Is EVERYTHING meaningless?

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you explain how it is possible and consistent) to be kind, reasonable and purposeful in an ocean of indifference, absurdity and futility? It seems like wishful thinking based on fantasy…

Yes, and that is the brick wall the Darwinists keep running up against.

How does one explain the pervasive presence of altruism everywhere as an antidote to homicidal hedonism?

 

[Nihilist]

Can you explain how it is possible and consistent) to be kind, reasonable and purposeful in an ocean of indifference, absurdity and futility? It seems like wishful thinking based on fantasy…

Well, regarding kindness to others in need:

1. It’s the commandment of God.
2. It’s the decent human thing to do.

This life is like children playing a pointless game. The sometimes fall over, so you help them out. Maybe you help them play the game. Maybe you even pretend like the game matters, to make others feel better. The worst part is, I am also playing this meaningless game. But it is not really ‘a game’- cause it’s hard and painful, and not much fun.

Objectively, it means nothing. But, it means something to the people involved who still believe in this world and its empty promises.

 

[Aloysium]

Well, regarding kindness to others in need:

1. It’s the commandment of God.
2. It’s the decent human thing to do.

This life is like children playing a pointless game. The sometimes fall over, so you help them out. Maybe you help them play the game. Maybe you even pretend like the game matters, to make others feel better. The worst part is, I am also playing this meaningless game. But it is not really ‘a game’- cause it’s hard and painful, and not much fun.

Objectively, it means nothing. But, it means something to the people involved who still believe in this world and its empty promises.

Ecclesiastes 2:10-26

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil.
Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.

Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.
The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both.
Then I said to myself,
“The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?”
I said to myself,
“This too is meaningless.”
For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die!

So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What do people get for all the toil and anxious striving with which they labor under the sun? All their days their work is grief and pain; even at night their minds do not rest. This too is meaningless.

A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breathc ; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”
So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?

Is this what you mean?

Strangely, I am joyous. I thank the Man on the cross.

 

[opusAquinas]

If Jesus was not resurrected then drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

 

[fhansen]

It seems to me that if one took a ‘global’ perspective of the world, it would be a bunch of people moving around like ants, moving things here and there, doing, scheming, planning, being born, dying…

Viewed from a million miles aways, it just a lump of rock in space. Meaningless.

Now, if one were to view the entire EVERYTHING (the Universe, its Creator, it origin, is final end) from an absolutely transcendent point of view- the WHOLE thing (Creation, Existence, time, space, etc.) is totally pointless. A trillion years of time, a billion universes, millions of people being born, laboring, suffering and dying, all human efforts eventually reduced to dust. And this is just one planet out of billions. In the end, happiness and sorrow are the same. One fate comes to all. Everything seems futile…

So it feels to me, right now. How can we look at infinity without feeling sick- or consider existence without nausea?

Is this philosophy, or just a feeling?

Is there a philosophical answer to this feeling I have…

The bible says God knows every hair on your head. Augustine said that God loves each of us as if there we’re only one of us. Large vs small, one vs multitudes, seconds vs billions of years, it’s all the same; size, numbers, and time are irrelevant relative to the mind of God Whom we’re made in the image of, a mind and an image we each participate in, that we each express, to the extent that we allow ourselves to be aligned with His will, to the extent that we’re true to the self God created us to be, impossible without communion with Him.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Everything is meaningless if you want it to be.

Everything is meaningful if you want it to be.

What do you want everything to be: meaningless or meaningful?

It’s easier to find everything meaningless. You just stop looking for and discovering meaning. Ask a saint if he finds meaning in a perfect life. He finds meaning in a perfect life because he finds joy. Then ask a criminal if he finds meaning in virtue. The criminal finds no meaning in virtue because it is easier to steal than to work for a living.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, regarding kindness to others in need:

1. It’s the commandment of God.
2. It’s the decent human thing to do.

Are these objective facts?

This life is like children playing a pointless game. The sometimes fall over, so you help them out. Maybe you help them play the game. Maybe you even pretend like the game matters, to make others feel better. The worst part is, I am also playing this meaningless game. But it is not really ‘a game’- cause it’s hard and painful, and not much fun. Objectively, it means nothing. But, it means something to the people involved who still believe in this world and its empty promises.

