What is meaningless?

[rachelbean]

I consider myself a nihilist, but I understand it to mean to believe in the complete lack of OBJECTIVE meaning or intrinsic value or purpose to anything. Of course we assign it meaning or value, often as a group, but that is not the same thing as having one. I definitely believe life is very meaningless in the big picture (and then, what is the big picture and isn't it also meaningless) but it doesn't stop me from enjoying it

[mistermack]

I consider myself a nihilist, but I understand it to mean to believe in the complete lack of OBJECTIVE meaning or intrinsic value or purpose to anything. Of course we assign it meaning or value, often as a group, but that is not the same thing as having one. I definitely believe life is very meaningless in the big picture (and then, what is the big picture and isn't it also meaningless) but it doesn't stop me from enjoying it

I couldn't put it better myself.

Well, I could, but I never thought of it.

[jamest]

I consider myself a nihilist, but I understand it to mean to believe in the complete lack of OBJECTIVE meaning or intrinsic value or purpose to anything. Of course we assign it meaning or value, often as a group, but that is not the same thing as having one. I definitely believe life is very meaningless in the big picture (and then, what is the big picture and isn't it also meaningless) but it doesn't stop me from enjoying it

I couldn't put it better myself.

Well, I could, but I never thought of it.

If there were NO objective meaning or value to anything, then Rachel's beliefs cannot be objectively meaningful or of intrinsic value.

That probably annoys the hell out of you both, but to undermine the lack of objective meaning and value in anything is ultimately a self-refuting exercise.

[cronus]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g[/youtube]

No meaning, the river flows on anyway....unless there's sea....lake....or dam....

[cronus]

No meaning, the river flows on anyway....unless there's sea....lake....or dam....

[rachelbean]

I consider myself a nihilist, but I understand it to mean to believe in the complete lack of OBJECTIVE meaning or intrinsic value or purpose to anything. Of course we assign it meaning or value, often as a group, but that is not the same thing as having one. I definitely believe life is very meaningless in the big picture (and then, what is the big picture and isn't it also meaningless) but it doesn't stop me from enjoying it

I couldn't put it better myself.

Well, I could, but I never thought of it.

If there were NO objective meaning or value to anything, then Rachel's beliefs cannot be objectively meaningful or of intrinsic value.

That probably annoys the hell out of you both, but to undermine the lack of objective meaning and value in anything is ultimately a self-refuting exercise.

No, I would agree with that. Mistermack agrees with my subjective opinion about objective meaning...I don't see the problem

[jamest]

I consider myself a nihilist, but I understand it to mean to believe in the complete lack of OBJECTIVE meaning or intrinsic value or purpose to anything. Of course we assign it meaning or value, often as a group, but that is not the same thing as having one. I definitely believe life is very meaningless in the big picture (and then, what is the big picture and isn't it also meaningless) but it doesn't stop me from enjoying it

I couldn't put it better myself.

Well, I could, but I never thought of it.

If there were NO objective meaning or value to anything, then Rachel's beliefs cannot be objectively meaningful or of intrinsic value.

That probably annoys the hell out of you both, but to undermine the lack of objective meaning and value in anything is ultimately a self-refuting exercise.

No, I would agree with that. Mistermack agrees with my subjective opinion about objective meaning...I don't see the problem

You were making an absolute statement, since you were using concepts such as 'complete' and 'anything' (or everything) and relating them to objectivity (which in itself is a reference to the absolute truth). Absolutes are not relative/subjective.

I suppose one can have beliefs devoid of logic pertaining to absolutes, such as the blind belief in a God, but such are devoid of any intrinsic value or meaning wrt reason. In other words, your nihilistic beliefs appear to be on very shaky ground.

[mistermack]

If there were NO objective meaning or value to anything, then Rachel's beliefs cannot be objectively meaningful or of intrinsic value.

That probably annoys the hell out of you both, but to undermine the lack of objective meaning and value in anything is ultimately a self-refuting exercise.

