Prove that life has absolutely any meaning in it whatsoever.
>protip: you can't
this robot is fucking retarded and won't let me post an image of just speedwagon
>>28340541
Life only has the meaning you force it to have
>>28340732
Except it's the laws of physics (whether they be deterministic or probablistic) forcing YOU to force life to have a meaning.
There is no libertarian free will.
>>28340732
but wat about god and how u affect others anon think of someting other than urself
>>28340541
I never claimed that it has any because that term is too ill-defined.
Your question is like expecting people to disprove soul without first defining it unambiguously.
>>28340823
>absolutely any meaning in it whatsoever
>absolutely any
Those are pretty easy limitations to work with you are thinking about it too hard bub
>>28340751
Doesn't stop from it having the meaning that you applied to it.
Aren't you free to rationalize your own meaning
lmao top Sheep OP
>>28340541
Well not with that attitude you cant
There isn't any meaning, and I doubt anyone here would try to argue otherwise.
Do what makes you happy that doesn't effect others and ignore everyone else.
The meaning of life is to be religious. You can even consider Pascal's wager for all you jaded fuckers.
If I'm dead I can't play video games
>>28340937
The concept of "you" is so incredibly nebulous if you think about it.
>>28341026
>Do what makes you happy that doesn't effect others
Pretty much everything you do is going to end up affecting others, often in unintended or unforeseeable ways.
I get what you meant though, but I'm just saying.
It has meaning to me, therefore it has meaning.
Bitch.
>>28341059
>Pascal's wager
>being mindfully delusional towards something just because it would be in your benefit if it were true instead of critically evaluating it on it's own merit
Is there anything stupider?
For those who don't know Pascal's Wager:
"The argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise."
>>28340882
it's also easy to weasel out of any attempted proof of meaning by saying "that's not what I meant, that doesn't count"
The only meaning of life is shitposting
>>28341190
You're right, it's safest to not make any argument at all. What a horror it would be if someone told you that you were wrong over the internet
>>28340541
During a solar eclipse: the moon fits perfectly over the sun.
>>28341246
Perhaps I missed the point of your post but I am taking astronomy and the diameter of the Sun is about 400 times larger than the Moon's, but it is also roughly 400 times farther away from Earth.
That's why they appear the same size.
>>28341099
>you
Here is your (you)
Well I am defined by what I do and what I think and what I want.
Regardless of whether these things where mine to begin with, I have adopted them as a part of my identity.
>>28340541
meaning is subjective
there will never be an objective meaning to life, get over it
if i say "life" has meaning, it means MY life has meaning, or, by extension *I* place value on other lives
not that those lives are meaningful in themselves
they are meaningful because *I* am conscious
there is no such thing as "life"
there is only lives
life is an abstract concept that your mind created, so in that sense it exists
>>28341099
>The concept of "you" is so incredibly nebulous if you think about it.
yes but as you said, if *YOU* think about it, you see, even the act of establishing that the concept of "you" is nebulous is a process which requires you in the first place
>>28340541
the only purpose of anything is to increase entropy, accelerating the heat death of the universe
>>28341422
You're confusing purpose with result.
Purpose is the product of a willful subject.
That is like saying because we are born our PURPOSE is to die, or that the PURPOSE of the sun rising is to set.
In fact, purpose is something only possible by conscious subjects, and exists in so far as any being determines it so.
>>28341534
in what way is purpose not the intended result?
The point is that life is pointless and as such having or not having a purpose is redundant both ways. You could argue that the effort put towards making your own purpose is a waste but if life is pointless than that effort being made or not is equally pointless. So just fuck it I guess and do whatever. If you want to have and work towards standards go for it. If you want to lay about and wait to die then go for it. They're equally pointless so what's the difference?
>>28340541
If God doesn't exist and the universe was created from nothing...
Doesn't that mean that it's possible to create an objective purpose from nothing?
And I just did it right now. The purpose of life is to seek a way to create a new purpose of life from nothing.
You have your destination and your adventure.
>>28341585
> intended result
He said result not intended result.
Intent requires will.
>>28341585
Because insentient objects do not have intention.
>>28341615
>Doesn't that mean
if by 'mean' you mean something like logically imply, then the answer to your question is no. it could be that god does not exist and it is not possible to create such a thing as an "objective purpose"
>>28341422
Don't try to into science. Everything is trying to reach equilibrium
>>28340541
I honestly don't know what people are talking about in terms of "meaning". It's like a language game that people have been playing for thousands of years, but fuck if I know what they're talking about.
Even if there is an almighty God who has set us a task, I still don't know what that has to do with "meaning". What does it MEAN that there is a God? I dunno, that's just how it is.
People with depression don't lack meaning, they lack the connection between what they want and how they behave. Wanting something is enough of a reason to do anything. It's the only reason you could ever have.
>>28341615
>Created
>From nothing
Every cause has an effect. If matter came into existence it must have had a catalyst to propel, but that catalyst must itself have been a thing.
>Doesn't that mean that it's possible
Possible? Maybe. Do it and then we'll see :^)
>>28341706
So if continual want is the only meaning to (your) life does that mean that no pleasure is ever really attained, since you are in a continual loop of wanting ---> getting? Or is meaning not equivalent with wanting/getting?
>>28341355
>Well I am defined by what I do and what I think and what I want.
By that logic, if you do, think, and want different things now than you did a year ago, then you're not the same "you" as you were back then.
You're literally a different person. By your own logic.
>>28341059
Pascal's wager is laughable if you know basic statistics. It assumes that there are only two possiblities: a God who rewards people who believe in God, or no God.
