I'd also recommend Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/d...). He makes a lot of interesting points, including that most people come to a conclusion about an issue, then look for reasoning to support it, and that most of us operate on instinct most of the time—logic is a more costly, difficult mode whose use can be cultivated but which is not at all the default.
Not to say instinct is bad. It's extremely valuable, and as Blink Theory pointed out so famously, has it's place as well.
But as you said, I agree it's bad advice to let one simply trump the other.
But, if instinct trumped logic as the author suggests, humans wouldn't be at the top of the food chain and driving cars.
1. Remember, you're going to die!
2. Plan for the future, but not too much or you'll have multiple divorces and no friends.
3. Think about the present, but not too much or you'll end up poor and unhappy.
4. Think about the past to remember how far you've come.
5. Only do work where you are in "the flow", so you can be happy when you're dying (remember, you're going to die!)
I'm not saying these activities are pointless or bad in isolation, I just think it's unrealistic and generally not practical to have all that rattling around in your head while you make decisions about how to spend your time. Just buckle up and enjoy the ride. Be nice to others, find interesting things to work on and have some fun. If you spend all your time worried about whether your current activity and state of mind is somehow optimized for achieving the meaning of life, you have a good chance of being overwhelmed and paralyzed by it.
1. Am I happy now? If so, keep doing what you're doing.
2. If not, is what's making me unhappy really important in the scheme of things? If not, goto 1.
3. Focus on changing your situation, or your reaction to it.
If you get to #3, ideally try to find meaning in the process of change itself rather than focusing too much on the end state.
"There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that there's meaning in life."
The quote is poignant regardless of your religious affiliation. Barker was saying that the meaning of life is intensely personal. Each of us invents it through our own experiences.
Nietzsche feared that the progression of atheism would lead to broadly accepted Nihilism. Which would have the implication of anarchy and moralless behaviour. So he imagined the "Übermensch", a person who choses his own meaning and own morals, free from any moral commitment society has placed upon him.
- "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or "purposeful".
- those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical quirks, etc.
Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other?
Isn't that merely hedonism, just with 'meaning' as the ultimate pleasure?
If it brings you joy to help others then it becomes a bit of a semantic and meaningless debate as to whether your intentions are noble or not.
We're all just looking for the s/meaning of life/brain chemistry that makes us happy/g.
I find statements like this meaningless regardless of how many deities exist.
Born at the end of the '60s just before Christmas I was named after a saint. Later I found out that Santa Claus was largely invented by Coca-Cola to sell sodas and all the unlikely, but commonly held, beliefs that he was omniscient and omnipresent for at least one night of the year was seriously undermined.
Then it was only a short jump to realise that Jesus was probably all made up too, that he wasn't the son of God and, by extension, there might well not be a God.
I became a devout atheist at the age of seven - by 'devout' I mean that were there to be a Rapture as some believe that there will be, I will consider the 'proof' of the second coming to be symptomatic of hallucination, possibly a spiked water supply, and refuse to believe in God because I prefer to live my life that way without one.
The question "What is the meaning of life?" had no easy answers in 'forgiveness', or 'love thy neighbour', or the promise of an afterlife for those who did good deeds as if we were on Santa's omniscient list of good children to recieve presents. So I used logic and logic alone to arrive at the definitive objective answer no matter how it may seem uncomfortable to my sensibilities to reveal it.
The truth is, that to ask this question objectively you have to necessarily be totally objective about life and to be objective about anything you have to be outside of it with a detached point of view. With 'life, the universe and everything' with a whole 'philosophical universe of discourse' included in the set of things being considered I had to immediately dismiss all instrinsic attempts at an answer as not definitively objective due to their lack of detachment and inescapable subjective bias.
Realising that I needed to be outside the 'universe of discourse' to properly pose the question I saw what the difficulty with answering this had been all this time...
...'meaning' is part of the 'universe of discourse' and it not available if outside of it.
Consequently, all claims to a definitive meaning of life are erroneous in logic as an objective answer cannot be found. It is not so much that life is meaningless and we should all be nihilistic atheists, but that we are free to live any way we please as there is no wrong answer - as there is no definitive objective ULTIMATE answer!
Every way you wish to give your life meaning is equally valid for your life, with the caveat that this is an ephemeral guideline you choose to adopt not an eternal truth - actually, I like the way this same argument was presented "in reverse" by Mr Sivers as whenever I have posted about this in various fora in the past I have felt that I've come across as overly alienating by hitting them with the cold truth first instead of pandering to their intimately held, but unfortunately subjective, beliefs. Putting it all the other way around encourages more people to read on and seems more life affirming - even if I know, in truth, that life is without extrinsic meaning.
