Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Watson]

That's irrelevant to the fact that imaginary meaning is still meaning.

No, imaginary meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. That which exists in the imagination and in dreams is real on a different level than you or I are real. 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 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. Therefore, the meaning is an invalid; it does not exist.

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

How exactly does it add meaning to one's life if it is meaningless by nature?

If it feels meaningful despite the fact there is no objective meaning... who gives a shit?

You can't change the rules up like that. Either the fact that it 'feels' meaningful and is comforting in that way is not a valid argument, or it is. As I have stated above, imaginary meaning or a 'feeling' of meaningfulness without actual objective meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. Just like you would argue that my feelings of God's existence hold no weight without an actual God who exists separate of those feelings.

Meaning, by its nature, is something that exists both within and without a person. Subjective and objective. The person meant to do something, and the something which they are meant to do.

It certainly can be. It's all subjective. It depends how you react to that belief.

I agree, 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.

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

And, in fact, to think of oneself as overly meaningful or too important, I would argue, is more likely to be harmful.

Agreed. No qualms from me here.

Our own sense of meaning defines who we are, and affects how we impact the world. Imagine that someone, somewhere out there is meant to make a huge difference in the world by doing something incredible.

If he believes he is meant to that will effect his behaviour whether there's really any objective meaning or not. Hence why objective meaning is........... COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!!!

I see what you're saying here, but if the objective meaning itself is not real, then from what source does his meaning come? Is it just a fallacy, an invalid idea that exists solely within him as a subjective entity? Then to what end should he follow it, and why?

I'm perfectly willing to accept you BELIEVE in objective meaning and that that belief can influence your life......... but that's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to actually having objective meaning. Merely believing can just be a placebo. Which is my entire point about subjective meaning being able to be meaningful - it works like a placebo.

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

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

FOR FUCKS SAKE. I'll just draw the analogy with humour again: Something is funny merely because you believe it is. It's merely the placebo effect. Is that meaningless? Well objectively it is but who gives a shit? It may be meaningless but it's not useless.... humour can be used to bring a lot of pleasure to our lives.

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

Anyway, as you can see above, I've essentially answered this already. We are discussing objective meaning and whether it exists or not. To say that something is subjectively funny is to say the same thing as something is not funny at all. Our subjective feelings on it hold no value here, as they do not impact whether or not something is funny. Only if it is objectively funny, and we subjectively recognize it as such, do our feelings on the matter hold any weight.

And as you, and many other atheists have stated in the past, there is no reason to find something 'funny' where there is truly nothing 'funny' at all.

[Ace Otana]

How are ya Watson?

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

Oh I love these questions.

To me, there is no purpose or meaning. We are without purpose. We don't matter. We are nothing but tiny meaningless biological specks that was never 'meant' to come into existence. We never mattered.
We are also ignorant and arrogant to assume that we are important or have some kind of special purpose.
We seem to forget just how small we really are.
Ants are specks to us, we are specks to this planet, this planet is a speck to the solar system, the solar system is a speck to the galaxy, the galaxy is a speck to the universe. We are fucking small and very much without a purpose.
So the answer to the question -

Do you believe you have any meaning at all?

Nope.

[Watson]

How are ya Watson?

I'm alright, Ace. Doing a lot better than I was a few months ago, but I generally can't complain. Good to see ya again, my friend.

Do you believe you have any meaning at all?

Nope.

I find that to not only be a very depressing answer, but a very telling one, as well.

[Ace Otana]

I'm alright, Ace. Doing a lot better than I was a few months ago, but I generally can't complain. Good to see ya again, my friend.

It's good to hear that. I had only one down but have had many ups over the past few months. All is well.

I find that to not only be a very depressing answer, but a very telling one, as well.

You find that depressing? I don't. I'm ok with it. Something someone said kinda made me feel kinda special in a whole different way than simply having a purpose.
We are made up of star matter, and as he put it which I liked "we are the cosmos looking at itself and trying to understand itself". We are the cosmos looking at itself. Though without a meaning or purpose, we exist only because of random chance events. Nothing more than a coincidence. This doesn't make me look badly on everything but looking at everything in a positive way.

