Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Edwardo Piet]

No, imaginary meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all.

So imagination doesn't exist? We are incapable of imagining things? If we imagine something that is identical to us not imagining it? Bullshit. When we imagine something that can effect our life. Imagined meaning is precisely that: Imagined meaning. It doesn't equate to non-existent meaning any more than the actual act of imagining doesn't actually occur (when it clearly does!!).

That which exists in the imagination and in dreams is real on a different level than you or I are real.

Correct. It's REAL. It's real on a different level, but it's REAL. So NO imaginary meaning is NOT equivalent to no meaning.

You are falling into the equivocation fallacy because you are equivocating the definition of 'real' to mean 'the opposite of imaginary' with the definition of 'real' to mean 'existent' which are two different definitions of 'real'. Imagination exists so in that sense imagination is real. But there is also the definition of real to mean the opposite of imaginary, they are two different definitions of real, do not equate them because that is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

To bring dreams, imagination, meaning to this world which we live in requires that we reach for that other level and try to connect with it in some way.

If we feel illusory meaning just as strong as if the meaning was real who cares?

If the truth is that these things do not exist on some level separate from ourselves, then we cannot bring them to fruition on any level.

How so?

What utter nonsense. If person A believes that thing X is important to do he will feel that regardless of whether his belief is correct or not.

If you believe you've won the lottery that will effect you regardless of whether you have actually won it or not! How the fuck do you think people can have good or bad dreams? Of COURSE illusory things can be meaningful for fucks sake. It's just illusory meaning and not so-called 'real' meaning.

If we are living in the matrix and none of this is the real world it makes no fucking difference to how real it FEELS to us so what the fuck is your fucking point? ROFL.

Therefore, the meaning is an invalid; it does not exist.

Sorry but your conclusion fails because you completely lacked an argument. Illusory meaning still feels meaningful, you are yet to prove that any objective meaning exists, and you are yet to prove that objective meaning has any more effect on us whatsoever than us merely believing in or feeling meaning regardless of whether it actually objectively exists or not! As I have said... who gives a fuck if the meaning is not real in the sense of being non-imaginary? The imagination is wonderful and we do actually engage in the act of imagining things, imagination is in that sense actually real. To say that it isn't real in the sense of existent just because 'real' is in a different definition considered the opposite of 'imaginary' is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

Basically, meaning must be objective for it to actually be meaning. Otherwise we are left with a void concept.

Subjective meaning is still meaning it's just subjective meaning. It's meaning that is experienced by the subject and does not exist independent to the subject. How the fuck does no meaning being able to existent independent of imaginary meaning equate to 'no meaning'? Only TRUE meaning is independent from the imagination is that what you are saying? If so, who gives a fuck about so-called 'true meaning' and where exactly in the dictionary does it say that meaning=meaning not merely experienced subjectively by the imagination of the subject?

As I have stated above, imaginary meaning or a 'feeling' of meaningfulness without actual objective meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all.

Imaginary meaning is imaginary meaning. So it's blatantly still meaning. Meaning that is imaginary is still meaning it's just imaginary meaning. For it to not be meaning at all it would have to be neither imaginary nor non-imaginary, it would have to be completely non-existent.

As I have said, you appear to be equivocating the one definition of real to mean 'not imaginary' with another definition of real to mean 'existent' when they are two different definitions. That is the equivocation fallacy.

By that logic no one ever actually dreams anything because dreaming is imaginary!

Meaning, by its nature, is something that exists both within and without a person. Subjective and objective.

No. Subjective meaning is meaning that is subjective. Objective meaning is meaning that is objective. And meaning that is both subjective and objective is meaning that is both subjective and objective. Why on earth can't meaning merely be experienced by the subject? What if everything is subject dependent and minds create our world? What if objectivity independent from subjectivity doesn't exist? ( And if you still call that a form of objectivity because subjectivity objectively exists then fine, everything is objective but then that kind of takes the meaning out of the word 'objective').

[...]but my position is that it depends on how you subjectively react to that belief. A belief in an objective meaning would push someone to fulfill that meaning...whereas a belief in a purely subjective meaning, if not followed to its logical conclusion of 'meaning does not truly exist', would not be a 'rational' goal to work towards or believe in/follow.

Irrelevant. As I said, we are discussing whether objective meaning actually exists. What you said above is true regardless of if the person rightly or wrongly believes in objective meaning. Belief in objective meaning can inspire a person even if objective meaning doesn't actually exist.

Belief in objective meaning is obviously different to whether it actually exists. If I believe in a pink unicorn that doesn't mean that it exists.

And there's no reason to believe in something or follow something if it doesn't exist, amirite?

Well who cares? Belief in objective meaning doesn't make it exist. Imaginary meaning itself can be meaningful in the same way that many other imaginary things can be meaningful.

I see what you're saying here, but if the objective meaning itself is not real, then from what source does his meaning come?

The placebo effect exists. Imagination exists. Fantasizing exists. Being inspired exists. Encouragement exists. Passion exists. Romance exists. Imaginary meaning is imaginary meaning. It is built into us regardless of whether we actually believe in objective meaning.

Sure, I will concede that maybe life can feel a whole lot more fucking meaningful to those of us who actually believe in objective meaning. Maybe. But that is completely different to whether it actually exists. Belief in objective meaning inspires people regardless of whether they are deluding themselves or not.

I will draw the analogy again: If you believe you've won the lottery that will effect you regardless of if you've actually won it or not.

As I've stated above, imaginary or purely subjective meaning = no meaning at all.

Yeah you stated it, but you gave no argument and, to me, you also appear to be equivocating 'real' as in 'existent' with real as in 'non-imaginary'.

We're discussing objective meaning here. Whether or not it actually exists, and if not, how anything can have any sort of meaning at all.

Well I thought we were but you keep bringing up belief in objective meaning and how that inspires people and you seem to forget that that is the case regardless of if objective meaning actually exists or not.

So let me ask you this, DvF. Do you believe you have any meaning at all?

I have imaginary and imagined meaning, encouragement, inspiration, passion, creativity, lust, enthusiasm, a love of beauty, logic, music, philosophy, etc. All that feels meaningful and I don't give a flying fuck if any of this meaning is objective or not (independent of my imagination) because it's completely irrelevant to how it feels.

Chill out, dude, it's just a conversation on the internet.

I am chilled. I'm feigning annoyance for a laugh.

Anyway, as you can see above, I've essentially answered this already. We are discussing objective meaning and whether it exists or not.

And you keep bringing up the completely irrelevant point that BELIEF in objective meaning can inspire people. So which is it, are we talking about objective meaning or belief in objective meaning?

To say that something is subjectively funny is to say the same thing as something is not funny at all.

What utter nonsense. Subjectively funny is subjectively funny. You're acting as if subjectivity doesn't exist.

You're completely denying the placebo effect. If a fuckload of people find something funny that is not objectively 'funny' how is it not funny at all when it's blatantly subjectively funny to them all? Subjectively funny is subjectively funny. That's a sub-category of 'funny' in case you didn't realize.