What is meaningless?

[rachelbean]

I feel like when I answered the original question I was sitting at a pub with some friends and discussing something I found interesting. Then a drunk university student came up and started lecturing us all on where we were wrong and why, and then I didn't want to finish my pint.

Well, perhaps the solution to not finishing your pint would be to give it to the nitwit student...at high velocity...directed at his mouth, combined with the police rejoinder, "Here, have another beer you officious, self-righteous and rude putz!"

At least that wouldn't have been a waste of good beer, which would be otherwise meaningless.

Not really my style, but most of the time here in Wales all I have to do is say a few words and they focus on the fact that I'm American and forget everything else. Doesn't really work on the forum

Anyway, the truth is at the pub I can make friends with just about anyone, and I'd never waste a pint

[Hermit]

most of the time here in Wales all I have to do is say a few words and they focus on the fact that I'm American and forget everything else. Doesn't really work on the forum

Depends on the topic, I suppose. Remember what happens when Americans talk about biscuits, sprinkles, bangs, fannies and such?

[Brian Peacock]

James, if I wanted didactic pedagogy I'd read a book or article. while i accept you have some interesting thoughts to contribte antagonising your new friends will just get you ignored and belittled. This isn't Rational Skepticism - just give an honest account of your own views and leave the disingenuous baiting stawmanning to those who've made a life's study of that cracked cadence.

There's no way to present my views without antagonising people, given what those views entail.

I do apologise for losing my rag though. I need to stop doing that, regardless of the cause.

No probs.

[mistermack]

most of the time here in Wales all I have to do is say a few words and they focus on the fact that I'm American and forget everything else. Doesn't really work on the forum

Depends on the topic, I suppose. Remember what happens when Americans talk about biscuits, sprinkles, bangs, fannies and such?

Yeh.
I think we should have a rule to identify Americans to ordinary people.
Maybe if Rachel said something American, before each post. Like "fiddle-de-deee" or, "ma fellow murkuns" it would help.

I "purrdict" it would solve the problem.

[Forty Two]

For example, does the rejection of theistic doctrines entail nihilism?

Can there be anything without meaning?

Etc etc...

Meaning is made of thought. It isn't a thing. Meaning is whatever a human thinks is meaningful.

Everything can be without meaning. Existence is. Meaning is an opinion or value judgment placed upon things and events by humans.

I don't know about that. An opinion means something, for sure, but Meaning isn't just an opinion about something. That startling rustle in the bushes has meaning: Wind or creature? Prey or predator? Dinner or Death? etc?

Yes, but it only has meaning "to" something or someone. Meaning is not a quality of a thing. It is creation of a brain. For example, the rustling in the bushes has the "wind or predator" meaning to us, but not to rocks. If we were impervious to predators, it would have no such meaning at all. It would just be "rustling."'

All it is is "rustling." Its meaning is assigned to it by a being.

That rustle in the bushes is information,

The rustle in the bushes are atoms moving.

and in that sense Meaning seems tied to information, experience and to the environment, and to the circumstances in which they impact on each other.

Whether those atoms moving means anything is dependent on point of view. If we were conscious rocks, the rustling would mean nothing. Even if we were unconscious rocks, it would mean nothing. It's only because we form a point of view about it that it can have any meaning to us.

When a nihilist tells us that there is no meaning or value in anything they appear to be disregarding certain types of information which, as information does, populate their experience - and yet a nihilist is not without experiences and knows, for example, what it means to poke a tiger with a stick or to try and stop traffic with their chin.

Poking a tiger with a stick only means that to us because Tigers can kill us. Poking tigers doesn't mean anything to clams.

To say that there is no meaning or value in anything is a meaningful thing to say, for the nihilist, but I suspect that nihilists only mean that certain types of things have no meaning or value - perhaps mostly those things which others say they do find meaningful and valuable.

Things don't HAVE meaning. They are GIVEN meaning. Of course we find things meaningful. I find my wife's love meaningful, even though it is all in our heads.