---

I guess for theists it can be seen as depressive. Especially if you see reality without a god, without an afterlife and without purpose. Like when we die, we cease to exist. We will never come back. To go back into oblivion and to never return. Never to see loved ones. Nothing. Thing is, religion is filled with lovely thoughts like never dying, will see lost loved ones again and all the bad guys get what's coming to'em. But it really is all fairytale.
I guess when after looking at everything in such a positive way that any view that is without such ideals would seem depressive.
Animals always seem to die such horrible deaths. Most of the time they die by being ripped apart. Some animals are eaten alive and have to bare unimaginable pain. That is reality. Same as we, when we die. When our time is up, we are so fucked, we go back into oblivion but this time permanently. When someone dies, they're gone for good. You'll never see or hear from them again.
Religion offers a blanket to make things seem nicer, but it doesn't change reality. Just because we can think and understand doesn't mean we get to live forever. It doesn't mean we have any purpose or meaning.

[theVOID]

That's irrelevant to the fact that imaginary meaning is still meaning.

No, imaginary meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. That which exists in the imagination and in dreams is real on a different level than you or I are real. 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 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. Therefore, the meaning is an invalid; it does not exist.

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

Right, just like your cosmic meaning, it doesn't exist.

However, this imaginary meaning can still be normative, make you act and think differently, it will change your subjective meaning and your values - In that sense it's just as real as a subjective purpose influenced by true beliefs, the only difference is in the justification for the beliefs that shape the subjective purpose.

Your point that if meaning is not objective it does not exist is complete and utter bullshit - The experience of subjective meaning and objective meaning (if it exists at all) are indistinguishable from each other, we have absolutely no mechanism or method by which we can make the distinction. Thus, even if your are experiencing objective meaning (which you aren't) the experience of such would be no more distinguished and apparent than someone's subjective values and meaning.

You can't change the rules up like that. Either the fact that it 'feels' meaningful and is comforting in that way is not a valid argument, or it is. As I have stated above, imaginary meaning or a 'feeling' of meaningfulness without actual objective meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. Just like you would argue that my feelings of God's existence hold no weight without an actual God who exists separate of those feelings.

You've only asserted it. Guitar has meaning to me and it's meaning in exactly the same way anyone else experiences it. Is there an objective fact about the world that drives me to play guitar? Of course not.

And we wouldn't argue that your experience of god holds no weight, it might not hold any value epistemically but in terms of pragmatism or normativity it is likely just as legitimate as any other experience. The cosmic meaning you think you receive from God does not exist, but the meaning you take from the concept does in a personal sense - If you convince yourself that God has tasked you to be a missionary or clergy you wouldn't have meaning in an objective sense because God does not exist, but the meaning you take from your beliefs exists all the same.

Meaning, by its nature, is something that exists both within and without a person. Subjective and objective. The person meant to do something, and the something which they are meant to do.

Have you any argument or evidence for the existence of objective meaning? At this point your just spurting out bare assertions left, right and centre.

I agree, 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.

More bare assertions.

What argument or evidence do you have for subjective meaning having no normativity? My subjective values drive me to do all kinds of things, my subjective desires supply every single reason for action that I have.

Also, how do you propose objective meaning reaching through the cosmos and giving us reason for action? Where is the normativity in non-contingent facts?

And you really have to stop making your dumb-as-shit dichotomy between objective meaning and no meaning, it's complete bullshit - Subjective meaning exists no matter how much of a winge and moan you'd like to have about it.

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

Again, bullshit.

To hold a belief is to act as if the proposition in question is true, to act on that belief requires some desire. If I believe that there is a fire-breathing dragon on the roof who burns passers-by I have a belief that informs my actions, and I have a set of desires, namely the desire not to be burned, that drives me to not leave the house.

As far as my beliefs and desires are concerned I have reasons for action and this is in no way contingent upon the truth of my beliefs (the existence of the dragon).

Our own sense of meaning defines who we are, and affects how we impact the world. Imagine that someone, somewhere out there is meant to make a huge difference in the world by doing something incredible.

Imagine a frog with 16 legs and a massive vagina on it's forehead... Who gives a shit what we can imagine, what matters is what actually exists.

Also, what is really more admirable, that someone was cosmically determined to do action x that benefits population y or that person x came to their own conclusions about doing x to benefit y? Action for the good is all the more admirable without cosmic coaxing.

I see what you're saying here, but if the objective meaning itself is not real, then from what source does his meaning come? Is it just a fallacy, an invalid idea that exists solely within him as a subjective entity? Then to what end should he follow it, and why?

Fallacy? WHAT FALLACY?

His meaning comes from his beliefs and desires. His desires are the only reasons for action that exist, if he is going to do anything what-so-ever it will be because he desires to do so.

