What's the meaning of life?

[Claudius]

C Elegans,

Yes I think it is a question you ask yourself. But you can ask other people to help you. Some wise (and helpful) people out there. Each answer is different but the question is the same: what is meaningful? So there is no need to limit your search to just your own thoughts.

I do think that the search to meaning can also take someone out of their comfort zone. What if what they REALLY find meaningful in their heart of hearts is not the same thing as their habits and ego which they are defending. For each person the negativity can manifest different. For example one person might fear that their search for self will fail. A scary thought. Another person might simply have a desire to stay where they are in life: (from a course I am taking) "I think we mostly under-estimate the comfort of familiarity and the power of habit. When you stop to think about it, we have been learning how the world is, and how to deal with it in our own particular civilization and time, ever since we were babies. And much of what we have learnt has become so internalized (or, you could say, so much a matter of conditioning) that we are no longer aware why we think like that - it just seems to be the way the world is. It is extremely hard to even imagine thinking in a radically different way. Even if we are unhappy, a world we know may seem less frightening than the prospect of a happiness which involves going beyond everything we know or can understand. So, we long for that wonderful possibility and feel inspired, and then the fear cuts in, and we want to settle for the small familiar comforts. If we are happy, of course, this world probably doesn't seem too bad at all. And, for most of us, sad or happy, we have to be involved in the world in our everyday lives, and it and it's ties and pleasures have a strong pull; and they draw us back into our familiar way of thinking."

Another fear people have is the fear they will lose themselves. T S Elliot's 'Four Quartets' which evokes this very well:

"In order to be what you are not, you must become what you know not.
In order to arrive where you are not, you must go by the way in which you are not"

Do you see what I am saying?

In any case negativity is not unknown in spiritual work with oneself that such a 'non-surface' question as what is meaningful entails. It has been observed time and time again and fortunately we can make friends with it because its not going to go away!

[Lady Dragonfly]

Does life have a meaning?
I assume this existential question implies a "life of an intelligent human being". Let's call them IHB.

The nihilistic part of IHB would answer NO. Life has neither meaning nor reason. Freud went as far as saying that the moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectivity neither has any existence.
The pragmatic part of IHB would answer YES (and no). Life has whatever meaning each IB chooses to assign to their own life. Life has no meaning otherwise.
The theistic/spiritual part of IHB would answer YES. God(s) has His Plan. The particulars are dependent upon the Deity's nature.

None of these assumptions can be proved. But everyone is welcome to try.

[dragon wench]

Claudius,
I am often inclined toward the metaphysical, and I have a very spiritual side to me.
But, the issue I have with your post is that it is filled with some extremely ambiguous, difficult to define phrases. I recognise that in the quest for spiritual meaning it can be difficult to be concrete or precise, but what do you mean exactly when you say "search for self?"
This is often an overused phrase and different people define it differently.

As CE states in response to your initial post, these questions are highly subjective. I'm not certain I'd go so far as to say they are so subjective that they are meaningless.. But, I do think they are extremely difficult to pin down, which makes discussing the entire subject within a highly divergent group an elusive one, at best.

I mean honestly... "The Meaning of Life."
That is so incredibly broad and encompassing, any potential answers are instantly swept up in a tidal wash of additional possibilities.
To one person the meaning of life might be: we are born, we eat, we excrete, we procreate (or at least practice the act thereof as frequently as possible), and then we die. No big mystery, mundane, basic existence.
Another person might view the meaning of life as spending their entire time on the planet serving others..somebody else might find the meaning of life to consist of a relationship with some sort of higher power (however they define such)...
Yet others may consider navel gazing of this nature to be utterly meaningless.

Do you see the problem Claudius? The question is so vast that, as such, it really has no answers.

That is why I initially responded with Monty Python.. at a certain level, the question has a sense of absurdity to it.

[Tricky]

Please don't quote Monthy Python without the quote itself being steeped in satire. Honor them accordingly.

Thank you.

[Smiley:)]

What is the meaning of life?

Doesn't that depend upon the individual?

My meaning of life is making video games, being here and making my self look like an idiot in front of very large crowds (no seriously).

[Claudius]

DW,

Self as I use it refers to seeking insight into your own nature. In other words it would be the question we are asking rephrased: 'What am I'? which is very similar to 'What is meaningful (to me)'? I agree that this word is used differently in many context, but that doesn't preclude us from communicating so long as we are honest and ask questions of eachother when something seems vague. Glad you asked.

to say that the question is subjective does not mean that it is meaningless. I don't find the subjective meaningless. In fact I would say that there is nothing other than the subjective! For example if an objective world exists how does it get into your mind? Where is the boundary? Where is the center?