There is only one inherent value to consciousness, and it is pleasure.
What is the evidence for this claim? It is directly perecptible. To see the proof of this, all you have to do is look.
Everything else you value should be for the sake of this ultimate value. (Because there is no other ultimate value for them to be for the sake of.)
Now, this isn't an endorsement of hedonism, which I take to mean "doing whatever feels good." Rather, you should pursue pleasure systematically.
First, it must be sustainable over the long term (your lifespan). Second, it must account for the various kinds of emotions (e.g. serenity, self-esteem, etc.). Third, it must account for the fact that these emotions are effects that have specific causes.
"Utility" might be a better word than "pleasure" or "happiness."
To concretize, pleasure breaks down into two categories: physical pleasure and emotional pleasure. The former includes being full instead of hungry, etc. The latter includes happiness, joy, serenity, etc.
So you need to realize that attaining certain kinds of desires lead to maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, and adjust your desires accordingly.
If you just pursue whatever you happen to desire without reference to any further standard, which is hedonism, you will not maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
For instance, I may not feel like exercising or going on a diet, but if I realize that those things will maximize my pleasure, then I now have the ability to desire to do them, because they are a value to me.
When you suggest "utility" as a better word, you are begging the question. Utility for what? To whom? Why would one kind of thing constitute utility, and not something else?
The answer is that there is only one kind of ultimate, inherent utility for a conscious being: pleasure. Everything else that has utility has utility for the sake of pleasure.
Let me know if you have any thoughts and want to continue the conversation.
I just wonder why I should jump to a conclusion. For my intuition?
It is pretty obvious why this applies to loved ones and friends, but it actually extends to all of society. A happier society is a better place to live, with more productivity, more to be inspired by (and not discouraged by), etc.
I'd also like to add that michaelsbradley's comment way down at the bottom of the page sums up my Christian belief on the meaning of life pretty nicely even though I'm not Catholic. (and I suspect I have a different interpretation of "the Church" when I read that statement)
Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1] does a fine job of exploring evidence for God's existence from modern science[2]. Many notable scientists were/are persons of faith[3].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28priest%29
[2] http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions...
[&] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5k
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
A the end of the day, we look for the meaning of/in life to ultimately be happy, or at least content. For that, we need a "purpose", and the philosopher Daniel Dennentt has some good advice here:
“Find something more important than you are, and dedicate your life to it.”
So, how do you find your purpose - something that is "more important than you are"? For many people, the answer is based in religious belief. Others may find value in a letter penned by 20 year old Hunter S. Thompson:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/04/hunter-s-t...
Key quote:
"In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires—including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.
As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES."
I would add that the DESIRES need to be aligned with, and perhaps subservient to, that thing which is "more important than you are", otherwise ==> hedonism.
Similar: the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Intrinsic value is a mirage.
1. Existential: death and suffering are inevitable.*
2. Moral: life is amoral.
3. Epistemic: most of what we think we know about the world is illusory.
*I include being downvoted on HN, especially under the new voting regime, under the category of suffering.
Edit: a reference, with additional clarification and justification for those who dispute the abbreviated claims.
Leiter, Brian, The Truth is Terrible (February 22, 2014). Daniel Came (ed.), Nietzsche on Morality and the Affirmation of Life (Oxford University Press, Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2099162 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2099162
His belief is about an act of will. That you "will" what happens to you. By this act we obtain power over life and the events in it. (not sure I fully agree... just stating what I understand).
"Was that life? Well then! Once more!" -from Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Edit for clarity
I can certainly believe this.
If you are not familiar with the concept of "flow state" (Samadhi in Hindu cultures [1]), I'd recommend reading the wonderful "Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art" by Stephen Nachmanovitch [2] over the more famous "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
* Consider the apparent self-assembling of the universe over the last 13.8 billion years.
* Consider the seeming overall long-term trend (certainly not a monotonic one) of "improvement" in life. Adapting Gregg Easterbrook's thought experiment [2]: Would you permanently trade places with a random person who lived 1,000 years ago? How about 10,000 years ago? Would anyone, at any time, do so?
It's a defensible proposition that, as theologian Philip Hefner put it, we are created co-creators [3]. To what end? Who knows. But if past performance is any indication, it'll be pretty neat.
From this perspective, conducting one's life in accordance with (a weak version of) Pascal's Wager [4] seems like a reasonable course of action.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Nonzero-The-Logic-Human-Destiny/dp/067... (not an affiliate link)
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Beside-Still-Waters-Searching-Meaning/... (ditto)
But I guess it would be hard to get speaking engagements saying "you are born, then you die, and what you do in between is a waste of time"....
