the future is a worthwhile trade. That future happiness might even be purely psychological - such as a feeling of satisfaction when imagining the future pleasure of your great grandchildren.

Here you say that it is worth it to have hardship for future happiness, even psychological.

There really is no point in doing anything that has no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. But given that happiness can be found in so many ways, that fact doesn't restrict your options much at all.

Now you say there is no point doing anything that no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. So which one is it?

 

[bilby]

Sorry mate but I see a problem

Here you say that it is worth it to have hardship for future happiness, even psychological.

There really is no point in doing anything that has no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. But given that happiness can be found in so many ways, that fact doesn't restrict your options much at all.

Now you say there is no point doing anything that no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. So which one is it?

There is no contradiction here - unless you expect to die immediately.

I work for my future. But only for the part of the future when I have a reasonable expectation of still being alive. Working for the prospect of a reward in a non-existent afterlife is just a waste.

 

[ryan]

At that point, I think a person could make a real conscious effort to define what they love, and go after it. I should probably take my own advice.

I didn't have any interests when I was suicidal. My psychiatrists told me to get out there and look for some. At the time it seemed impossible that I would find something that would make me actually want to live. But from a boost of medications, I went out like a blind person trying different things that interested me. I found them! I could be much happier, but at least I found things that made me want to be alive rather than dead.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have never imagined nor believed myself to have an eternal soul, and it really doesn't bother me at all.

Why should I care that my existence is of no importance to the universe, or the world, or to the vast majority of people, past, present and future? My life and my actions matter to me, and to my family and friends, in the here and now. What else should I care about, and why?

I don't become an alcoholic because it would hurt the people I care about (including myself). That it won't matter in a hundred years doesn't change the fact that it matters to me right now.

It seems that one of the toxic ideas that religions infect people with is that one's happiness is dependent on eternal life. Ex-theists often seem to really struggle with that one - 'If there's no heaven or hell, then what's the point of anything?' is, to me, a bizarre non-sequitur. Any 'point' is personal and internal; and would be regardless of the existence of eternal life.

The only thing that really changes when you realise your mortality is that you need to recognise and avoid things that can only make you happy after death - ie religions.

Hardship in the here and now to gain happiness in the future is a worthwhile trade. That future happiness might even be purely psychological - such as a feeling of satisfaction when imagining the future pleasure of your great grandchildren.

There really is no point in doing anything that has no prospect of making you happy until after you are dead. But given that happiness can be found in so many ways, that fact doesn't restrict your options much at all.

I didn't mean to contrast materialism with religiosity as if religiosity was relevant to it, only to highlight that materialism is a step forward from religiosity. It's the anti-thesis of belief.

I think, though, you've touched on the fundamental aspect of the problem, as mentioned a few times above. Meaning is internal and can only be assigned by the individual. 'Life' is the framework that allows people to exist, and people get to... well.. do things, and think things, and feel things, from within that frame.

On that note I think many people would classify life as absurd, but when you think about it, and this one is hard to put into words.. without life as a material phenomena all of this is for nought, so the alternative is just non-existence. So maybe the only meaning that's possible is that which we create ourselves, and that meaning is dependent on sentience.

At that point, I think a person could make a real conscious effort to define what they love, and go after it. I should probably take my own advice.

It's always been my take that religion - and afterlives - use materialism big time. What is heaven if not the ultimate hedonism? Saying it's a spiritual hedonism and not a materialistic hedonism is saying it's still the same thing.