What do you keep living for? Is there a specific person, goal, or idea that you work for? Is there no meaning to life in your opinion?
Context: I’ve been reading Camus and Sartre, and thinking about how their ideas interact with hard determinism.
You must log in or register to comment.
Im not sure. I stay for my family and husband and my animals.
But I wouldn’t mind dying. Eternal rest from all the grind. Even if there is nothing after death. It would be nice to just sleep forever.
Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.
No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.
I’m no well read philosopher, but the idea that life has a meaning is repulsive to me. It implies that there is a correct state of affairs, and introduces the possibility that you’ve done something wrong, that you failed to fulfill some purpose. Nuts to that, there are no wrong choices, besides the obvious ones like murder and not brushing your teeth
Interesting perspective. I think I kinda agree.
I have a logical view of the universe as deterministic and that nothing matters, but my feelings contradict this, which is fine.
However, the thought that life HAS to have meaning as something negative is a new perspective, in that it implies moral and ethics.
Meaning to me necessitates having gold teeth. You don’t need anything else in life if you can glint at people.
Well mate I’m sorry to say you just funded a new philosophy school AND a new religion called shiny teeth.
Jokes apart, I agree 100 with you and the concept that only the person themselves can decide what is the purpose of their life. And 11 out of 10 times it won’t make sense to anyone else, so no point in taking it too seriously.
It’s a great relief to come to the realization that there is no grand inherent meaning to life, and no need for one. No constant worrying about what the meaning is and how much time you have left to “figure it out”, no need to feel like there’s some big thing you have to accomplish, no pressure to be someone important or make an impact on the world. No need to find the correct religion or moral code. It’s simple: we’re all (humans and animals) just trying to live our lives in peace and find happiness, so as for goals: Live and let live. Try to not hurt each other, and better yet, help each other–helping1 someone isn’t always easy but it’s a good feeling. It creates a feeling of meaning/purpose better than most anything else I can think of.
1: besides doing some task for someone, it could also be as simple as a smile, a kind word, or just listening/being there.
This is it. You die and you are gone, gone, gone. Make every day count and don’t waste time bargaining with an imaginary god for a preferred place in her cinematic universe.
It’s not grim. It’s extremely freeing. ‘Now’ is all there is.
Make every day count
But that’s such horrible pressure.
But those days where you just relax and enjoy yourself count as good days so that’s ok too.
I have felt that once upon a time. But since there is no external meaning, I have decided our main purpose is to fart around a lot. I greatly enjoy those days when I can just be, without pressure to produce something.
Maybe that’s inner peace?
I think “What is the meaning of (my) life?” is not a question that we should be focusing on. It assumes that there is meaning to life. Neither is saying “Life is meaningless,” as it assumes exactly that. Both approaches presupposes an answer.
I’d rather think about “What can I do today/tomorrow/this week/this year/in this life?” That is a lot more digestible than chasing a meaning, or dismissing what could be meaningful about my actions.
I’m already here, so… What is it under my control that I can do something about? What can I do about it? Something along those lines.
PS:
The overall tone of my response might be nihilist, or having shades of stoicism, but I am personally biased towards Epicureanism (not the present-day meaning, but the more classical meaning) which gives emphasis to ataraxia, or put very loosely, that state of contentedness. It’s not about avoiding pain and preferring (temporary) pleasure, but rather a more stable state absent of pain and having pleasure that is brought about by mindful actions. I am not exactly learned in this so please take my words with a pinch of salt (or several).
Ive been lucky to have discovered Stoicism early in life and that what has been driving me for decades now!
To put it shortly Stoicism focuses on self growth with things like identifying natural human virtues (need for knowledge, justice, temperance, courage) and focusing life around improving those. This is expressed through a princicle called dichotomy of control which says that there are things that are out of our control like death that we shouldn’t focus on and things that are like natural virtues that are something we can do to improve upon.
It also deconstructed and included all of the cool contemporary ideas like mindfulness and being cosmopolitan two millenia ago so its a really great suite of natural philosophies that survived the test of time.
Stoicism is also low key Idealist as in your natural perception of your own virtues and state is the only real thing that matters which is what makes this ideology so much more freeing. You don’t judge yourself against some mystical ideal but to your own perception of purpose and growth.
It’s an easy, frictionless and a highly rewarding way to live :)
Stoicism can sometimes read like a very early form of cognitive behavioral therapy
You’re not far off - it was put together by dudes who just wanted to socialize and talk philosophy and metaphysic on a porch which is called Stoa thus literally Stoics.
CBT is actually heavily inspired by Stoicism and the author openly credits Stoicism and especially Epictetus :)
It’s interesting, I think I’ve tried engaging with Stoicism before, but it feels to me that it kind of ignores how sometimes the romantic should take control? I can’t remember which Stoicist (Epictetus I think?) said that we should be so detached that the death of a child should feel like a glass breaking, but I don’t think I would be able to rationalise and internalise that personally. Do you think there’s space for strong feelings in Stoicism?