Part one yes, part 2 no. It doesn't annoy me.
And no, it's not self-refuting. It's refuting any intrinsic importance or value of my self, or of my views.

In a thousand years time, neither you nor I will count for anything.

And ref your last post, I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that their statements can be considered absolute truth. If I make a statement, I regard it as common sense that that it's just what I think.
Even if I say, "this is an incontrovertible fact", that is still just my opinion.

[jamest]

If there were NO objective meaning or value to anything, then Rachel's beliefs cannot be objectively meaningful or of intrinsic value.

That probably annoys the hell out of you both, but to undermine the lack of objective meaning and value in anything is ultimately a self-refuting exercise.

Part one yes, part 2 no. It doesn't annoy me.
And no, it's not self-refuting. It's refuting any intrinsic importance or value of my self, or of my views.

You're missing the fact that it also refutes the overall opinion that you have of yourself and your views. If ALL of your opinions are meaningless and without value, then this includes the opinion that all of your opinions are without meaning/value. That's why such an opinion is self-refuting.

In a thousand years time, neither you nor I will count for anything.

I disagree. Every particle, every rock, every living organism, every dead organism, every thing, has contributed exactly to the way things are now and to the way things will be in the future. Our inability to know or understand the minuscule details of every thing, every event, does not mean that no thing or being 'counts' for anything.

And ref your last post, I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that their statements can be considered absolute truth. If I make a statement, I regard it as common sense that that it's just what I think.

You cannot hold that opinion without rejecting the notion of absolute truth, which itself would be an absolute truth. Catch 22, again.

Even if I say, "this is an incontrovertible fact", that is still just my opinion.

How could one equate an incontrovertible fact with one's own opinion - an opinion one sees no value in? That would make no sense whatsoever.

[jamest]

In consideration of my previous posts, the nihilistic opinion that "there is no meaning nor value to anything, including opinions" is shown to be an utterly irrational and therefore meaningless perspective to hold, devoid of all reasonable value.

Surely this is good news, for it must mean that by reasonable measure nihilism is a false perspective to have. Which, in turn, means that there's no reason to get depressed about it - as many/some nihilists no doubt do.

The problem, of course, is that this implies that there IS objective meaning and value to existence, not least to a proportion of opinion, which is a kicker if you're an atheist. Certainly, I would like to see an atheist attempt to reconcile objective meaning and value with materialism/physicalism.

[JimC]

Sure. Ascribing meaning is not a high-blown philosophical issue. It is simply one way of giving a name to something we do all the time, recognising patterns via our observations of the world. I'm not going to waste my time in futile debate about whether there is an external reality, or any such waffle. I'll simply adopt the working premise that there is such a material world, that my sensory observations give me at least partial information about its nature, and that the collaborative exercise known as science further refines our collective model of this external world to a very useful, all though not perfect degree.

On that basis, I ascribe meaning to events in the world to the extent that they relate to my working model. I will sometimes get this wrong, although hopefully this will lead to at least a slight improvement in my ability to recognise and predict patterns in the future. I do not take meaning to be anything more profound than this, and I suspect that the difficulties arise where people have an almost mystical view of "meaning", as something imbued with deep and portentous significance.

[mistermack]

In consideration of my previous posts, the nihilistic opinion that "there is no meaning nor value to anything, including opinions" is shown to be an utterly irrational and therefore meaningless perspective to hold, devoid of all reasonable value.

You haven't established anything of the sort. You've just convinced yourself of something that you want to believe.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "refute".
If I say that my opinions are meaningless and without value in the long term, that doesn't mean that they are wrong.
It just means that they don't matter.
So it's certainly not a self-contradiction as you seem to have worked out.

In a thousand years time, neither you nor I will count for anything.

I disagree. Every particle, every rock, every living organism, every dead organism, every thing, has contributed exactly to the way things are now and to the way things will be in the future. Our inability to know or understand the minuscule details of every thing, every event, does not mean that no thing or being 'counts' for anything.

