The secular meaning of life

[bilby]

Except you left out the actual afterlife.
And I know why you deliberately did that.
Because it would in fact constitute a huge difference between one worldview - atheism - and the opposite of atheism.

The permanent end of conscious awareness versus enduring existence. We aren't debating which belief is true. We're debating which would be more meaningful/significant if true.

It is totally meaningless to discuss which of two beliefs that would me most meaningful/significant if true since the most important factor to be significant/meaningful is that it IS true...

But then there really isnt an issue since we KNOW that there isnt an afterlife.

Maybe we are in the afterlife.

And yet we still wouldn't know?!

I have a sense of déjà vu*, not you?
EB

(*) Please try to pronounce with a French accent if you can.

Also,

Show

On a gagné! Allez les Bleus!!!
(again, French accent here.)

Or maybe we are all incarnations of a single soul, so that whenever a person dies, he returns to life as someone else.

That could explain my sense of déjà vous.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe we are in the afterlife.

And yet we still wouldn't know?!

I have a sense of déjà vu*, not you?
EB

(*) Please try to pronounce with a French accent if you can.

Also,

Show

On a gagné! Allez les Bleus!!!
(again, French accent here.)

Dream on...

Not a dream! Not at all!

Show

We really won the World Cup! On a gagné! Allez les Bleus!!!

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe we are in the afterlife.

And yet we still wouldn't know?!

I have a sense of déjà vu*, not you?
EB

(*) Please try to pronounce with a French accent if you can.

Also,

Show

On a gagné! Allez les Bleus!!!
(again, French accent here.)

Or maybe we are all incarnations of a single soul, so that whenever a person dies, he returns to life as someone else.

That could explain my sense of déjà vous.

Yes, we're all like a single soul! Would explain how we all get along with each other like a dream!
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Maybe we are in the afterlife.

And yet we still wouldn't know?!

I have a sense of déjà vu*, not you?
EB

(*) Please try to pronounce with a French accent if you can.

Also,

Show

On a gagné! Allez les Bleus!!!
(again, French accent here.)

Or maybe we are all incarnations of a single soul, so that whenever a person dies, he returns to life as someone else.

That could explain my sense of déjà vous.

Yes, we're all like a single soul! Would explain how we all get along with each other like a dream!
EB

My view is that there is only one person, me, but I have an extremely compartmentalized mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, we're all like a single soul! Would explain how we all get along with each other like a dream!
EB

My view is that there is only one person, me, but I have an extremely compartmentalized mind.

Ah, that's right, I had all but forgotten about your "view". Me, I'm already two. I talk to myself to understand things and it works beautifully. One part of me argues one thing and another part scoffs and point out the flaws. You move faster this way. Just like humanity. Plurality is the way of the natural world. Life.

So, yes, I agree, there's only ever one person, but...

Show

plenty of people. Just a grammatical thing.

EB

 

[Coleman Smith]

I believe that meaning is a thought process creation and since thought processes cease at death for the individual the attribution of meaning ends at death.

 

[Jobar]

I believe that meaning is a thought process creation and since thought processes cease at death for the individual the attribution of meaning ends at death.

Is meaning only a subjective phenomenon? Is there such a thing as objective, or intersubjective, meaning?

In one sense, of course there is; if our words didn't have closely similar meanings to all of us, language would be ineffective as a means of communication. But is that the sense of the word 'meaning' we are discussing here?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I believe that meaning is a thought process creation and since thought processes cease at death for the individual the attribution of meaning ends at death.

For the individual certainly, but not for the group.

 

[Coleman Smith]

I believe that meaning is a thought process creation and since thought processes cease at death for the individual the attribution of meaning ends at death.

Is meaning only a subjective phenomenon? Is there such a thing as objective, or intersubjective, meaning?

In one sense, of course there is; if our words didn't have closely similar meanings to all of us, language would be ineffective as a means of communication. But is that the sense of the word 'meaning' we are discussing here?

Meaning is obviously not only subjective as communication and learning demonstrate.