Even if this were the case in reality. (Which I'm not saying it is).
Did you actually listen to the talk? He comes to the same conclusion.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. We don't come to the same conclusions. I'm saying the concept of "meaning".... not the "meaning of life" is something derived from the property of life itself. Therefore using this concept to ask a question in a larger context probably isn't valid.
I read the transcript. You didn't read the post and responses carefully did you?
When you think about the incredible number of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, having untold habitable planets, existing for tens of billions of years? Then we think about our one planet Earth, and how each of us lives only 50-100 years and then we're gone?
We have the question backwards. In the grand scheme of things, we're much less than a speck on a mote somewhere, a fruit fly. We're completely inconsequential. It's not for us to ask what life is about. We have the question backwards. Instead life -- that thing that has existed for eons before we were ever a possibility and that will exist eons after our memory is gone -- is asking us "What is the meaning of you?"
Life sets us up with initial conditions and gives us various challenges as we go through our minuscule little part of it. It is during these experiences that Life is asking us what our meaning is. Our choices provide the reply.
Being alive is answering the question: what is my meaning? We could no more judge the meaning of life itself than we could begin to count the habitable planets in the sky. To phrase the question in this way is just to provide busywork instead of dealing with the reality in front of us.
"You must have worked really hard at it"
Just want to correct the line 'Life is Suffering' when you brought up Buddhism. That sounds sadistic. Buddhist's idea is suffering exists. Which is presented as a fact that can be seen with a rational mind. And life is to be lived in pursuit of eliminating suffering for yourself and others. Just thought, I point this out.
From the site: Alpha really is for anyone who’s curious. The talks are designed to encourage debate and explore the basics of the Christian faith in a friendly, honest and informal environment.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/series/alpha-male
Sounds like the usual credulous nonsense to me, by YMMV :)
Simply adding recursive complexity doesn't solve the question, but now you have two problems.
For the record, I think the real problem is the question. It supposes that "meaning" can be something outside of what we experience and I don't believe it can be.
Yes we can invent stupid justifications for life like 'life is about love', 'life is helping others' and a million other equally bizzare justifications but in the end its just a pointless absurdity.
Framing things that "life is about helping people" is bizarre and "in the end life is absurd and pointless" is not right, it's still trying to put human concepts on an inexplicable universe, but positioning oneself as superior to everyone else while doing so.
Adapted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reflects my own belief and answer to this question, and I am happy to be numbered among billions over the centuries who would have answered Siver's question in the same way.
The reason I pointed that out is that, other controversies aside, in an age of hyper-individualism, the fact that a set of beliefs is shared by so many is itself often an unstated motive for doubt.
Anyway, obviously you are a fully converted Christian, congratulations on your happiness ;-)
From a Catholic perspective, reason and faith necessarily go together and official Church teaching rejects fideism[1] outright. That's not to say that individuals don't experience "leaps of faith", wherein reason and belief may be in tension with one another for brief periods.
Most of my Christian reading these days consists of historical works, treatments of specific topics (e.g. theology of Atonement), and spiritual classics (e.g. Augustine's "Confessions", Scupoli's "Spiritual Combat"[2]).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Fideism_rejected_by_the...
[ Taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo ]
Why wasn't there a discussion on how what Sivers is explaining is the concept of NIHILISM?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
What Sivers said has an underlying message: there is a meaning to life: it is that there is no objective/inherent meaning. This is important to note because of the huge ramifications this has and has had in philosophy since Nietzsche.
Unfortunately, nihilism is circular and presupposes moral relativism.
So basically self-actualization while being awesome. :)
For me life is producing output when presented with some kind of input. If we are alive and that's pretty much what we do, life must be it. (not only man, but every animal I can think about)
Now, how are we alive and a computer problem isn't, I don't know. Maybe because our input comes directly from the natural world?
What is the meaning of life? As others said here, it's a question that seems illogical to be asked.
But life itself is simply sunlight falling to earth if you think about it biochemically.
In other words as far as we know, life is a channel for and manifestation of entropy.
Don't you think, that by same extension, car is just Gas/Fuel coming in from a Gas/Fuel station?
I am sorry, but I find most essays on the topic of 'meaning of life' escapist. Or rather answering a different question on how best to live life, with the assumption that the real meaning is unknowable.
None of these essays satisfy my need to know, what it is actually all about.
Talking about this essay, its excellent no doubt. But IMHO its misleading all the same.
The Talking Heads were active until 1991!
> Nothing! Nothing at all.
Don't try skydiving.