Personally I think that you are recognizing that such a question is beyond concepts (intuitively) and I suspect that that is what you mean by the question having no meaning. Which is to say it is not something that we can figure out with our intellect but the meaning of our experience is experiential.

I find that the question asks you to examine your direct experience in the here and now.

Which leads me to respond to Lady Dragonfly's possibilities which are nihilism, eternalism, and pragmatism.

I would propose the fourth possibility: that the meaning of awareness is beyond concepts. In other words taking a stance on non-existence of self or the existence of it mires you in a quagmire which will only vex you. Or is to say that I rigid view on the nature of reality breeds paradox and confusion because by nature awareness is ungraspable*: Mind is that which takes objects in the processes of its consciousness but mind itself cannot be found itself. Seemingly the eye cannot observe itself.

* for example each moment of consciousness can be divided into smaller and smaller moments consciousness. If it has no duration it's not a moment but if it has duration it can always be divided into infinite moments, there is no limit to how much it can be divided. If there is no final single moment how can my experience be made up of a series of single moment?

Alternatively I wonder if you are just saying to the question of the meaning of life: so what? I found this somewhat related from my teacher talking about impermanence...it is not directly the same topic but it is a case of bringing an esoteric question home to direct experience and logically thinking about what it means in your life. Personally, I am still thinking about the meaning of life so I will get back to you when I know more about that...but again my advice is to examine your own experience and be honest. Ok here's the bit about impermanence and what it means (actually relates quite well to ungraspable as mentioned above)...

Even thinking about impermanence is impermanent! But it’s not enough just to notice impermanence - if we do this then we can get a strong 'so-what' reaction and then it’s very hard to keep focused on the topic. What needs to happen is that there is some growing sense of significance about impermanence.

So we have to do two things at once. We have to think about what is the significance of everything being impermanent and we have to notice the impermanence of everything we are trying to hold on to and control, everything that we think is oppressing us or trapping us - and then realise we can relax and just let it all go because it’s impermanent.

That is the effect of having reflected on the significance of impermanence. Otherwise you might think, 'Oh everything is impermanent, life is meaningless, I think I will kill myself!' That is no good.

The reflection needs to go more like, 'Everything is impermanent, so there is no point in making a big deal out of things that are not going to last anyway, so I could just relax and be happy.’

[C Elegans]

Claudius and DW,

When I say I think the question "What is the meaning of life" is a meaningless question, I don't mean that I find it meaningsless for the individual to pursuit his/her own subjective meaning. On the contrary, subjective meaning is what makes our lives worth living, subjectively, to ourselves, and since I'm atheist I don't believe in any other meaning than that.

What I mean is meaningless, is to ask the general question "What's the meaning of life" and even more to ask what is the "real" meaning of life. How can there be a general meaning to life, that is valid for everybody, when meaning of life is so highly subjective? The only meaning that is true for us all is in a meaningless, biological way - live and reproduce, and that holds no greater meaning either.

Of course it can be fun and interesting to discuss the topic with others, but I question what can be learned, since every person will feel that they learn from other "wiser" people only if these "wiser" people hold values that are in line with their own.

I think you make the issue over-complicated, Claudius. Learning your authentic will and drives, does not need to be neither complicated, nor difficult and painful. It varies a lot between individuals, and we must also keep in mind that not everybody has a need to search for goals that are difficult to achieve.

I understand what you mean, Claudius, I used to think that way too when I was younger. But as the years have passed, I have learned that the human nature have quite simple needs, although it varies a lot exactly how we want to fulfil them. Many people are happy with everyday lives revolving around routine and material things, and they wouldn't be happier if they lived in another way. For you, the meaning of life may involve what you perceive as a search for inner peace and spiritual connection. For me, the meaning of my life is to be happy and use as much as I can of myself to decrease global suffering. For another person, the meaning of life may be to have a job and raise a family. For yet another person, the meaning of life may be sheer survival, to find food and shelter. So what I am trying to say, is simply that not everyone has the same needs, so I think the idea that there is a general meaning to life and the conception that this meaning can be found in this-and-that way, is quite pompous.

[Claudius]

Yes I understand what you are saying better now, C Elegans. How I would understand what you have said is that each person, what they find meaningful, is just thought content. One thought now. One thought years later. One thought for you. One thought for me.