Well, you've got a funny idea of "counting for something".
The existence of the molecules of my body, in some other form, in a hundred thousand years time, is hardly a "meaning" or "counting for something" in my estimation.
All of that matter existed for billions of years before now, and will exist for billions of years after.
In various guises.

The brief blip that is my life counts for nothing compared to the billions upon billions of years of existence of that matter.
But if you think that every ant or termite "counts for something", then I guess that we count for the same, under your definition.

I personally disagree. I don't think that the phrase "count for something" means as little as that, to most people.

[jamest]

Sure. Ascribing meaning is not a high-blown philosophical issue.

It certainly can be, depending on how close you are to flirting with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. And there's been plenty of flirting in this thread, though many people don't seem to realise when they are doing it. Certainly, the claim that ascribing meaning is not a high-blown philosophical issue is in itself a high-blown philosophical issue, in that it could be debated about for hours on end.

It is simply one way of giving a name to something we do all the time, recognising patterns via our observations of the world.

Within the context of this debate, meaning isn't primarily about the recognition of patterns or order. When most people talk about meaning, they are referring to purpose and value, concepts which may not be relevant even amidst such order. There is no doubt that the universe is ordered, but that in itself does not necessarily imply that there is meaning to the universe. If it did, then nihilism as a perspective could never take hold.

I'm not going to waste my time in futile debate about whether there is an external reality, or any such waffle.

I haven't asked anyone to do so within this thread.

I'll simply adopt the working premise that there is such a material world, that my sensory observations give me at least partial information about its nature, and that the collaborative exercise known as science further refines our collective model of this external world to a very useful, all though not perfect degree.

Yet here you are preaching your own metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, to me. Which takes us back to my very first sentence of this post!!

On that [high-blown philosophical] basis,

Edit justified.

I ascribe meaning to events in the world to the extent that they relate to my working model. I will sometimes get this wrong, although hopefully this will lead to at least a slight improvement in my ability to recognise and predict patterns in the future. I do not take meaning to be anything more profound than this, and I suspect that the difficulties arise where people have an almost mystical view of "meaning", as something imbued with deep and portentous significance.

Within the context of this debate, wtf is a "working model"? I'm an idealist who also recognises that there is order amidst the experienced world and that science is best suited to unveiling this order. But science is not best-suited to understanding how you relate to that order, nor [therefore] what meaning you should ascribe to your experiences/observations.

Clearly, the meaning one imbues one's experiences with is contingent upon one's preferred metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. That's got fuck all to do with science or the order recognisable amidst the experienced/observed universe. You're just kidding yourself, though to what ends I know not. Why would one close one's mind when one's philosophical opinion is demonstrably erroneous?

Anyone who uses science as the basis of the meaning they ascribe to their own lives, is deluded, since science cannot prove that materialism/physicalism is true. All science can do, is prove that an order exists between the observable/experienced objects we [the observer/experiencer] report/name to be 'physical'. That is precisely why science does not have to be at-odds with idealism. Which is precisely why your utility of science as the purported basis of your working model for your meaning, is fubar.

[Gonzo]

If you can't define what is meaningless than you can not find meaning...

There is meaning in things. There is meaning in books, film, art, conversation, cultural norms, and set standards. There is inherent meanings; such as if an animal dies it might mean that it was sick. If your plant is withering, it might mean you didn't tend to it enough. Then there are applied meanings that we give things, that may or may not exist; such as "they disagree with me, they must be wrong".

On an existential and scientific level there is meaning to life. Our ability to have sex and procreate means that we are meant to perpetuate our species, if only by our physical design and nothing else, for example. We are meant to eat to survive. We are meant to shelter ourselves. We are meant to be social. Nihilism argues that the whole of it has no definitive meaning to it. That living in and of itself has no end goal. That may be true, but we can still create and find meanings in things, seek it out, and find pleasure in existing in a world in which meaning is our truly own; such is the view of existentialism.

[Seth]

I mean, really?