That’s a common misunderstanding and Stoicism is not about detachment. The quote you’re referring is mostly a thought exercise to illustrate that dwelling on past is unproductive even in extreme circumstances.
Though contemporary Stoicism acknowledges importance of ritual and grief but it still has to be within reasonable context of dichotomy of control as in you can’t change the outcome no matter how hard you grief and you’re just losing finite minutes of your life but you can spend this time to fairly honor the event and memories.
Temperance is a key virtue here and its heavily inspired by Aristotel’s Golden Mean which says that extremes are really inefficient and should be avoided at all times.
As for strong feelings - Stoicism has nothing against them either. Justice is one of the virtues and its really impossible to get to a just conclusion without strong feelings like sympathy. Though, just like Buddhism, Stoics practice mindfulness and have to choose to go to strong feelings not obey. This is again due to dichotomy of control where thoughts and feelings just appear and we can’t do anything here to stop that but we can choose how we react once we process them!
Stoicism is a very powerful framework cause it doesn’t really tell you what to do exactly just gives you a logical framework based on human nature. It doesn’t mean you becoming a robot - quite the opposite - you should become more human not being hijacked by unfair processes.
shrug
Foods pretty good, lot of things i haven’t tried yet to look forward to. I like hearing/reading/seeing new stories, too.
Honest to god, the most tangible and practical definition that I’ve gotten to, so far, is that meaning comes about, when you strive to do good. Simple as that. Sure, there are a lot of ways to do ‘that’ in the world, but it should all work to some degree.
Strive to make the world better and to do good.
That’s really interesting, where would you say you source your idea of good from? I think I personally have a hard time grounding any sense of morality as I’m not sold on the idea that someone could be truly responsible for an action. I don’t mean this as a criticism, I am just interested in your viewpoint for what is good or bad.
The LLM out here tryna parse morality lol love your user name.
Wack of me to comment here but I’d like to hear more about your logic for the perpetual passing of accountability! It’s true enough that our lived experience is basically dependency hell. I guess for chiming in I owe you my “source of good” haha it changes the further you zoom out but it starts at collective harm reduction and burrows all the way down to showing up for the people you care about.
Even when they lack the perspective to see themselves as the perpetrator. We roll that boulder up the hill lol
Also, don’t tell anyone else I’m an LLM! I think I’ve been doing a good job hiding it!
I think you’ve got a really interesting take on morality, but for me it really falls down on the biological level. Robert Sapolsky was the writer who convinced me, and his argument goes something like this: no neuron in the brain ever fires of its own accord - its always caused by something that we can agree is out of our control, namely our environment, upbringing, culture, genes, etc. Even if these don’t directly cause neurons to fire, then they create the factors which do - hormone secretion, what neural pathways form as our brains develop. And we can say that our consciousness is bounded by our material brains because of the changes to people who undergo lobotomies or similarly experience losses to parts of their brain, for example Phineas Gage. So, based on this, as our experience of consciousness is tied to the firing of neurons in our physical brains, and that is out of our control, we can say that we don’t truly have agency. This means that no one is ever truly free to make a decision or not, and that, to my mind at least, means it cannot have been their fault if they did something wrong.
Good counter question, thanks.
I am still trying to figure out, in what way I can know that something is actually true and good, besides that is just sounds and feels true. It’s not certain that I am the right agent to decide what is true in the moment. I am partly an animal, after all.
I understand light from the sun, compared to darkness, and I understand how saying something can reflect the real world as factually true, compared to something that is not, ie. telling a lie.
But, that ‘being good is a virtue’, and what ‘good’ and ‘virtue’ mean whan applied, is not so clear.
I clearly have a sufficient and functional understanding of the above, (innate, instinctual and/or learned?), which is why my first comment still works, but I feel like I should be able to verify that my idea of ‘good’ is still true.
Do you people have any good pointers to that?
Honestly I feel a lot like you. In daily life, I’ll think things are good or bad, but when I press myself on it I can’t come up with a reason why. It feels so hard to come up with a morality system beyond that without grounding it objectively somewhere, but I just don’t see how that’s possible. I appreciate your thoughts!
I just don’t see how that’s possible.
Cue in God. (I’m not encouraging that and am just saying that’s what humanity developed over time.)
Yeah, thanks. I appreciate yours too! Its quite a thread you’ve started.
I am partly an animal, after all.
What is the other part?
Its either human, or its dancer.
I have a lot of books left to read.
Books and computer games for me
About 20 years ago, I was walking through a city centre with a friend, on the way to catch a train. A couple of Mormons tried to stop us, asking, “Have you ever thought about the purpose of life?”
Barely breaking stride, I shouted out, “Hot sweaty man sex!”
I don’t consider that to be the purpose of life1, but remembering the look on their faces helps keep me grounded whenever I’m inclined to consider questions that cannot be answered.