I believe that from the individuals point of view all that has been learned is erased when neural activity ceases.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not unreasonable for someone, who believes there's no such thing as discarnate consciousness, to argue that the meaning of life only lasts three score and ten years.
But reducing it to strict biology leads to questions about whether the short lives of other species have any 'meaning'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's not unreasonable for someone, who believes there's no such thing as discarnate consciousness, to argue that the meaning of life only lasts three score and ten years.
But reducing it to strict biology leads to questions about whether the short lives of other species have any 'meaning'.

What is a short life? Compared to the lives of stars there's little or no difference between 60 years and 60 hours. Some trees live for thousands of years. To them a human life is one summer leaf.

 

[abaddon]

It's not unreasonable for someone, who believes there's no such thing as discarnate consciousness, to argue that the meaning of life only lasts three score and ten years.
But reducing it to strict biology leads to questions about whether the short lives of other species have any 'meaning'.

It's not a reduction to strict biology, it's a reduction to subjectivity.

"Short" is relative as T.G.G. Moogly noted. You seem to think the meaning has to last a long time. If someone lived 30 years, what's not meaningful about it (brief as it seems relative to the average life expectancy) if they felt their experiences and achievements were worthwhile and significant to them and maybe some others? Does their life have to be cosmically significant, or else it has no significance at all?

People will wonder "What's it all for if I'm going to die? If all my experiences, everything I learn, will be wiped out?" But if experience feels purposeful and significant while it's being lived, the future loss doesn't negate that.

 

[Treedbear]

It's not unreasonable for someone, who believes there's no such thing as discarnate consciousness, to argue that the meaning of life only lasts three score and ten years.
But reducing it to strict biology leads to questions about whether the short lives of other species have any 'meaning'.

What is a short life? Compared to the lives of stars there's little or no difference between 60 years and 60 hours. Some trees live for thousands of years. To them a human life is one summer leaf.

Exactly how would living for eternity equate with meaning anyway? A life will always only have been lived over a finite amount of time.

 

[rousseau]

Ever think that meaning for people is actually irrelevant, and the reason we persist is because most of us find everyday life enjoyable in of itself?

Most of us have purpose, but I think you could re-define purpose as a thing we desire to do. Because we have no choice but to do something, this just implies an end goal or purpose.

And so 'meaning' is really nothing but an abstract conversation point that we dwell on because we have too much time on our hands, while we're otherwise busy living and enjoying the experiences of every day life.

 

[Treedbear]

Ever think that meaning for people is actually irrelevant, and the reason we persist is because most of us find everyday life enjoyable in of itself?

Most of us have purpose, but I think you could re-define purpose as a thing we desire to do. Because we have no choice but to do something, this just implies an end goal or purpose.

And so 'meaning' is really nothing but an abstract conversation point that we dwell on because we have too much time on our hands, while we're otherwise busy living and enjoying the experiences of every day life.

What do you think the difference is between meaning and purpose, as you use the terms?

 

[rousseau]

Ever think that meaning for people is actually irrelevant, and the reason we persist is because most of us find everyday life enjoyable in of itself?

Most of us have purpose, but I think you could re-define purpose as a thing we desire to do. Because we have no choice but to do something, this just implies an end goal or purpose.

And so 'meaning' is really nothing but an abstract conversation point that we dwell on because we have too much time on our hands, while we're otherwise busy living and enjoying the experiences of every day life.

What do you think the difference is between meaning and purpose, as you use the terms?

People use them interchangeably, but I'd say meaning is derived from purpose. But since purpose is just implied in living, then the 'meaning' of life reduces to 'do what you want to do, and enjoy doing it'.

 

[Treedbear]

Ever think that meaning for people is actually irrelevant, and the reason we persist is because most of us find everyday life enjoyable in of itself?

Most of us have purpose, but I think you could re-define purpose as a thing we desire to do. Because we have no choice but to do something, this just implies an end goal or purpose.

And so 'meaning' is really nothing but an abstract conversation point that we dwell on because we have too much time on our hands, while we're otherwise busy living and enjoying the experiences of every day life.

What do you think the difference is between meaning and purpose, as you use the terms?

People use them interchangeably, but I'd say meaning is derived from purpose. But since purpose is just implied in living, then the 'meaning' of life reduces to 'do what you want to do, and enjoy doing it'.