How do you know life is meaningless and pointless?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am just now reading a rather old essay by Hendrik Willem van Loon titled “The Laughing Philosophers.” After setting it down that he is an atheist, Loon gives us a hint as to his real heroes. Socrates (not an atheist) heads the list. Loon had For Moses only contempt as the most ruthless of tyrants. This I am trying to fathom as best I can, and I come up empty. What Moses did was to lead his race out of slavery from Egypt, bring them to a Promised Land, and leave them with a small handbook of rules for living the good life. I compare that with the endless intellectual confusion the chatterbox Socrates liked to spread among the citizens of Athens, and the fact that his intellectual tyranny was so obnoxious the citizens opted judicially (if not judiciously) to murder him for his trouble. What I think Loon liked about Socrates was not that he actually found the truth, but that he urged others to search for the truth instead of having it handed to them in a handbook. But Loon’s error is that a handbook, and certainly the handbook by Moses, is just that: the challenge not to find the truth on our own, but to let God take us by the hand in the pursuit of it. Loon’s error is the error of all atheists: “I can do it by myself!”

 

[Nihilist]

Everything is meaningless if you want it to be.

Everything is meaningful if you want it to be.

So, you are saying ‘meaning’ is a subjective construction of the individual? But doesn’t that show that objectively (like from the point of view of space, or a rock) there is no point.

It’s easier to find everything meaningless. You just stop looking for and discovering meaning. Ask a saint if he finds meaning in a perfect life. He finds meaning in a perfect life because he finds joy.

From reading the ‘Imitation of Christ’, I get the impression Thomas a Kempis seemed to find earthly life pointless. I can relate to what he wrote…

 

[Nihilist]

Are these objective facts?

How do you know life is meaningless and pointless?

Well, it’s an objective fact that the Gospel requires charity. It is probably/possibly true that there is a God who will judge us, and determine where we spend eternity. This is a compelling reason to follow the Laws of God. Not an objective reason, mind you- but a subjective one. To avoid Hell- personally.

The other reason is also subjective. I am a human being, and therefore, other human beings are in some way my brothers and sisters. Therefore, subjectively, we need to look after each other.

But, an objective point of view would be the point of view of an utterly objective being (a being with no volition, entirely eternal, changeless, not affected by anything)- either a rock or a ‘god’. From the point of such a being, none of it would matter.

 

[Nihilist]

If Jesus was not resurrected then drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Shouldn’t it be “drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” BECAUSE Jesus is resurrected?

That would make more sense. Easter is a time of celebration. And, as I understand, that knowledge that we are going to die is, for Christians, a source of joy.

 

[Patty23]

Wow you almost sound like Sartre

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, you are saying ‘meaning’ is a subjective construction of the individual? But doesn’t that show that objectively (like from the point of view of space, or a rock) there is no point.

From reading the ‘Imitation of Christ’, I get the impression Thomas a Kempis seemed to find earthly life pointless. I can relate to what he wrote…

I’m saying the subjective construction of meaning begins with an act of the will. You either want there to be meaning, or you don’t. The objective fact of meaning is still there, whether or not you subjectively subscribe to it.

Earthly life is not an end in itself. Those who regard it as an end in itself have missed the point. In which case their lives are pointless in the objective sense.

That would be the point of The Imitation of Christ.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, it’s an objective fact that the Gospel requires charity. It is probably/possibly true that there is a God who will judge us, and determine where we spend eternity.

We are the ones who determine where we spend eternity because we alone choose how to live - for ourselves or for others.

This is a compelling reason to follow the Laws of God. Not an objective reason, mind you- but a subjective one. To avoid Hell- personally.

It is a reason that is both subjective and objective. A far more compelling reason is love for God and all His creatures. It applies to everyone - including ourselves.

The other reason is also subjective. I am a human being, and therefore, other human beings are in some way my brothers and sisters. Therefore, subjectively, we need to look after each other.

Again it is a reason that is both subjective and objective. There is no reason why a reason cannot be both!

But, an objective point of view would be the point of view of an utterly objective being (a being with no volition, entirely eternal, changeless, not affected by anything)- either a rock or a ‘god’. From the point of such a being, none of it would matter.

It is possible to be objective even when we are thinking about ourselves. It doesn’t mean we must totally ignore ourselves. We are told to love others as we love ourselves…

Being objective means being realistic, not excluding ourselves from the picture.

 

[Nihilist]

I’m saying the subjective construction of meaning begins with an act of the will. You either want there to be meaning, or you don’t. The objective fact of meaning is still there, whether or not you subjectively subscribe to it.

Earthly life is not an end in itself. Those who regard it as an end in itself have missed the point. In which case their lives are pointless in the objective sense.

That would be the point of The Imitation of Christ.

We are the ones who determine where we spend eternity because we alone choose how to live - for ourselves or for others.

It is a reason that is both subjective and objective. A far more compelling reason is love for God and all His creatures. It applies to everyone - including ourselves.

