>>8216382
>Doesn't it seem sort of absurd that there's a meaningful and meaningless dichotomy in our heads?
Not at all. We have evolved to be pattern-seeking, problem-solving creatures. We find solutions to our basic problems (how to locate tasty animals; where to find reliable water sources) by a process of selection and discrimination.

Meaning emerges naturally out of a sea of solutions and non-solutions; of patterns and noise. Multiply this enough times, and you gain an intuitive sense of what is meaningful and what isn't (try cleaning a disorganised drawer to feel this intuition in action: you may choose to keep a set of batteries which may solve a later problem, yet throw away a bit of wire for which a potential use is less clear - yet you are not incapable of imagining a scenario where that wire could be useful.)

Also I'm drunkposting so maybe what I just said is total horse-shit

>>8216382
This is the literature board.

You should go to /his/

sage and report

>>8216420
It makes a fair bit of sense, when you talk about human beings being pattern seeking creatures. How else would human beings be able to function without these pattern seeking functions? It's hard to imagine.

>>8216420
Meaning goes beyond a simple intuition of utility though. By that logic you could argue that any primate capable of using tools has an intuition of what is meaningful and meaningless.

What of the things which observably serve no purpose, yet we retain as meaningful objects? Why do we emotionally invest in trinkets or talismans? Why does art or creative endeavours play such significant roles in people's lives?

As far as I see it, rational intuition is a necessary power of cognition which helps us organise and categorise the world according to its functionality. Meaning, on the other hand, is social – it gives us communication, and a way of allowing our experiences to resonate with others.