What's the meaning of life

[hard2miss]

The question is a self serving one.

[CottonTop]

Which would mean a child's life has no meaning.

 

Or that the lives of those who choose not to have children have no meaning?

[Cavegirl]

Is there a meaning to life? I think we can say that there has to be and we have to provide it simply because we have a school of thought that considers the concept of existential meaninglessness known as nihilism. Nietzsche for example stated that-

 

nihilism as "absolute valuelessness" or "nothing has meaning" is dangerous, or even "the danger of dangers": it is through valuation that people survive and endure the danger, pain and hardships they face in life. The complete destruction of all meaning and all values would be tantamount to suicide or mass-murder

 

It is a concept that was beautifully illustrated in Cormac McCarthy's book 'The Road' in which a father struggles to keep his son alive in a post-apocalyptic world. In McCarthy's vision humanity has destroyed nature, nothing will grow and, faced with starvation, the majority of remaining humans have resorted to cannibalism. He states a number of times that the father and son 'carry the torch' or cling to their morals as their main hope for salvation. The boy's mother represents the nihilist- she sees the futility of the situation for what it is and chooses to walk away into the gloom to commit suicide rather than cling to hope.

 

It's a fascinating insight into modern western culture.

 

Historically, starting in the Renaissance, but gaining most credit during the Enlightenment humanists strove to place people at the apex of the natural order. Christian theology had previously portrayed humans as fallen creatures, but despite this people still regarded themselves as being at the centre of the cosmos. As religious faith gradually deteriorated there was a strong belief that humans, with their capability for reason alongside the development of technology and science, would become exalted in their own right. That they would become the masters of their universe.

 

However, the study of cosmology and astrology actually began to illuminate that the Earth, and with it humans, played only a very peripheral role in the Universe. Improvements in technology did occur, but it led to catastrophic consequences (the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example) and the belief in the inherent reason and morality of humans has been called into question many times with fairly frequent genocidal acts and other atrocities.

 

As a result it now seems reasonable for McCarthy to portray humans as scavenging cannibals completely devoid of morality or for people to infer that we're a destructive virus on the earth. Humanism is currently in free-falling descent, we have no faith in God and we have no faith in ourselves. As such, we have no sense of a unified meaning to life, we all choose individually what meanings we wish to give our lives significance- some follow the tradition of religion, others look to Darwinism and procreation and still others suggest a more nihilistic approach (that we're insignificant and purposeless). This latter approach is possibly the most dangerous to society because it leads to ideas such as 'if one murder is permitted than all murders are permitted' ie there are no limits and there is no moral code.

 

Thankfully what does seem to be developing at the moment is a faith in nature- the sense that natural is best, whether it's to do with issues such as breastfeeding or organic food or wider issues of climate change and diminishing resources. Nature invokes new sets of limits on humanity that religion and humanism have never before proposed. It may (and probably should) be that we come to see our unified purpose as being here to serve as guardians of the natural world as this is the only thing that provides life and sustenance to us all.

 

What McCarthy's book shows us is that without the natural world we have only nihilism and eventually suicide left as a reasonable course of action.

[Artymags]

No no no no no, that was the meaning of multiculturalism.

 

The meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything was 42

Of course!

 

I was getting ahead of myself!

[Artymags]

i think this little verse spells out the answer to that question - well it does for me!

 

"My fellow man I do not care for,

I often ask me what he's there for,

The only reason I can find,

Is reproduction of his kind."

 

Our individual life has no meaning. We are there to reproduce and to ensure the survival of our species - that's all.

 

That is the law of nature - the individual goes to the wall as long as the species survives.

[flamingjimmy]

Is there a meaning to life? I think we can say that there has to be

I don't. Why does there have to be one?

 

As a result it now seems reasonable for McCarthy to portray humans as scavenging cannibals completely devoid of morality or for people to infer that we're a destructive virus on the earth. Humanism is currently in free-falling descent, we have no faith in God and we have no faith in ourselves. As such, we have no sense of a unified meaning to life, we all choose individually what meanings we wish to give our lives significance- some follow the tradition of religion, others look to Darwinism and procreation and still others suggest a more nihilistic approach (that we're insignificant and purposeless). This latter approach is possibly the most dangerous to society because it leads to ideas such as 'if one murder is permitted than all murders are permitted' ie there are no limits and there is no moral code.

As far as I'm concerned there is no external meaning to life, we most certainly are insignificant, and in the grand scheme of things, without purpose. But that does not lead me "to ideas such as 'if one murder is permitted than (sic) all murders are permitted".

 

That's the kind of argument I might expect from a dogmatic religious conservative, but not from you. It holds precisely 0ml of water.

 

Thankfully what does seem to be developing at the moment is a faith in nature- the sense that natural is best, whether it's to do with issues such as breastfeeding or organic food or wider issues of climate change and diminishing resources.

You can't be serious? The perception that 'natural' (whatever on earth that's supposed to mean) is somehow better for us is completely nonsensical, and has indirectly caused the death of people who have gone for 'natural' remedies instead of taking drugs which could/would have cured them.