That's reasonable. It would be so much less confusing if people wouldn't use them interchangeably though. But I'd define meaning as everything that makes me me. Everything from biology and heredity to past and present relationships. That's how the word is used in every other instance so what's the mystery when used in the 1st person context? It's what makes a thing what it is. And purpose is derived from meaning. You can focus on any particular context, such as biological purpose and survival. But to just leave it at "to enjoy life" is too subjective for me. It works for many people (the so called "free spirits"), but there are many who would benefit from a more objective examination of where they've been in order to better choose where they are going. In my opinion one is only free to be what one is, and free will describes the state of knowing what that is. And nothing more. That might lead to more enjoyment, but not necessarily. I'd say more contentment though. In the long run.

 

[rousseau]

People use them interchangeably, but I'd say meaning is derived from purpose. But since purpose is just implied in living, then the 'meaning' of life reduces to 'do what you want to do, and enjoy doing it'.

That's reasonable. It would be so much less confusing if people wouldn't use them interchangeably though. But I'd define meaning as everything that makes me me. Everything from biology and heredity to past and present relationships. That's how the word is used in every other instance so what's the mystery when used in the 1st person context? It's what makes a thing what it is. And purpose is derived from meaning. You can focus on any particular context, such as biological purpose and survival. But to just leave it at "to enjoy life" is too subjective for me. It works for many people (the so called "free spirits"), but there are many who would benefit from a more objective examination of where they've been in order to better choose where they are going. In my opinion one is only free to be what one is, and free will describes the state of knowing what that is. And nothing more. That might lead to more enjoyment, but not necessarily. I'd say more contentment though. In the long run.

I'm only breaking it down logically into it's essential parts, not prescribing a particular meaning.

The idea is that regardless of how much awareness someone has, almost every living person has something they care about. Something that justifies their continued existence. This isn't a conscious choice they make to have a justification, it's just inherent in being alive. And when people cease to care about anything they typically lose their will to be alive.

So it's not a prescription that someone's meaning ought to be 'do what you want and enjoy life', it's that 'purpose' is synonymous with 'doing what it is that you want to do'. And because 'doing what you want to do' isn't really a conscious choice, the topic of meaning is arbitrary. You have a purpose, this gives you meaning.

The purpose can be as reflective, deep, and complex as you want it to be.

That's how the word is used in every other instance so what's the mystery when used in the 1st person context?

On this, I'm using meaning in reference to the experience of my life, not me. And so it's having a purpose that gives my experience of life substance (meaning). Without a purpose or goal, whatever it may be, one's life is meaningless.

 

[Treedbear]

I'm only breaking it down logically into it's essential parts, not prescribing a particular meaning.

The idea is that regardless of how much awareness someone has, almost every living person has something they care about. Something that justifies their continued existence. This isn't a conscious choice they make to have a justification, it's just inherent in being alive. And when people cease to care about anything they typically lose their will to be alive.

So it's not a prescription that someone's meaning ought to be 'do what you want and enjoy life', it's that 'purpose' is synonymous with 'doing what it is that you want to do'. And because 'doing what you want to do' isn't really a conscious choice, the topic of meaning is arbitrary. You have a purpose, this gives you meaning.

The purpose can be as reflective, deep, and complex as you want it to be.

That's how the word is used in every other instance so what's the mystery when used in the 1st person context?

On this, I'm using meaning in reference to the experience of my life, not me. And so it's having a purpose that gives my experience of life substance (meaning). Without a purpose or goal, whatever it may be, one's life is meaningless.

We are to a large extend what we have experienced. The more experience, the more to draw meaning from. And purpose tends to lead to more varied and richer experience. So I think we agree in that having purpose leads to a more meaningful life. And lack of purpose produces less in the way of meaning from which to draw on. It's just that people don't seem to differentiate the two terms as such. I need to do that. Also I think that 'doing what you want to do' is pretty much the definition of conscious choice. I can't imagine meaning as arbitrary. To me that's simply incongruous.

 

[fromderinside]

Most of what we are are conditioned by interaction with what we are with to that which we are exposed. There is a decreasing return from this interaction since what we become is fairly rapidly tuned to be inline with what we are designed to adapt toward. As we grow older our hubris of rationales become ever more important in our expressed beliefs. A case of becoming face value versus reality operative as the result of how we are designed.