A car has no meaning. Some people find cars meaningful, or some people find a particular car meaningful, to them, for a myriad reasons. Some find them meaningful because they roll places. The car itself has no inherent "meaning." There is no "objective" feature of a car that is meaningful. It's meaning is entirely in our heads.

It's like good and evil. There are no such things. These are value judgments in our heads. We decide what is good and evil. Is killing evil? To us, yes, at least a lot of the time. Sometimes killing is good, in some people's opinion. In some people's opinion it's always evil. There is no measurable or detectable quality of good or evil in things or actions. These things are in our brains. The same goes for meaning.

[Brian Peacock]

For example, does the rejection of theistic doctrines entail nihilism?

Can there be anything without meaning?

Etc etc...

Meaning is made of thought. It isn't a thing. Meaning is whatever a human thinks is meaningful.

Everything can be without meaning. Existence is. Meaning is an opinion or value judgment placed upon things and events by humans.

I don't know about that. An opinion means something, for sure, but Meaning isn't just an opinion about something. That startling rustle in the bushes has meaning: Wind or creature? Prey or predator? Dinner or Death? etc?

Yes, but it only has meaning "to" something or someone.

I think it's pretty clear that Meaning is something which concerns conscious creatures. That fact that Meaning only means something to the meaner (!) has to be taken as read - surely?

Meaning is not a quality of a thing. It is creation of a brain. For example, the rustling in the bushes has the "wind or predator" meaning to us, but not to rocks. If we were impervious to predators, it would have no such meaning at all. It would just be "rustling."'

OK. Meaning is not a property of a thing. Given what I said above, so what?

All it is is "rustling." Its meaning is assigned to it by a being.

What is 'rustling', and how does it differ from rusting? The word 'rustling' is a placeholder for an idea or concept - it's information which communicates a property which is applied to an object/subject. I'll grant that 'rustling' doesn't mean anything if there's nothing around to hear it - but this is what I was striking at when I suggested that meaning is tied to information, experience and the environment.

That rustle in the bushes is information..

The rustle in the bushes are atoms moving.

Yes, it's that too. But how is that not informative, particular in light of the entire sentence?

.. and in that sense Meaning seems tied to information, experience and to the environment, and to the circumstances in which they impact on each other.

Whether those atoms moving means anything is dependent on point of view. If we were conscious rocks, the rustling would mean nothing. Even if we were unconscious rocks, it would mean nothing. It's only because we form a point of view about it that it can have any meaning to us.

Of course what a thing means depends on what it means to the being it has meaning for. Does hunger mean something different depending on your point of view? Surely it means you're hungry? How your react to that is another matter. My point was stated from the off, an "opinion means something, for sure, but Meaning isn't just an opinion about something."

When a nihilist tells us that there is no meaning or value in anything they appear to be disregarding certain types of information which, as information does, populate their experience - and yet a nihilist is not without experiences and knows, for example, what it means to poke a tiger with a stick or to try and stop traffic with their chin.

Poking a tiger with a stick only means that to us because Tigers can kill us. Poking tigers doesn't mean anything to clams.

I'll grant that clams are not noted for their nihilism.

To say that there is no meaning or value in anything is a meaningful thing to say, for the nihilist, but I suspect that nihilists only mean that certain types of things have no meaning or value - perhaps mostly those things which others say they do find meaningful and valuable.

Things don't HAVE meaning. They are GIVEN meaning. Of course we find things meaningful. I find my wife's love meaningful, even though it is all in our heads.

I think my point stands by normal language conventions. In fact, one might say that things have meaning because they are sometimes given meaning and sometimes because we find them inherently meaningful (and just to be clear, that is not to say that things are inherently meaningful--in as much as Meaning is a property of the thing). But what interests me is the proposition that things can and do have no meaning, that something cannot mean anything, that consequentially we should probably avoid giving them meaning or cannot rely on our understanding of things, that what things mean (to us) essentially means nothing, and that the very concept of meaning is meaningless.

