Existential Nihilism & Atheism...

[sylas]

Sylas, I'm really trying to understand exactly what you disagree with here. It is saying that there is no "inherent" meaning to life, but that we invent or create our own.

What I disagree with, and where I depart from nihilism, is that I do not consider lack of inherent meaning to be the same as "meaningless".

I seem to repeat this in nearly every post, so I am not sure what more I can do. I've been a bit slower answering this time as I think I'm just repeating myself now, and don't have anything new to add to what I've said already.

I consider that the notion of "meaning" is inherently subjective. Meaningful is always implicitly with a "meaningful TO xxx" for some xxx. People who think there is some "objective" meaning seem, as far as I can tell, to put God in the xxx place; so what is meaningful to God is the true and objective meaning, and so you can drop the "to xxx" qualifier and just speaking of "meaning" without further qualification. I understand this notion, but it leaves me cold for all kinds of reasons, and not only because I don't believe in God.

Be that as it may, every single time the definitions or concepts you are proposing fail to match my philosophical stance, it appears to be always because there slips in a notion that lack of objective meaning is the same as "meaningless" or "without meaning". THAT'S what I disagree with. It will continue to be what I disagree with no matter how often you ask the question or rephrase the definitions. As long as it slips in the notion of meaningless, that's where I bail. I think life is -- or can be! -- meaningful just fine, without needing everyone to have the same standard for what gives this meaning to them.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

What I disagree with, and where I depart from nihilism, is that I do not consider lack of inherent meaning to be the same as "meaningless".

I seem to repeat this in nearly every post, so I am not sure what more I can do. I've been a bit slower answering this time as I think I'm just repeating myself now, and don't have anything new to add to what I've said already.

I consider that the notion of "meaning" is inherently subjective. Meaningful is always implicitly with a "meaningful TO xxx" for some xxx. People who think there is some "objective" meaning seem, as far as I can tell, to put God in the xxx place; so what is meaningful to God is the true and objective meaning, and so you can drop the "to xxx" qualifier and just speaking of "meaning" without further qualification. I understand this notion, but it leaves me cold for all kinds of reasons, and not only because I don't believe in God.

Be that as it may, every single time the definitions or concepts you are proposing fail to match my philosophical stance, it appears to be always because there slips in a notion that lack of objective meaning is the same as "meaningless" or "without meaning". THAT'S what I disagree with. It will continue to be what I disagree with no matter how often you ask the question or rephrase the definitions. As long as it slips in the notion of meaningless, that's where I bail. I think life is -- or can be! -- meaningful just fine, without needing everyone to have the same standard for what gives this meaning to them.

Cheers -- sylas

I guess we are just reading the definition differently because it clearly makes a case that subjective meaning is an option and that the "meaninglessness" is concerning inherent meaning. I just don't see why you would object to that.

[Starlight]

the "meaninglessness" is concerning inherent meaning. I just don't see why you would object to that.

Because we see "inherent meaning" as an oxymoron and self-contradiction. It's like saying "dark sunlight" or "non-human human" or "atheist believer". You keep saying essentially: "Why won't you guys agree that <nonsensical thing> is X?" and our answer is always that the nonsensical thing is nonsensical and hence it can't have any properties such as X or Y or Z.

[seer]

Because we see "inherent meaning" as an oxymoron and self-contradiction. It's like saying "dark sunlight" or "non-human human" or "atheist believer". You keep saying essentially: "Why won't you guys agree that <nonsensical thing> is X?" and our answer is always that the nonsensical thing is nonsensical and hence it can't have any properties such as X or Y or Z.

Tell me exactly how inherent meaning is a self-contradiction. Instead of just asserting be specific.

[Starlight]

Tell me exactly how inherent meaning is a self-contradiction. Instead of just asserting be specific.

Sylas said it well: "I consider that the notion of "meaning" is inherently subjective. Meaningful is always implicitly with a "meaningful TO xxx" for some xxx." You need to specify a person who finds the thing meaningful. Otherwise you are just using words wrong.

Perhaps you can answer the question: When you write the words "inherent meaning", who is the person who you see as finding the thing meaningful? God? Let's say there was something that was "inherently meaningful" but the entire human race to the last man said "nope, I don't find that thing meaningful"... could the thing still be "inherently meaningful" the way you are using the term? Is it just a shorthand way of saying "God finds the thing meaningful"?

[sylas]

I guess we are just reading the definition differently because it clearly makes a case that subjective meaning is an option and that the "meaninglessness" is concerning inherent meaning. I just don't see why you would object to that.

If our roles were reversed and we were looking at definitions for your perspective, I think you would also be similarly careful. I would hope so, for clarity.

I think the definitions to which I have been objecting really are expressing a common philosophical perspective that I do not share: the perspective that life is meaningless if there is no objective meaning. Some people really do hold that view, and because of this, it would be actively misleading for me to accept a definition that explicitly associates "meaning is subjective" with "meaningless". It's not my view, and that is why I object to it.

I think the discussion in this thread bears this out. It's been hard to get explicit recognition of this crucial point of difference between my perspective and a nihilistic perspective. If this is not clear in a definition, then it's NOT a good definition for my perspective, and I will, therefore, object to it.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Sylas said it well: "I consider that the notion of "meaning" is inherently subjective. Meaningful is always implicitly with a "meaningful TO xxx" for some xxx." You need to specify a person who finds the thing meaningful. Otherwise you are just using words wrong.

Perhaps you can answer the question: When you write the words "inherent meaning", who is the person who you see as finding the thing meaningful? God? Let's say there was something that was "inherently meaningful" but the entire human race to the last man said "nope, I don't find that thing meaningful"... could the thing still be "inherently meaningful" the way you are using the term? Is it just a shorthand way of saying "God finds the thing meaningful"?

Subjective does not necessarily exclude inherent. If God created us for a purpose and endowed us with meaning then those qualities are inherent to human beings.

[seer]

If our roles were reversed and we were looking at definitions for your perspective, I think you would also be similarly careful. I would hope so, for clarity.

I think the definitions to which I have been objecting really are expressing a common philosophical perspective that I do not share: the perspective that life is meaningless if there is no objective meaning. Some people really do hold that view, and because of this, it would be actively misleading for me to accept a definition that explicitly associates "meaning is subjective" with "meaningless". It's not my view, and that is why I object to it.

I think the discussion in this thread bears this out. It's been hard to get explicit recognition of this crucial point of difference between my perspective and a nihilistic perspective. If this is not clear in a definition, then it's NOT a good definition for my perspective, and I will, therefore, object to it.

Cheers -- sylas

OK

[Tassman]

Subjective does not necessarily exclude inherent. If God created us for a purpose and endowed us with meaning then those qualities are inherent to human beings.

There’s no substantive evidence that God either exists OR “created us for a purpose and endowed us with meaning”. But our lives are demonstrably not meaningless. We derive “meaning” from a variety of things not least our children and community values.

[seer]

There’s no substantive evidence that God either exists OR “created us for a purpose and endowed us with meaning”. But our lives are demonstrably not meaningless. We derive “meaning” from a variety of things not least our children and community values.

Again Tass, the adults are trying to have a conversation - please go back the the kiddie table.

[Tassman]

Subjective does not necessarily exclude inherent. If God created us for a purpose and endowed us with meaning then those qualities are inherent to human beings.

You haven’t addressed why only some sentient creatures have “inherent purpose” and not others and how you know this. Nor have you explained why the lack of inherent meaning equates to "meaningless" in day-to-day life.