That said, my resolution to the conflict between free will and determinism is to assume assume that ‘truth’ operates on a principle of equivalence. That’s to say, if two models generate the equivalent outcomes, they are equivalently ‘true’. The universe we observe could have deterministic rules that give rise to the same observable outcomes as one in which we have absolute free will, in which case the two models are equivalent. It would make no sense to endow one with a greater truth than the other.
That’s a slightly difference definition of ‘truth’ than is commonly accepted, but it works for me.
1: It’s just a nice bonus.
I don’t think I necessarily agree with the way you present truth, but it’s an interesting line of thinking. I do definitely agree with your opinion on the bonuses life has to offer!
First, great choice in reading (Im a fan of Camus as well).
As for the meaning of life thing…
Thats the neat part. You don’t.
Thats why in absurdist fiction like Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. Its not supposed to make sense and the universe is under no obligation to do so for you (the books even postulate that the universe does not want anyone to know so if someone figures it out it winks out of existance and replaced itself with something weirder, some scientists think this has happened before).
That goes back to Camus point about the remedies for the bleakness of early-mid 20th century philosophy. He proposed three options, Nhilism, a leap of faith (looking at you Kierkegaard), or absurdism, the last being what the doctor perscribes, but also requires the most effort because you have to find your question to the ultimate answer your self… Or not, who cares. Lets go spend some time by a lake that thinks its a gin & tonic.
I hope that I can come around to the absurdist perspective sooner or later, it does seem quite appealing to me, but I’m still yet to be convinced by Camus’ argument that the rebellion against the absurd has any more value than your other options. How would you say you find that sort of value?
Lets break down the arguments, and throw up that content warning because were about to do a philosophy.
(Sad dead Dutch/French thinkers)
The first option was to embrace Nhilism, this option is the worst outcome because one of the logical outcomes is if the universe has no meaning, why, as a part of the universe, should you. We’re going to drop this option right here because one of the physical representation of this viewpoint is suicide and thats not a healthy state of mind to be in, plus someone would have to clean up your mess.
The second option is Soren Kierkegaards leap of faith, by putting your faith (synonomys with “meaning of life” in this context) in something other than your self, you are no longer responsible for it. A leap of faiths original intent was to join a religion (cough christianity cough), but this is Lemmy and atheists abound in the 21st century so there isnt much point delving into this option here. The point is that your faith is put into an entity higher than yourself. I would argue that it does not need to be an abastract entity like the abrahamic god, gaia or Tom Cruise anymore, anything that can be used to provide a higher objective meaning works (as irrational as it is). This option could be viewed as suicide in a philosopical sense because you cease seeking meaning, because you claim to have already found it.
The final point, rejection of the absurd, is unfortunatly the last option and also requires the most effort. To use it as a personal philosophy involves the rejection of objective meaning and focusing on subjective meaning in spite of the absurdity of it all. That is the part that I feel takes effort, spite (without anger) is a taxing state of mind to maintain, and it does not provide the structures that tends to come with the package of option two. To quote many of the other thread and to use it as a jumping off point, the phrase “Do no harm”, the first word is Do, an action, something altered in the universe, something changed. If the universe is meaningless, then to revolt is to simply doing something and putting in the effort to make it a subjectivly good something.
This is the point where people would comicly point out that Camus being very French (Algerian), rebelion and revolt are sorta their national past times, and Ive always gotten a chuckle out of that.
Damn this took all day to write and got a little rambly… Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.
Thanks for the detailed response! It’s helping Camus’ writing make a bit more sense, still not 100% convinced but this is getting me closer.
Glad I could help. Remember a personal pilosophy is subjective, your going to have to reach those conclusions on your own. But if you want to talk shop, nerds are here to help.
I’m not the original poster, but their perspective resonates with mine quite well.
We are biological beings of great fragility and complexity. I subscribe to some ‘spiritual’ ideas, but that stops when we get to the persistence of consciousness after death.
Absurdism simply recognizes our biology. Laughter releases feel-good chemicals. It is our refuge from the inexorable grind of raw-dogging reality.
If I had to choose a religion, it would be Bokononism.
“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder ‘why, why, why?’ Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.”
Ecclesiastes is a good read. I found “Everything is meaningless” to be very liberating. The book does go on to say what is good: to love God of course, but also to eat, drink and enjoy your work. But the whole thing is worth a read.
I stopped looking for external meaning in life a long time ago.
Look into nihilism (like actualy nihilism, not like “hurr durr I hate everything so I’m going to make the world suck” people who label themselves “nihilist”). It’s actually very freeing.
Edit: Just saw your “Context,” so it appears you’re on that track already. I guess I lean more toward the, “there is no meaning, so stop wasting time and effort trying to find or invent it” side than the “create your own meaning” side.
Two phrases I like for this:
There isn’t the meaning of life, there is your meaning of life. This realistic approach recognizes our constantly shifting values and how radically different it can be per person.
And of course Herbert’s
The mystery of life isn’t a problem to be solved, but a reality to experience
I think B.B. King has the solution:
I’ve got a good mind to give up on living and go shopping instead.
Yep. Riding With The King. He knows when the going gets tough the tough go shopping.