But I don't think someone is necessarily being pompous by supposing that there IS a meaning and looking for it. They could be quite sincere. That being said I wouldn't like it if they ridiculed me for not living up to their idea of what was meaningful and I admit that it is possible that I would think they were pompous.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

Very well said. I completely agree that the question is essentially flawed and meaningless...

Originally Posted by C Elegans

It's a bad question because it is like asking somebody else "Who am I and what do I want?". It's a meaningless question because the answer is totally individual and subjective, you have to find your own answer so why bother to ask?

I don't mean to disagree with anything you said, but you have stated a different reason than my own for believing that the question is meaningless. I did not mean to imply that the answer is too subjective to have meaning for everyone; what I meant is that no one knows exactly what the question means, and that is what essentially renders it "meaningless". If we were to ask "better" questions, then I do believe that we might be able to glean a few universal truths out of the mess of our fuzzy, sloppy thinking. However, I don't know if the answers would be particularly profound or inspirational.

For example, I believe that time is a dimension much like the spatial dimensions, and I believe that the subjective present that we experience internally from one moment to the next is not absolute. I believe that the universe is structured in a way that all moments on the timeline exist as a whole. Our lives are embedded in the fabric of time, so to speak. Since each of us is part of the universe, we exist because the universe exists. The universe exists because...well, it's the universe. It's really pretty banal when you get down to it.

The subjective meaning of our lives is of course individualized, by definition. It is a product of our will, our desires, and our own individual beliefs, among other things. But this in itself points to an answer that has general applicability: e.g., the "meaning of our lives" is closely connected to the things that are important to each of us and the investments that we make in such things. Again, that's pretty banal stuff.

Originally Posted by C Elegans

What do you mean by saying it is not a "confort zone" question for some people? Apart from patients with depression and similar, I have never in my life met anyone who found it unconfortable to discuss the subjetive meaning with their own life.

On the contrary, I think that searching for truth can lead to very uncomfortable sensations, mainly because most of us want a measure of certainty, but certainty is not easy to come by. There are too many things that simply cannot be known or proven. I'm not depressed, but I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by all of the things I cannot understand. We end up relying on blind faith because it "feels right", and we find our comfort in that. But sometimes when a person realizes that logical proof is out of reach, it causes discomfort. I don't think there's anything unhealthy or unusual about that.

Originally Posted by C Elegans

what I am trying to say, is simply that not everyone has the same needs, so I think the idea that there is a general meaning to life and the conception that this meaning can be found in this-and-that way, is quite pompous.

I don't see how the word "pompous" applies in this context. To me, "pompous" means "vainly preoccupied with displays". Do you suppose a better word might be "pretentious", i.e., "vainly assuming that one has or deserves a position of importance"? That's the word I would use. It's not very important; I just think there's a difference between "pomp" and "pretention".

[Lady Dragonfly]

We can't equate the fulfillment of basic needs with the painful soul-searching or spiritual needs, nor can we assume that needs are mostly simple or should be simple. The vast majority of world population is religious – 86%. I suppose they are entitled to their own perceptions.

Let's discuss the popular thesis "We can assign a meaning to our life, according to our values".

Can we do that? Can we assign a meaning to something beyond our control? Birth, death, life full of random, unpredictable events and suffering -- we can't truly control all that or opt out of any of that -- therefore, we can't really assign any meaning to it. Yes, we can make some choices but we often fail due to various circumstances we have no control over. Humongous welfare systems function to “help” the millions of “less fortunate”. What is the meaning of their life?

We can also propose that the meaning/purpose of life = pursuit of happiness (whatever makes us happy - doing trivial things or making a positive difference for the community). But then, would that make an unhappy person's life meaningless? Would that make the life of a person unable to make a difference meaningless? And what if one is happy and content only by molesting little children? Now we are facing the ethical aspect of the eternal question, and it leads us right into the trap of The Universal Moral Order. Thank you very much.

Here is another good one: the meaning/purpose of life = pursuit of Truth. What can I say? The Absolute Truth is warm beer tastes awful.

Simply put, the whole thesis does not hold water. And it hardly makes sense to firmly believe that life has no meaning and at the same time encourage somebody else to go ahead and assign a "meaning" to their life by making “right” choices, performing “noble” deeds and whatnot.

@VonDondu

I agree.

[Mason]

Well I don't have a long answer so I shall say this instead! Happy deleted - Maharlika (Easter)

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

I don't mean to disagree with anything you said, but you have stated a different reason than my own for believing that the question is meaningless.
{SNIP}
The subjective meaning of our lives is of course individualized, by definition. It is a product of our will, our desires, and our own individual beliefs, among other things. But this in itself points to an answer that has general applicability: e.g., the "meaning of our lives" is closely connected to the things that are important to each of us and the investments that we make in such things. Again, that's pretty banal stuff.

