What is the meaning of life?
That old question; asked of sages and oracles and various other wise old men and women sitting inside of caves and upon mountain-tops. And maybe one of the most meaningless questions one can ask of someone else, because it is a question only you can answer.
I guess some people want there to be a meaning to life that is transcendent, that is fixed in the cosmos or beyond, in an eternal mind. But, even if that were the case, it is only meaningful to the one who believes it because they accept it; they choose to believe it. For the person who knows nothing of this transcendent meaning, or chooses not to believe it, it is of no significance.
Likewise for those who claim that all is meaningless: what gave them this insight? What thundering voice or menacing whisper did they hear? What god or demon stopped them at the crossroads? What stone tablets did they unearth? How can it be anything other than their very own choice? And if that is their choice, then so be it, but let them admit that it is.
A silly question perhaps: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no consciousness to perceive it, does it have any meaning?
I think there is still some beauty in the 'meaningless'. Not in the sense of 'mere' meaninglessness, say, of dry meaningless facts, but more akin to the kind of meaninglessness of ocean waves lapping on the shores. That to say this, if I choose to believe that it may all be meaningless, it is not to say that I believe it has no purpose.
ReplyDeleteYes, I see what you're saying, and I like it. I guess it's always tricky trying to define something like meaning. I think if someone were to say that all is meaningless in the way that you are thinking, that person would still think that there is a meaning to life in reflecting upon and appreciating the nature of things.
ReplyDelete(If I was going to get picky I might ask what purpose the waves have? Isn't purpose something that is done with intention? You might hear someone ask what is the 'purpose' of the eye? We can use it for a purpose, sure - our purpose - but does 'it' have a purpose outside of our mind?)
When a person asks what the meaning of life is, they are also asking what the purpose of life is.
DeleteYes, I think if we look at 'purpose' we must admit that something may be used for a purpose (type a), but that is quite different from a thing having an innate purpose (type b).
ReplyDeleteI'd purport that the purpose (b) of a wave is quite simply, to wave; the purpose of the eye is to see (or maybe more scientifically, to receive and transduce light); and, if you might allow me to verb a noun to exemplify my point, the purpose of a tree is to tree.
Whereas the purpose (a) for which one might use a wave (surfing), an eye (to gaze at a beautiful woman), a tree (to house birds or build a fence) is quite a different thing.
Because I believe something has this kind of innate purpose (b), it is still not to say that I think it has a meaning above what a mind can place on it. But for me, its purpose is not in doubt.
When I go back to the "meaning of life" question, it seems quite a non-nonsensical pondering. What is the meaning of a tree or a rock? And thus it follows, for me, that if instead one asks what the "purpose of life" is, it seems quite simple: to live.
The purpose of life is to live; well put, Mr. Miles, beautifully put, but I hope you won't mind if I pick away a bit more at something
DeleteI think I part from you when it comes to innate purpose, but it could just be a problem of language here. For example, I would differentiate between purpose and function (and function can change over time). I'm also unsure of how something could have no meaning above what a mind can place on it, and still have innate purpose (b). To me if the eye or a wave were to have an innate [i]purpose[/i], which is sort of like an intentional function, that purpose would have to be built into that object before it was formed (since a wave can't give itself a purpose). In my opinion, all the different ideas of purpose and meaning have no existence outside of a mind
Sir, you bring up excellent points. You allude to language as being an even more integral part of the "meaning of life" question, and its apparent "purpose of life" corallary.
DeleteAn internet definition, but still a definition... "Purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."
I believe my innate purpose (b) is akin to "the reason for which something exists". If we grant that objects exist outside of one's mind (which i'm also willing to debate) then it seems natural for me to think that a wave could not exist to be anything more than a wave, not a horse nor a hole. This fact wasn't built into the wave beforehand, as if there were some pre-wave state of existence for our wave, but now, it being a wave it exists to wave. That is, it exists to be all that a wave does and is, that is its purpose, that the reason it exists.
I can agree that if we view the particular aspect of purpose (a) as being "the reason for which something is done or created", then it would be impossible to understand how something could have no meaning and still have a purpose.
For clarity, another an internet definition... "Meaning: intending to indicate, or referring to." (feel welcome to provide others)
From that, it seems evident to me by definition that something can have a meaning only outside of itself, in that it if it has a meaning it must refer to something else.