[Forty Two]

For example, does the rejection of theistic doctrines entail nihilism?

Can there be anything without meaning?

Etc etc...

Meaning is made of thought. It isn't a thing. Meaning is whatever a human thinks is meaningful.

Everything can be without meaning. Existence is. Meaning is an opinion or value judgment placed upon things and events by humans.

I don't know about that. An opinion means something, for sure, but Meaning isn't just an opinion about something. That startling rustle in the bushes has meaning: Wind or creature? Prey or predator? Dinner or Death? etc?

Yes, but it only has meaning "to" something or someone.

I think it's pretty clear that Meaning is something which concerns conscious creatures. That fact that Meaning only means something to the meaner (!) has to be taken as read - surely?

Not really. Some people seem to think that things have inherent meaning, or that there is some purpose or meaning to things that exists outside of our heads.

My daughter has a lot of meaning to me, but she is likely meaningless to some guy named Xing Chao in central China. Just like if Xing Chao was eaten by a tiger today, it would, to be perfectly honest, mean absolutely nothing to me, or the universe.

A human has no more inherent "meaning" than rock or a star.

Meaning is not a quality of a thing. It is creation of a brain. For example, the rustling in the bushes has the "wind or predator" meaning to us, but not to rocks. If we were impervious to predators, it would have no such meaning at all. It would just be "rustling."'

OK. Meaning is not a property of a thing. Given what I said above, so what?

Then nothing "has" meaning. They are "imbued with" meaning or "given" meaning, or "assigned" a meaning by a person, and that meaning doesn't exist, except within a person's mind. It's real to the same extent as a dream or a thought about a passing cloud. A cloud looks like a rabbit is the same thing as "thing/event X is meaningful." No difference.

All it is is "rustling." Its meaning is assigned to it by a being.

What is 'rustling', and how does it differ from rusting? The word 'rustling' is a placeholder for an idea or concept

Yes, agreed. Rustling is a word. What a bush does when its atoms are agitated is what it does. We describe it with a word.

- it's information which communicates a property which is applied to an object/subject. I'll grant that 'rustling' doesn't mean anything if there's nothing around to hear it - but this is what I was striking at when I suggested that meaning is tied to information, experience and the environment.

Meaning is what we think in our minds about something we perceive with our senses. It is just a judgment made in our minds. That rock is meaningful. That other rock is not meaningful. A person is meaningful, a slug is not. Or, maybe vice versa, depending on the person.

That rustle in the bushes is information..

The rustle in the bushes are atoms moving.

Yes, it's that too. But how is that not informative, particular in light of the entire sentence?

It is information to the extent that existence is information. That doesn't mean that "meaning" exists. The bush just is. The rustling is just moving atoms. Whether it means something depends on what a brain thinks is important. And, what a brain thinks is important is based on assumptions and thoughts. Is a life meaningful? Depends on the brain thinking about it.

.. and in that sense Meaning seems tied to information, experience and to the environment, and to the circumstances in which they impact on each other.

Whether those atoms moving means anything is dependent on point of view. If we were conscious rocks, the rustling would mean nothing. Even if we were unconscious rocks, it would mean nothing. It's only because we form a point of view about it that it can have any meaning to us.

Of course what a thing means depends on what it means to the being it has meaning for. Does hunger mean something different depending on your point of view? Surely it means you're hungry? How your react to that is another matter. My point was stated from the off, an "opinion means something, for sure, but Meaning isn't just an opinion about something."

Are we using "meaning" in different ways? Words mean what they say they mean, in terms of definitions. But, meaning in terms of things being meaningful or meaningless is, to me, directed at the import of things or the purpose of life. Like "the meaning of life." Does life have meaning? I mean -- life can be said to mean biological existence with reproduction (or whatever), but when people refer to the meaning of life they are referring to what it's all about, what it's here for.