Yes, and it was meant to be a different reason. I agree with what you wrote above about the nature of the question, and in addition I also think the question is meaningless due to the variation in answers. It is not the subjectivity but the variability that makes me think the question is meaningless in this respect. Some subjective perceptions can be very general for human beings, whereas others may be highly variable and "the meaning of life" is something that is highly variable between individuals.

Since I do not believe in any transcendent things, I view the perceived meaning of life as an illusion which is a product of our evolutionary needs. Ie some people perceive love, partnership and family formation as the meaning of life, which I would view as a "culturalised", socialised expression of the evolutionary biological drive to reproduce. Others may view insight and connection with godly and spiritual things as the meaning of life, whereas I would view this as a by-product of the higher cortical functions in our brains, and some certain survival systems.

On the contrary, I think that searching for truth can lead to very uncomfortable sensations, mainly because most of us want a measure of certainty, but certainty is not easy to come by. There are too many things that simply cannot be known or proven. I'm not depressed, but I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by all of the things I cannot understand. We end up relying on blind faith because it "feels right", and we find our comfort in that. But sometimes when a person realizes that logical proof is out of reach, it causes discomfort. I don't think there's anything unhealthy or unusual about that.

Certainty outside of the particular moment, is an illusion for all of us, and I do think most adult people realise that. I often find myself overwhelmed by things I cannot understand, but that is human nature, we simply have to live with that and accept that our lives are tiny points of existence is a floating time-space we do not fully understand. Not to mention how little we understand about ourselves, in a biological sense.
I do not at all think it's unhealthy to feel discomfort the first time you realise how unknown and uncertain most things are for us humans, but I actually do find it unusal that people are uncomfortable with this for any lenght of time. Maybe I just have a skew selection? My experience is that people, especially younger people, talk about and search for the meaning of their life to such an extent so one gets fed up with it. Finding you inner self through mediation, retreats, mindfulness or whatever has been a fashion for years, and it is still very popular where I live.

I don't see how the word "pompous" applies in this context. To me, "pompous" means "vainly preoccupied with displays". Do you suppose a better word might be "pretentious", i.e., "vainly assuming that one has or deserves a position of importance"? That's the word I would use. It's not very important; I just think there's a difference between "pomp" and "pretention".

I wasn't sure it was the right word when I wrote it, but now when I see your definition, I think it was the right word to describe what I meant. In general, I find that people who talk a lot about what is the meaning of life and tell others how to find it, often do this as a vain display of how wise, deep, insightful they are themselves.

[VonDondu]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

I do not at all think it's unhealthy to feel discomfort the first time you realise how unknown and uncertain most things are for us humans, but I actually do find it unusal that people are uncomfortable with this for any lenght of time. Maybe I just have a skew selection?

Just guessing, I would say yes, especially if there is a large proportion of atheist intellectuals in your sample. Every time I return to an uncomfortable issue, I'm almost as uncomfortable about it as I was before (unless I choose to put it out of my mind, which is a viable choice but which defeats the original purpose in contemplating those issues).

More to the point, I don't think Claudius was talking about "sustained" discomfort when people contemplate the "meaning of life". (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's how I see it, anyway.) I think he simply meant that people sometimes "leave their comfort zone" while they're actively thinking about such issues; I don't think he meant that it creates permanent discomfort.

Originally Posted by C Elegans

My experience is that people, especially younger people, talk about and search for the meaning of their life to such an extent so one gets fed up with it. Finding you inner self through mediation, retreats, mindfulness or whatever has been a fashion for years, and it is still very popular where I live.

Some people also enjoy saying, "It doesn't matter, and I'm not concerned about it," which is somewhat pretentious in its own right. ("I'm too important to be concerned about such things.")

Originally Posted by C Elegans

I wasn't sure it was the right word when I wrote it, but now when I see your definition, I think it was the right word to describe what I meant. In general, I find that people who talk a lot about what is the meaning of life and tell others how to find it, often do this as a vain display of how wise, deep, insightful they are themselves.

In that case, I would use the word "ostentatious" (as an adjective referring to a person, not an object): "fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display".

[Claudius]

I really accept a notion of meaning and I don't do this to sound better than anyone else it is just the way I see things. Consider:

"I think if other people went on, to whatever they next experience, in whatever form they are, but still as that recognisably individual person I love, then I wouldn't feel sadness and loss to the same degree.

