what do you mean by the word: meaning of life

[xxx200]

before starting to answer such kind of big question, i wanna tell you my method of conducting reason. i use a case based approach. each of my argument is supported by a case: a real life event that ensures the truthfulness of my argument in reality.

what do you mean by the word : meaning of life.

is it that why you are born? who are you? why you have the life?

well lets see:

why you are born? why you have the life? the most obvious answer is because your parents met and your mother conceive and deliver you that's why you have a life today. see otherwise you won't have any life.thats the way everybody has got life. agreed?

what is the destination of life? the answer: to the graveyard. see everybody dies. so one day you too will die. that is the ultimate direction and destination of your life.


these two things why you are born and where you are going can be known with objective certainity. anything in between the two is uncertain and relative, subjective.

[Deleet]

"meaning of life" isn't a word. It's a phrase.

[Flannel Jesus]

Pedantry isn't cool, it's boring.

[volchok]

Many of the so called "big" questions are nonsensical.

What is the meaning of life definitely fall into that category. There is no objective meaning and, if people realized what objective meaning really means, they too would prefer it not to exist.

The people who ask this question, what they generally want to know, really want to know, is what they should try to attain, what should they dedicate themselves to. And many want to be sure that if they waste their lives, they will still be compensated in the end somehow.

And correct me if I'm wrong and I might be but, usually, really happy people don't question the meaning of life. There might be a few exceptions of course but the majority are either not very content or they're suffering in some way. So, to ask what is the meaning of life, is for most people anyway, an attempt to make sense out of their suffering.

[Flannel Jesus]

^ pretty good post ^

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Not bad, volchok. As Nietzsche said: humans can stand to suffer a fantastic amount; what they can't stand is to suffer for no reason. We all suffer, some of us are just looking for a reason. There is, of course, no "meaning" to life. But that is precisely why we ought not to despair: meaning is a human affair; it is a human affair whether the world appears to you as a void of emptiness or as a canvas begging for your paint. There is a situation only through freedom, to speak with Sartre. That means before you act in the world, before you find yourself situated, you've already constituted that world, that situation yourself. If the world appears to you empty, if it seems as if all your endeavours fail from the outset, what you've missed is the fact that it is precisely your own projection that has constituted that world as the one that strikes down your efforts.

Here's Zizek: "...when we are active, when we intervene in the world through a particular act, the real act is not this particular, empirical, factual intervention (or non-intervention); the real act is of a strictly symbolic nature, it consists in the very mode in which we structure the world, our perception of it, in advance, in order to make our intervention possible, in order to open in it the space for our activity (or inactivity). The real act thus precedes the (particular-factual) activity; it consists in the previous restructuring of our symbolic universe into which our (factual, particular) act will be inscribed." (Sublime Object, 245).

[Helandhighwater]

I think Camus proposes a good reason to suffer for no reason, or at least to remain unbowed by a lack of reason or teleology. It's certainly one of the more positive existentialist ideas amongst what are generally depressing acceptances of absurdity. Sartre's Nausea also has a somewhat positive outlook at least at the end.

[Bodhimalik]

Ah, forget it. I just realized that I don't know what I'm taking about - a very common experience in my life.

[iambiguous]

The meaning of life [the part between conception and death] starts with those things we must procure in order to sustain it:

food and water

shelter from the elements

adequate defenses against those who might seek to take these things away


This is true for everyone. We all must subsist from day to day in order to live at all.

But I do agree that considerable chunks of the meaning we give it is rooted in the subjectivity that is rooted in dasein.

That and the biological blueprint we are given by nature.

[Drusus]

"meaning of life" can be considerd a carrot for naive philosophers who in a obsessive compulsery way will push themselves to belive that there "must" be more to life than the obvious, reproduction!

The concept itself should be very selfexplanatory, why it proves that those who keep asking about it have very low rationallity and unable to grasp this simple concept.

[finishedman]

The purpose of life would be to survive and procreate one like itself. That’s more like function. But the meaning of life has a ‘what is the significance of living in this world’ gist to it. But then that has to do with living, not necessarily life (as in the physical life of the body). I too get confused as to what is meant by the meaning of life.

[Bodhimalik]

I too get confused as to what is meant by the meaning of life.

I think the meaning of life is a really personal thing that changes with the person wondering about it. For me personally, it means that I am here in the physial world so that God can look out of my eyes onto the physical world, know my thoughts, emotions, etc. I am what He has in order to intimately know my physical experience. But that's just me.

[Universal Logic]

If there needs to be a reason or meaning to human existence (or life in general) then here's my take on it, borrowed from the last subchapter in my yet to be published book:

…if we could only find life in other places, we’d realize that we belong with them. That altogether we make up something that the universe was calling forth because it “needed it