In that later, more metaphysical sense, I think life has the meaning that we tell ourselves it has, and that's all it has. There is no inherent meaning to it. It's not about anything and it's not here for anything. We just are. The meaning I have in life is, I've decided on my own, to love my family and friends, and have a good time. That's about it.

When a nihilist tells us that there is no meaning or value in anything they appear to be disregarding certain types of information which, as information does, populate their experience - and yet a nihilist is not without experiences and knows, for example, what it means to poke a tiger with a stick or to try and stop traffic with their chin.

Poking a tiger with a stick only means that to us because Tigers can kill us. Poking tigers doesn't mean anything to clams.

I'll grant that clams are not noted for their nihilism.

Clams can be pussies like that.

To say that there is no meaning or value in anything is a meaningful thing to say, for the nihilist, but I suspect that nihilists only mean that certain types of things have no meaning or value - perhaps mostly those things which others say they do find meaningful and valuable.

Things don't HAVE meaning. They are GIVEN meaning. Of course we find things meaningful. I find my wife's love meaningful, even though it is all in our heads.

I think my point stands by normal language conventions. In fact, one might say that things have meaning because they are sometimes given meaning and sometimes because we find them inherently meaningful (and just to be clear, that is not to say that things are inherently meaningful--in as much as Meaning is a property of the thing). But what interests me is the proposition that things can and do have no meaning, that something cannot mean anything, that consequentially we should probably avoid giving them meaning or cannot rely on our understanding of things, that what things mean (to us) essentially means nothing, and that the very concept of meaning is meaningless.

Yep. Everything I love and hold dear is meaningless in the "grand scheme of things. It just means to me what it means to me. And, that's enough.

[rachelbean]

I would just like to say Forty Two is doing a very good job of saying what I think without me having to put in any effort at all so I'll just continue to sit here like

[Seth]

I would just like to say Forty Two is doing a very good job of saying what I think without me having to put in any effort at all so I'll just continue to sit here like

Don't be so pug about it if you please...

[Forty Two]

I would just like to say Forty Two is doing a very good job of saying what I think without me having to put in any effort at all so I'll just continue to sit here like

[Brian Peacock]

Everything I love and hold dear is meaningless in the "grand scheme of things. It just means to me what it means to me. And, that's enough.

OK.This is my point.

To ascribe meaninglessness to everything you love and hold dear, in the grand scheme of things, is to ascribe a meaning to everything your love and hold dear, in the grand scheme of things.

The claim that things are devoid of meaning is meaningless.

[surreptitious57]

The only thing that is eternal is death and less you are going to ascribe meaning to that then everything is ultimately meaningless. Since
without life you cannot experience any of the things which give your life meaning. But I made my peace with death last year and so I am
now free as it is possible to be whilst still being alive. When I do die I will be in an eternal non existence free from all suffering. And now
why that is something to be feared I have no idea but many do fear it including the ones who do not think that death is the end. All it is is
a transition from one state to another : consciousness to non consciousness. Yet it is the single most feared thing on the planet. Though no
one has had a bad word to say about it when they are actually dead. For being afraid of something you are not actually going to experience
is as irrational as is possible to get. It is actually the single most liberating experience. As once it happens pain ceases to be and for ever too

[Seth]

The only thing that is eternal is death and less you are going to ascribe meaning to that then everything is ultimately meaningless. Since
without life you cannot experience any of the things which give your life meaning. But I made my peace with death last year and so I am
now free as it is possible to be whilst still being alive. When I do die I will be in an eternal non existence free from all suffering.

Or so you choose to believe...

[surreptitious57]

Or so you choose to believe

No evidence for anything else
So I think it is absolutely true
I could be wrong but so what
For once I am dead that is it

[JimC]

Or so you choose to believe

No evidence for anything else
So I think it is absolutely true
I could be wrong but so what
For once I am dead that is it

Seth wants you to writhe in hell for all eternity.

Fact!