How [Un]Comfortable Are You...?

[sprinkles]

You seem to live by "can't"s, "won't"s, and "don't"s, so what you say is of little value to me (I mean no disrespect), it's rather closed-minded, it's what I previously mentioned.

I don't believe you actually know me well enough to say this.

 

[sprinkles]

You're wrong. It's all one and the same.

And I'm closed minded? You won't even hear out my side. You've shut me off right here at the gate.

Go look at yourself.

 

[00c]

And I'm closed minded? You won't even hear out my side. You've shut me off right here at the gate.

Go look at yourself.

You're the one talking in "can't"s, "won't"s, and "don't"s. I understand what you're saying, I hear you, but I don't ascribe to believing in not believing.

 

[sprinkles]

You're the one talking in "can't"s, "won't"s, and "don't"s. I understand what you're saying, but I don't ascribe to believing in not believing.

Show me where I did that please because I don't recall.

 

[Beorn]

I recommend Preface to Plato by Eric Havelock and The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist if you are interested in what happened to the enchanted world. The former proposes it was the alphabet and literacy which changed our thinking, the latter contributes it to a power shift within the human brain in which the left ~logical hemisphere (the emissary) gained undue power over the right ~holistic hemisphere (its master). I think you would like McGilchrist's book, not least because, taken just a bit too far, it also gives you ammunition against the scientific modern world you so deplore.

Maybe I will. But I still have to get through 900 pages of Charles Taylor's argument against the secular subtraction theory that intellectual and scientific progress inevitably leads to the demise of religion. Taylor recognizes that literacy was the means by which secularism took hold, but he doesn't think secularism necessarily had to follow from literacy.

 

[Nicodemus]

Maybe I will. But I still have to get through 900 pages of Charles Taylor's argument against the secular subtraction theory that intellectual and scientific progress inevitably leads to the demise of religion. Taylor recognizes that literacy was the means by which secularism took hold, but he doesn't think secularism necessarily had to follow from literacy.

A waste of time. 'Religion' is far too poorly defined (and definable) for that argument to hold much water.

 

[00c]

Show me where I did that please because I don't recall.

You're telling me that you can't make the equivocation of goals and life when they are in fact one and the same. You eat to survive, that is a goal. I must eat to live. I must go to work to make money and buy my necessities. These are goals and it works on a subconscious level and perhaps you're simply only speaking of what we consciously believe ourselves to do and say to ourselves which is actually very little of what is truly working underneath.

That's only true if you equate goals with life. Not everyone makes this equivocation.

Moreover you have no right to tell other people that they're unhappy. You can only say this about yourself.

I cannot tell other people that they are unhappy? I can. Why can't I? I have the right to anything if I will myself to, but yet you want to persuade me into not believing in that manner. People are not happy if they have nothing to look forward to, they feel a meaningless existence with nowhere to go to. Why wouldn't they? Is there aimless people who are truly happy? The "thrill-seekers" who think parties and drugs will make them happy most likely aren't because there is no actual goal once you have it in the present, there's nothing to work towards. Nothing they can propel themselves to anymore.

There is a VAST difference between saying that life has no inherent meaning, and believing that it needs to have one or otherwise you must stuff your face with 10,000 cakes in order to numb the pain.

You're not understanding, you're mischaracterizing, you're relying on your boxed in beliefs and YOU are wrong.

You're telling me I am not understanding. I am understanding. Yet the way we understand each other is different, of course, and you believe that I don't because I don't come up with something that you want to hear.

 

[Beorn]

A waste of time. 'Religion' is far too poorly defined (and definable) for that argument to hold much water.

Well, he's specifically looking at Christianity.

 

[sprinkles]

You're telling me that you can't make the equivocation of goals and life when they are in fact one and the same. You eat to survive, that is a goal. I must eat to live. I must go to work to make money and buy my necessities. These are goals and it works on a subconscious level and perhaps you're simply only speaking of what we consciously believe ourselves to do.

Yes and this is not inherent meaning, this is applied meaning.

Inherent would mean that you DON'T need goals and that life itself would be enough.

I cannot tell other people that they are unhappy? I can. Why can't I? I have the right to anything if I will myself to, but yet you want to persuade me into not believing in that manner. People are not happy if they have nothing to look forward to, they feel a meaningless existence with nowhere to go to. Why wouldn't they? Is there aimless people who are truly happy? The "thrill-seekers" who think parties and drugs will make them happy most likely aren't because there is no actual goal once you have it in the present, there's nothing to work towards.

I don't need to believe that life has inherent meaning in order to look forward to anything. The only difference between looking forward to something and having it now is distance and time. You have to stay alive for the interim if you want to move forward, this is true. This doesn't make the interim significant other than what is between A and B.

Being goal oriented actually hinders the argument for inherent meaning more than it helps.

You're telling me I am not understanding. I am understanding. Yet the way we understand each other is different, of course, and you believe that I don't because I come up with something that you want to hear.

You're clearly not understanding because you keep thinking I've said things that I'm not saying. What you're thinking I'm saying is so very much NOT what I'm trying to tell you.