Answer me this, how do you propose that the objective facts about the universe regarding what we as sentient apes are supposed to do gets into our mind and influences our action? Do you even have a mechanism for this or is it just more of this *poof magic* bullshit?

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

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?

Seriously, you've done no more that assert that subjective meaning doesn't exist while ignoring all of the facts about our reasons for action - These reasons for action provide us with all of the meaning we could ever want or need.

And do you have an argument for the existence of Objective meaning? As in, can you demonstrate that there are facts about what we should do that are independent of our beliefs and desires?

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

You're taking straight past his responses without taking any of his examples on board, do you expect him not to get sick of repeating himself?

DvF has really made it obvious that 1) Subjective meaning does exist and 2) The experience of subjective meaning and objective meaning (if it exists) is indistinguishable from each other.

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

If that was the case then why have you spent so much time whining about subjective meaning?

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

NO - To say something is subjectively funny is to say that the thing in question entices a response in the person in question that we would describe as 'laughing' or some internal equivalent of it. To say that something isn't funny at all is to say that the thing in question failed to entice that response from anybody.

Our subjective feelings on it hold no value here, as they do not impact whether or not something is funny. Only if it is objectively funny, and we subjectively recognize it as such, do our feelings on the matter hold any weight.

Woah, what a newb - You need some philosophy of aesthetics, Pronto!

1. What is an example of something being objectively funny?
2. How did you determine that it was objectively funny?
3. How does the objective fact about the funniness of something impact our experience of it?
4. How does an objective fact about the funniness of something exist?
5. How is the experience of something that is objectively funny different to something that is subjectively funny?

[quote]
And as you, and many other atheists have stated in the past, there is no reason to find something 'funny' where there is truly nothing 'funny' at all.

DvF is a fairly standard subjectivist in regards to most experiential things, so this statement too is complete bullshit.

---

To me, there is no purpose or meaning. We are without purpose. We don't matter. We are nothing but tiny meaningless biological specks that was never 'meant' to come into existence. We never mattered.
We are also ignorant and arrogant to assume that we are important or have some kind of special purpose.
We seem to forget just how small we really are.
Ants are specks to us, we are specks to this planet, this planet is a speck to the solar system, the solar system is a speck to the galaxy, the galaxy is a speck to the universe. We are fucking small and very much without a purpose.

Your're making the same false dichotomy as Watson, that there is either only objective meaning or no meaning - You also seem to be using a rather narrow definition of the word "meaning" by restricting it to objective facts about what we ought to do - This isn't necessary or useful, we can still legitimately talk about what things mean to us or for what purpose we are acting without the need for any kind of cosmic mandate or relevance beyond our own experience.

Examples:
1. For what purpose do you use the Internet?
2. What does food mean to you?
3. What would you like to achieve and why?

All of these questions have real world relevance and no contingency upon cosmic mandate or how big we are relative to anything else. All you need for purpose is desires.

[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.

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you believe you have any meaning at all?

Nope.

I find that to not only be a very depressing answer, but a very telling one, as well.

It depends how you look at it. It's a matter of perspective. You say it's depressing but that's a matter of subjective feelings. And so, like how I have said already, belief in objective meaning will effect the believer in it whether he is rightly or wrongly believing in it (whether it actually exists or not).

[jason56]

Well there is no evidence for there not being a God.

I don't disbelieve in God based on evidence or lack of evidence, I disbelieve in God because it seems logical that we invented the idea.

The pattern of human evolution seems to suggest that our mind creates theories beneficial to our existence at the time.

but we now know humans can exist without God.

Game over.

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe that God is improbable (but not impossible) because the notion of him is distant from my experience. This makes me an agnostic atheist because I believe God to be improbable but not impossible. (A belief only has to be over 50% certainty and I am well over that but not 100%, hence why I am agnostic and not gnostic).

Positive belief that there is no God doesn't imply gnostic atheism if that positive belief is less than 100% certainty.

(If anyone wants to debate me on this still, take it to my relevant thread on the matter).

[KichigaiNeko]

Examples:
1. For what purpose do you use the Internet?
2. What does food mean to you?
3. What would you like to achieve and why?

All of these questions have real world relevance and no contingency upon cosmic mandate or how big we are relative to anything else. All you need for purpose is desires.

dqualk....your thread is meaningless!! As theVoid (an sooo many others) have pointed out to you.



Do TRY and keep up!!?