They are on their path, I on mine, and I had the fortune and privilege to know them, to be associated with them at some stage. I can pray for them on their path, I can wish them well.

If virtually all of them ceases at the point of death, their personality, the quirks that make up them as a person and only some essence that was there at the core of them, that doesn't have any personal flavour, as it were, is what carries on after death, then most of what I loved and have known is lost and stops at death.

That is then loss and ending of the person I loved. It doesn't really make much impact on my feeling to know that some impersonal core of them might continue. If the person inside, experiencing life as it is now, if that continues, then I feel it isn't the end. I cannot see them, but they are not gone, their chance is not over, my hope for them can be there.

So, I still have a question. Is it clearer? Am I asking a question that just shows a lack of understanding and cannot be answered?"

Lama Shenpen:

No your question doesn’t show a lack of understanding – it’s a good question.

You can start looking for the answer yourself right now in this life. Look at the person or people you love and really link into the love you have for them.

Then ask yourself is it their body you love? Their body as it is now, as it will be? How about if they lost their face, or their limbs - would you still love them? If they became paralyzed and/or couldn’t talk - would you still love them?

What would that feel like? What would be the them that you loved?

If they became disorientated with Alzheimer’s or dementia, are they still the same person - do you still love them? What is the core and/or essence of that love? What is the most important thing of all about your connection to them?

It isn’t really any one thing is it? It’s an intuitive sense that their being is real and matters - their being has meaning and gives the rest of us meaning. We may hate the circumstances we find ourselves in yet that person is still a person and we know that. If we try to turn our backs as if we didn’t care we feel diminished ourselves.

Look at it this way. The person you think is there this moment is gone the next and yet their story continues and has meaning.

Their essence is at the heart of their story - much of that story you don’t know and will never know and yet while they share this world with us our lives are mysteriously intertwined - we are integral to their world and we to theirs. This is inescapable.

The love we put into that connection is not something that can be grasped - it isn’t anywhere, it is not in time. Love is a choice we make to be truly human and when we choose to be truly human we find we are inseparable from all other humans - quirks and all.

Apart from their quirks they are their Awakened Buddha Nature* in which there is no real past present and future - that is such an astonishing and wonderful thing to realise.

The quirks are all still there - but what is shining through them is what is of lasting value. It’s not an impersonal essence - its a living essence that we can communicate with in a genuine way on all sorts of levels.

I find that really inspiring. How about you?

*The nature of a sentient being when awake

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by VonDondu

Just guessing, I would say yes, especially if there is a large proportion of atheist intellectuals in your sample. Every time I return to an uncomfortable issue, I'm almost as uncomfortable about it as I was before (unless I choose to put it out of my mind, which is a viable choice but which defeats the original purpose in contemplating those issues).

There is a very large proportion of atheist intellectuals, and a few religious (christian, muslim, buddist, ie organised religion) intellectuals in my sample. I don't really know any other people in the western culture. (Other cultures I exclude from this discussion due to language barriers and survival situations where the individuals find this question is irrelevant).

I am trained to develop uncomfortable issues in a way as to make myself accept it. Some things you can influence, they are not difficult to accept. Difficult things that you cannot influence, are more difficult to accept but you just do it because you really have no other choice and everything else is a waste of energy.

More to the point, I don't think Claudius was talking about "sustained" discomfort when people contemplate the "meaning of life". (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's how I see it, anyway.) I think he simply meant that people sometimes "leave their comfort zone" while they're actively thinking about such issues; I don't think he meant that it creates permanent discomfort.

I got the impression that Claudius meant uncomfortable in an avoiding way, which implicates lasting discomfort. Not necessarily active discomfort, but discomfort in such a way so that people choose to avoid, which reinforces discomfort for any aversive stimuli. I am not sure what the expression "leave the comfort zone" means since I have never heard it before, but my interpretion was that he meant people are trying to avoid "what is really meaningful" because they have a need to "defend their habits and ego" and stay in their "habits". This I think, is not true.

Some people also enjoy saying, "It doesn't matter, and I'm not concerned about it," which is somewhat pretentious in its own right. ("I'm too important to be concerned about such things.")

I think any subjective statement can be viewed as pretentious when it is meant to be generalised to other people. In general, I find people who spread obviously subjective things such as religious beliefs or ideologies around them as if they were true for all people, are both pretentious and stupid. Stating "the earth revolves around a star we call the sun" is quite a different thing from stating "the meaning of life is this and you should do this and that to achieve it".

In that case, I would use the word "ostentatious" (as an adjective referring to a person, not an object): "fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display".

I never heard that word before, so thanks