”—Professor Neville Wolfe, University of Arizona

The universe "desires" conscious reflection of itself, utilizing life as a vehicle for that reflection. Otherwise, a lifeless universe is inconsequential and futile. If the need for a reason to existence is valid, a concept of the quasi-conscious reflection of AQUA (All-encompassing Quasi Universal Awareness) is also valid. If not, the question would instead be, “What is the reason for the existence of the universe?,” as opposed to, “What is the reason for the existence of life?” A simple answer to the reason for the existence of the universe could be for it to have the eventual capability to support life. Nonetheless, if life is a mere freak of nature, this answer is also invalid. Life could be nothing more than an accident, an anomaly; especially if Earth harbors the only bit of life anywhere in the vast expanse of the universe. Previous arguments might indicate otherwise.
Logically speaking, life must be a part of the natural blueprint of the universe, as are the stars, planets, and other three-dimensional objects throughout. Everything in the universe is a standard reflection of its general overall “design,” including life. Therefore, intelligent life should be the rule throughout the universe, not the exception, and it may exhibit a standard set of similar characteristics.
If life requires no reason for its existence, one must simply accept existence at face value. It perpetuates simply because. It just is. Either an explanation is beyond the realm of comprehension or there is none. Many refuse to accept this conclusion and turn to religion for possible alternatives. After all, religion holds the simplest, most comforting answers to any “meaning of life” question, science and logic do not.
So if a simplified logical answer is necessary, the meaning of life is as follows:

Life (as a biological “conscious” entity and direct part of the universe) is the end-result, standard formation of the universe—in and of itself—so that the universe is capable of an inherent “self-awareness” regarding its own existence.

Life is the vehicle of universal consciousness, the portion of the universe that needs reason for existence and reflection. It is the biological part of the universe on a quest to determine how and why it exists. The universe wishes to self-reflect and know why it exists, as do intelligent life forms that end up as the biological counterparts for that search. The innate desire for intelligent life to seek knowledge, assuredly, will not let the universe down.
Many portray this quasi-consciousness simply as being God. The overall purpose of this book was not to take anything away from that interpretation, rather offer a more logical, less personified rendition of such “divine awareness”; especially for those less apt to digest religious or mythological interpretations. For many would argue that “Man created god in his image, after His likeness.”

[Universal Logic]

Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but I don't think my last response posted. Hopefully it works this time.

If there needs to be a reason or meaning to human existence (or life in general) then here's my take on it, borrowed from the last subchapter in my yet to be published book:

…if we could only find life in other places, we’d realize that we belong with them. That altogether we make up something that the universe was calling forth because it “needed it

”—Professor Neville Wolfe, University of Arizona

The universe "desires" conscious reflection of itself, utilizing life as a vehicle for that reflection. Otherwise, a lifeless universe is inconsequential and futile. If the need for a reason to existence is valid, a concept of the quasi-conscious reflection of AQUA (All-encompassing Quasi Universal Awareness) is also valid. If not, the question would instead be, “What is the reason for the existence of the universe?,” as opposed to, “What is the reason for the existence of life?” A simple answer to the reason for the existence of the universe could be for it to have the eventual capability to support life. Nonetheless, if life is a mere freak of nature, this answer is also invalid. Life could be nothing more than an accident, an anomaly; especially if Earth harbors the only bit of life anywhere in the vast expanse of the universe. Previous arguments might indicate otherwise.
Logically speaking, life must be a part of the natural blueprint of the universe, as are the stars, planets, and other three-dimensional objects throughout. Everything in the universe is a standard reflection of its general overall “design,” including life. Therefore, intelligent life should be the rule throughout the universe, not the exception, and it may exhibit a standard set of similar characteristics.
If life requires no reason for its existence, one must simply accept existence at face value. It perpetuates simply because. It just is. Either an explanation is beyond the realm of comprehension or there is none. Many refuse to accept this conclusion and turn to religion for possible alternatives. After all, religion holds the simplest, most comforting answers to any “meaning of life” question, science and logic do not.
So if a simplified logical answer is necessary, the meaning of life is as follows:

Life (as a biological “conscious” entity and direct part of the universe) is the end-result, standard formation of the universe—in and of itself—so that the universe is capable of an inherent “self-awareness” regarding its own existence.

Life is the vehicle of universal consciousness, the portion of the universe that needs reason for existence and reflection. It is the biological part of the universe on a quest to determine how and why it exists. The universe wishes to self-reflect and know why it exists, as do intelligent life forms that end up as the biological counterparts for that search. The innate desire for intelligent life to seek knowledge, assuredly, will not let the universe down.
Many portray this quasi-consciousness simply as being God. The overall purpose of this book was not to take anything away from that interpretation, rather offer a more logical, less personified rendition of such “divine awareness”; especially for those less apt to digest religious or mythological interpretations. For many would argue that “Man created god in his image, after His likeness.”

[Universal Logic]

Pedantry isn't cool, it's boring.

I would ask, what is "cool" and what is "fascinating" when it comes to philosophy? Any given topic of philosophy could be considered pedantry so I'm not really sure who you are to judge. Many would argue the meaning of life is THE ultimate philosophical question. After all, most philosophical topics (which I refer to as side topics) relate to that question in one way or another. There doesn't have to be an ultimate answer to the meaning of life, but attempting to break it down certainly isn't boring or petty. It might be stereotypical or played out, but big questions like that are what interest people in general. It's one reason why religion is so popular. Philosophy should be based on supply and demand for the general public. Posing questions is one thing, defining answers (whether based on law, theory or hypothesis) another. Otherwise philosophers are doing nothing more than just talking. And isn't that the question that keeps popping up with the general public? The rise in popularity with such programs as "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman should answer that one for you. The key is to find an answer that fits all beliefs and religions, even one with a non-religious interpretation.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not sure if you understood this, but I was responding to the post directly above mine, in which someone said "it's not a word, it's a phrase." Not to the OP.

If that's not pedantic to you, then I don't know what is.