That my wave's purpose (b), as described, does not refer to anything outside of itself seems to convey that is has no meaning. Thus it is meaningless. Yet again, its purpose is not in doubt. Similarly, that one may ponder the "meaning of life" and come to the conclusion that it is meaningless does not preclude the thought that it has a purpose.
Thus, to presuppose that the "purpose of life" can only be pondered if the "meaning of life" is considered first, to me, seems irrational. But I would love to hear your thoughts.
If there weren't any conscious mind in the universe, then there wouldn't be definitions of purpose or meaning, there wouldn't even be any concept of purpose or meaning. I don't think that there is any "reason" for which a tree exists, it doesn't exist to do anything: it simply exists (and I think I'd rather avoid a debate on objective reality at this time;) )
DeleteAll concepts of "existing for", "the reason for", purpose, meaning, etc, are meaningless outside of conscious mind.
We could then try a little thought experiment, and try to imagine the universe without consciousness - without language, without concepts. Now the wave laps at the shore, the tree creaks in the forest, and there is nobody to think on or observe any of it. In this universe how can it be said that the wave exists to wave? Who is saying that? The wave isn't, and there is nobody else to say it.
I haven't read any of Wittgenstein yet, but I've been very interested to do so for a while now. He tackled the problem of language in philosophy, and was a pretty controversial figure. Here is a short youtube clip from a film called "Wittgenstein":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILlvG78ZldQ&feature=relmfu
Also, what we have been discussing in this back-and-forth is in much more depth than what the fictional person in my opening post had in mind when asking the question, "what is the meaning of life?" That person is hoping for something much different than "to live", and he is going to give himself ulcers because of that!
9 hours later...
DeleteI was thinking about this off and on today; I find it to be a very interesting subject. I was wondering just how much this trouble with purpose has to do with language and concepts, and if I might be neglecting some simple truth 'beyond' language and concepts. But then I can't get around the idea that when we say something has an innate purpose we are applying a 'concept' to it. It causes my brain to suffer! In the end I have to apply what I mentioned in the post about Spinoza; that is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It seems to me that all notions of purpose and meaning cannot possibly mean anything outside of conscious subjective experience, and since I can't think of a good reason to make exceptions for innate purpose, I then must accept the following statement:
Outside of conscious experience there is no meaning or purpose of any kind.
To me that doesn't do anything to lessen the value of life or living things or objects - I don't find it a depressing thought in the least - it just means that this value is created by a subject. We are the creators of values, purpose, and meaning; to me this makes life a creative act.
I look at your reply from Nov. 20, and I cannot deny that it makes sense, and is the product of a wonderful mind. I keep trying to look for a way to reconcile our two positions, but language has limits, and I just can't incorporate innate purpose into my way of looking at things without dramatically changing the way I look at things.
I was looking for Wittgenstein the other night, I knew of his ideas, but not his name. Thank you for putting the name and philosphy together for me... and for the video, it's the exact kind of concept which I enjoy staying up late discussing :)
DeleteI reread your Spinoza thoughts (and the Principle of Sufficient Reason). Among other things, again, I am glad to have you bring to my attention such amazing minds as Spinoza. Super interesting. I will enjoy thinking about it all some more.
I did smile when you asked me to "imagine" (that is, to have a consciously considered thought on) a universe without consciousness (that is, without a consciously considered being) and then to follow you that a wave (as you, the outside observer of such a consciousness-less universe defines this thing to be) has no reason to exist as a wave as was defined in your statement. "Who is saying that?" It has already been said by you, the creator of the setup. If it is a wave, to me, its purpose (b) is to wave. If it is not a wave, then what are we talking about?
Totally agree with you that without an observer, a discussion of meaning and purpose is moot. I think I may have misled you to thinking that I disagreed! Perhaps because you mentioned purpose (b) being "intentional function" once and I didn't circle around to somewhat disagree with the phrase.
Along the lines of PSR (if not exactly), I think my reasoning for currently believing in purpose (b) is that it is nothing more than a statement of definition. By saying that a wave exists to wave, to me, seems more of an axiom, the base concept of defining - like, F(b) = P(b).
Since a wave in and of itself is meaningless, we can apply a meaning to it. What is the number 1? To have a concept of a wave, this of course requires a concious mind. But if one views the definitions of one's conciousness, then I fail to see why something can't have the definition that one's consciousness gave it in the first place.
Language, so very interesting. Alas, I look forward to your next intriguing post, Mr. Major^2. I enjoy your willingness to have an open discussion on these things. Keep finding those video gems.
*nonsensical, not non-non...
ReplyDelete