 

It's the reason why stem cell research was halted for years in the US (likely again indirectly costing people their lives).

 

It's the entire reason that the alternative medicine industry exists (and that's bad enough on it's own:P).

 

In other words, not a good thing.

 

Nature invokes new sets of limits on humanity that religion and humanism have never before proposed. It may (and probably should) be that we come to see our unified purpose as being here to serve as guardians of the natural world as this is the only thing that provides life and sustenance to us all.

I'm all for conservation, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into the nonsensical dogma of hippies. Natural does not mean better.

 

Nature is awesome enough for me to love it and want to protect it, I don't need to make up some sort of mystical quality to it in order to justify its existence.

 

What McCarthy's book shows us is that without the natural world we have only nihilism and eventually suicide left as a reasonable course of action.

Perhaps to you, but not to me.

[IamChiChi]

Or that the lives of those who choose not to have children have no meaning?

 

Therefore anyone who can not have children may aswell top themselves...

[danot]

Therefore anyone who can not have children may aswell top themselves...

Not quite, it was said that children were the meaning to life, no-one claimed giving birth was the meaning.

[epiphany]

As such, we have no sense of a unified meaning to life, we all choose individually what meanings we wish to give our lives significance- some follow the tradition of religion, others look to Darwinism and procreation and still others suggest a more nihilistic approach (that we're insignificant and purposeless). This latter approach is possibly the most dangerous to society because it leads to ideas such as 'if one murder is permitted than all murders are permitted' ie there are no limits and there is no moral code.

 

Call it a grotesque form of doublethink, but I think it is possible to understand that in the objective grand scheme of things the murder of a human by another human is insignificant but at the same time acknowledge your own subjective existence as a human being and therefore accept the moral code that does deem it significant and unacceptable.

 

The latter I think is about valuing this overwhelming urge to maintain what gives you the very means to explore your being. As I don't want my life cut short, at least from the perspective of being alive, I enter into the social contract that will help protect me from threats against that. It's selfish and has no objective significance, but then I do not live my life objectively.

[Cavegirl]

I don't. Why does there have to be one?

 

As far as I'm concerned there is no external meaning to life, we most certainly are insignificant, and in the grand scheme of things, without purpose. But that does not lead me "to ideas such as 'if one murder is permitted than (sic) all murders are permitted".

 

That's the kind of argument I might expect from a dogmatic religious conservative, but not from you. It holds precisely 0ml of water.

 

You can't be serious? The perception that 'natural' (whatever on earth that's supposed to mean) is somehow better for us is completely nonsensical, and has indirectly caused the death of people who have gone for 'natural' remedies instead of taking drugs which could/would have cured them.

 

It's the reason why stem cell research was halted for years in the US (likely again indirectly costing people their lives).

 

It's the entire reason that the alternative medicine industry exists (and that's bad enough on it's own:P).

 

In other words, not a good thing.

 

I'm all for conservation, but that doesn't mean I have to buy into the nonsensical dogma of hippies. Natural does not mean better.

 

Nature is awesome enough for me to love it and want to protect it, I don't need to make up some sort of mystical quality to it in order to justify its existence.

 

Perhaps to you, but not to me.

 

Haha FJ, I wonder whether one day we'll find something we actually do agree on?

 

There has to be meaning to life because nihilism is a destructive force in society. You can read some Nietzsche for an academic explanation or you can read the philosophies and stories of the Marquis de Sade for a glimpse into what the world might be like if we were all true nihilists- as this is what he was aiming for.

 

If I truly stopped valuing life (this is true nihilism) and all of its inherent factors why would I care if I murdered someone- their life has no value or meaning to me? Why would I even care about living seeing as my life had no value or meaning?

 

What you believe in, like me probably, is a very diluted form of nihilism I'm sure, well at least I hope. We all can comprehend the fact that one day the earth will be swallowed by the sun, we all can comprehend our place in the universe, but most people are too sensible to take that last step and decide that because of this nothing matters or has value in our lives.

 

As for your second main point- do you believe that pharmacists conjure up medications from the ether? Of course not. All medications are chemicals and all chemicals are made up of natural elements. Traditional medicine is based upon traditional practices, people have just tried to sell it as being 'more natural'. All medicines are natural- they are all made of matter from the natural world, some are just better than others. A lot of modern medicines are based upon traditional knowledge, but this has been enhanced to understand the exact chemical formula. Sometimes however, the new chemical compositions that humans come up with are toxic to humans just as happens in nature.

 

I think your point about stem cell research is completely valid, it's not perceived as natural, but it is still potentially beneficial so I should probably have clarified that point. I was thinking more about the growing awareness of our relationship with the natural world rather than a nature vs science debate.

 

Having a belief that nature should be protected because it is there to provide sustenance and life is not the same as mystifying or deifying it. It just calls for an acceptance that if we destroy or manipulate it in a method that's out of balance with conserving and preserving it then we're all pretty much doomed anyhow and pure nihilism will be the only course left to us. It's on this basis that I think seeing ourselves as guardians and caretakers of the earth's resources would provide a beneficial, all-encompassing and therefore unifying meaning to life.