Again it is a reason that is both subjective and objective. There is no reason why a reason cannot be both!
It is possible to be objective even when we are thinking about ourselves. It doesn’t mean we must totally ignore ourselves. We are told to love others as we love ourselves…

Being objective means being realistic, not excluding ourselves from the picture.

OK, you are both right in what you say. The position that “EVERYTHING is meaningless” is just a quasi-philosophical statement.

But still, it is a real thought (or feeling) which comes to me sometimes (often, actually), and probably a lot of other people. I suppose it’s just part of being a human, and being able to adopt numerous points of view- including to adopt a point of view (a fictive one, perhaps), from which human endeavors seem like a waste of time and effort.

I often get this feeling in a big cities- seeing millions of people, all busy with one thing or the other, no one caring about each other-and I think- all these lives, all this trouble, and stress- all means NOTHING. In 100 years, it will all be forgotten. In 10,000 years, this city will all be dust.

And viewed from the point of view of a distant star, the whole earth is just a speck of light…Amongst countless billions.

Nothing last forever, except the pain of a broken heart. All joys go, all sorrow abides. Life is just learning to say ‘goodbye’. A long walk to our own personal Calvaries, through the endless winter of meaningless suffering and broken dreams.

Yet, it is at that personal Calvary that comes to all- the last hour of despair, when all hope is gone, and Love itself lies broken and bleeding upon the Cross of this life, that the final word is sighed- “My God, why have you abandoned me”- then, through Christ, we are released from this prison, and finally, the soul, free from EVERYTHING, free from itself, free from existence, can say, “It is consumated”. Embrace the void, and thus embrace God, who dwells in inaccessible light.

Thus God wills, thus it is. Thus is was for Christ, thus it must be for his disciple.

Don’t you ever feel that way?

 

[Oreoracle]

I have been thinking about your insight. I agree that the effect of the passions or instincts can make something APPEAR to have value.

I disagree. As I said, something is valuable (to you) if and only if you are passionate about it. The problem arises when one tries to argue for objective value; that is, when one feels tempted to say something of the form “This is valuable to me, therefore it must be valuable to others”.

But, learning to ignore (or overcome) the passions and instincts seems exactly what we, as post-Cartesian thinking beings, as rational minds, need to do.

Well then we would be computers. Computers don’t want to do anything, and so they do nothing unless they are programmed to do something. No passions = no intentional behaviors.

I’m sure we could quibble about what “passions” are. I use the word to refer to anything one wants.

If you insist on objective value, your claim should be like any other claim–it should be verifiable/falsifiable. Offer a test by which we could prove or disprove the claim “X is valuable”. You can choose for X to be whatever you like.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Well then we would be computers.

Would that be a problem for you?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you insist on objective value, your claim should be like any other claim–it should be verifiable/falsifiable. Offer a test by which we could prove or disprove the claim “X is valuable”. You can choose for X to be whatever you like.

You are demanding the impossible. Values are not material things that you can see and weigh and measure, that you can verify or falsify as you might a scientific experiment. You are confusing philosophy with scientism. Well, scientism is actually a philosophy, but a very bad one that defies any ability to even verify/falsify itself.

 

[Nihilist]

If you insist on objective value, your claim should be like any other claim–it should be verifiable/falsifiable. Offer a test by which we could prove or disprove the claim “X is valuable”. You can choose for X to be whatever you like.

OK- here’s my attempt.

Let X be anything or everything.

X is of objective value if it is preferable that X is the case, rather than X isn’t the case, from an absolutely objective point of view.
An absolutely objective point of view is the point of view without any preference or desire on anything, and without any basis for preference or desire.
Therefore, from an absolutely objective point of view, it is not preferable or desirable, whether or not X be the case.
Therefore, from an absolutely objective point of view, X is without value.

Is that a correct argument? It seems virtually a tautology.

 

[davidv]

OK- here’s my attempt.

Let X be anything or everything.

**[1]**X is of objective value if it is preferable that X is the case, rather than X isn’t the case, from an absolutely objective point of view.
An absolutely objective point of view is the point of view without any preference or desire on anything, and without any basis for preference or desire.
Therefore, from an absolutely objective point of view, it is not preferable or desirable, whether or not X be the case.
Therefore, from an absolutely objective point of view, X is without value.

Is that a correct argument? It seems virtually a tautology.

I don’t believe it is a correct argument. Notation mine.
Re [1] above: Where do preferences come from? Internally. If they come from internally they are not objective but subjective. Therefore the initial premise fails and the rest cannot follow.