 

[00c]

Yes and this is not inherent meaning, this is applied meaning.

Inherent would mean that you DON'T need goals and that life itself would be enough.




I don't need to believe that life has inherent meaning in order to look forward to anything. The only difference between looking forward to something and having it now is distance and time. You have to stay alive for the interim if you want to move forward, this is true. This doesn't make the interim significant other than what is between A and B.

Being goal oriented actually hinders the argument for inherent meaning more than it helps.



You're clearly not understanding because you keep thinking I've said things that I'm not saying. What you're thinking I'm saying is so very much NOT what I'm trying to tell you.

But you keep saying "not" when it is. You continue to speak in negatives. You believe it isn't, I believe it is. That's it.

 

[sprinkles]

But you keep saying not when it is.

No. The word means something for a reason. If you want to change English to suit you, go right ahead but I'm not on board with that.

 

[00c]

No. The word means something for a reason. If you want to change English to suit you, go right ahead but I'm not on board with that.

It's mostly a word for losers, nobodies, and people who can't make things work for them because of their closed-mindedness. I will and I'll have much more value in believing in believing than believing in not believing.
Have a good day, NO-body. Get it. Because you like negatives.

 

[Cygnus]

 

[Beorn]

Good for you.

 

[Passacaglia]

I find it to be a non-issue.

At this point, it is more of a relief than anything else.

Thank you both for your simple and straightforward answers.

I don't know what you mean by "inherent' really.

What sprinkles and Nicodemus said. Or to demonstrate by way of contrast, the idea of life having inherent meaning requires an outside agent to create some underlying meaning. This idea usually comes from religious beliefs, belief in spiritual forces, or even adherence to philosophies predicated upon the assumption that we humans exist for some particular purpose.

Whereas the idea that life lacks inherent meaning is the rejection of such universalities. This idea doesn't reject meaning entirely; even the great philosophers of nihilism and existentialism didn't just say "Life is meaningless," and leave it at that. The rejection of inherent meaning leaves one free -- or burdened, depending on your PoV -- to create one's own meaning and purpose in life.

 

[Cygnus]

Good for you.

Show me what you removed, it was probably funny.

 

[Beorn]

Show me what you removed, it was probably funny.

I put it in the reason. Just "lol." Sorry I did not have a clever and humorous jab there. However, I will keep in mind your preferences for the future.

 

[Coriolis]

People eat to feel better, people hurt themselves to feel better, people do things every single day in the manner of goals to feel better or more miserable about themselves, we live by goals, we survive by goals.

You're wrong. You seem to live by "can't"s, "won't"s, and "don't"s, so what you say is of little value to me (I mean no disrespect), it's rather closed-minded, it's what I previously mentioned.

Acting on immediate impulses of hunger, pain, or fear is not what most people would consider "goal-oriented". In fact, when we criticise someone, rightly or wrongly, for being not very goal-oriented, we tend to be speaking of someone who leads a rather hand-to-mouth existence, going through life simply reacting to whatever comes his or her way, rather than taking control of his or her life and setting actual goals. This lifestyle is not necessarily wrong, and if approached with reasonable expectations, might actually bring considerable pleasure to an individual. It just illustrates how goals and life are far from synonomous.

As for you "can'ts won'ts and don'ts", I suspect you live by a fair amount of them yourself, at least if you live a normal human existence on planet earth. From the laws of gravity to traffic laws, there are plenty of things we experience in the negative, whether by our own choice or the impositions of others/society. That's why language is so accommodating of it.

You're wrong. It's all one and the same.

"Mischaracterization" is based on the premise that everything is different, but it's not really, is it? You're saying that it all can't be the same, whole, while I'm saying that it can. The power of belief trumps doubt always.

This is quite a claim. This forum alone is full of threads highlighting, often celebrating, sometimes criticising, the many differences around us: from people (types, races, gender, career, religion, musical tastes, fashion sense, etc), to locations, to political philosophies, to food and exercise regimens. It is quite a leap to smear this all away into homogeneity.

You are of course welcome to your beliefs, but believing something does not make it reality.

As for the OP: assume for the sake of argument that life has some inherent meaning. Will that meaning make sense and be important to each individual person? What if some of us find that meaning at odds with our personal values, goals, or simply what makes us feel good? In this sense, the ability for each person to apply his/her own personal meaning to life seems to be a good thing, and a source of creativity and personal agency, rather than a cause for depression or angst.

 

[93JC]

I don't give it much thought.

 

[sprinkles]

As for the OP: assume for the sake of argument that life has some inherent meaning. Will that meaning make sense and be important to each individual person? What if some of us find that meaning at odds with our personal values, goals, or simply what makes us feel good? In this sense, the ability for each person to apply his/her own personal meaning to life seems to be a good thing, and a source of creativity and personal agency, rather than a cause for depression or angst.

Moreover I would argue that losing the meaning for life doesn't cause depression, but conversely I would argue that it is a symptom of depression. It is depression which creates the void which people chuck things into in an attempt to plug it up, not the other way around.

I posit that finding meaning in something is a metacognitive extrication - it doesn't solve the problem, it realizes that the problem was never actually there.