Of course there are infinitely many possibilities, and no way to distribute statistical weight across them, unless you have some reason to think that Abrahamic religions are true in the first place, in which case Pascal's wager isn't your real argument.
>>28341679
Can insentient objects "try"?
Or is that just part of your projecting your human nature onto the universe to enliven it with a meaning of your own creation?
>>28341805
>Of course there are infinitely many possibilities
Possibilities for what? Be specific please.
Would life have meaning if immorality existed?
>>28340541
>Prove that life has absolutely any meaning in it whatsoever.
Both this and the above quoted sentence carry meaning, and are part of life, therefore life contains meaning
>>28341679
increasing entropy is equilibrium senpai, higher energy dissipation allows for more stable equilibrium
>>28341738
>Every cause has an effect. If matter came into existence it must have had a catalyst to propel, but that catalyst must itself have been a thing.
How do you know this? How do you know that cause and effect is only a law of our own universe?
You can't have a cause and effect for everything, that would create an infinite cycle. Infinity is impossible. Therefore it's probable to state that at something, something formed from absolutely nothing.
>>28341804
>a different person
No, because the person of me is not the same as "me".
The person of me is a mixture of "me", the actions of previous "me"s and other peoples perception of "me".
Like how physically I would be different since my cells replace every 7 years, but they always come up in the same formation if I haven't had some freak accident.
I consider that to still be me, like how I consider my computer to still be my same computer even though I've replace all the parts.
>>28341978
>No, because the person of me is not the same as "me".
So there are two you's--"you", and "the person of you"?
>Like how physically I would be different since my cells replace every 7 years, but they always come up in the same formation if I haven't had some freak accident.
They don't come up in the same formation, though. They come up considerably differently.
Your brain, without which you would have no thoughts and no perception and no memory, is shaped significantly differently at age 28 than it is at age 21, and significantly differently from how it was shaped at 14, 7, and 0.
They don't come up the same.
>I consider that to still be me, like how I consider my computer to still be my same computer even though I've replace all the parts.
That's a very extreme position on the ship of thesus problem, man. I think if you gave it some thought you might reconsider whether it's really the same computer.
>>28341918
Yes. Clearly both are absurd.
In this regard I found the related info to be thought provoking
>>28341858
Okay, here are three possibilities. They are mutually exclusive, but they don't encompass all possibilities.
>there are no gods
>there is one god, who rewards theists
>there is one god, who punishes theists
We can't say anything about which of these three is more likely, on the face of it. So let's pretend they are all equally likely. In that case, Pascal's wager tells you nothing.
Everything balances out, on the large scale. Pascal's wager doesn't recommend anything, because you don't have any information about what sort of gods there are.
Unless you DO have that sort of information, in which case you don't need Pascal's wager.
Life has no objective meaning I guess, but I think what's important are the moments and experiences that you value.
>>28340541
>prove
Don't project your ideology.
>>28340751
>laws of physics
Don't project your ideology
>>28342369
Why shouldn't I, mister?
>>28342040
Disregarding that thought of the persona and "me".
Perhaps "me" is simply just a way of differentiating myself from everyone else and is purely a result of communication that has formed beyond itself.
If I were the only thing then there wouldn't be me, since everything is "me". Or maybe everything is "me" since everything is the universe and me and you are just ways to differentiate between the different parts of "me".
I should probably stop thinking about this.
>>28342510
Me is your consciousness or awareness
Since your awareness extends to everything in the universe, you are every your are conscious of, however, your primary identity is the thing of which you are of most often and intimately: your body.
>>28342360
The fact that there is no objective meaning I think is a great thing.
>>28341800
>Or is meaning not equivalent with wanting/getting?
Like I said, I don't understand what "meaning" is, in this larger sense. I never speak in that way, and I'm confused when people do.
I just got used to the idea that just because you can form a grammatical question, it doesn't have to be answerable.
I know what the word "life" means.
I don't know what life means.
>>28342325
Wouldn't the existence of a God depend on my awareness of him? If I did not exist, neither would God, right? (Apply this to yourself)
Anyway, you make a good point.
>>28342792
>Wouldn't the existence of a God depend on my awareness of him?
What? That doesn't apply to anything else in the world, why would it apply to God?
>>28342718
Meaning is a value system? Understand now? You know, when people say one thing is better than another thing, and the fact of one thing being better causes within them an urge to obtain it? That is an example of meaning. Understand now?
>I don't know what life means.
Life means that you EXIST. That you are conscious. When you say *I* don't know what life means, you are relying on life to say it, it is the *I* at the beginning of the sentence that is life.
>>28342817
>What? That doesn't apply to anything else in the world, why would it apply to God?
If that is true name one thing to which it does not apply.
>>28342858
>Meaning is a value system
I value things. That seems like a really trivial fact, though. Why do people talk about Meaning as if it's something important?
>>28342895
Me. I existed before you came on 4chan today.
>>28342921
>>28342921
"You" as you exist according to me did not exist until the point at which I became aware you, similarly to how me according to you did not exist until you became aware me. You did not exist "objectively" (nothing exists objectively), you existed in your subjective experience, but you did not exist for all subjects universally.
>>28340541
https://www.amazon.com/World-Us-Case-Phenomenalistic-Idealism-ebook/dp/B001EO6Y1U
>>28342989
You're just redefining existence as the perception of existence. It's just a word game, which you know perfectly well since you know there are planets in the universe that nobody is aware of.
>>28342510
>you are "you"
>"you" is a part of the universe
>therefore, "you" is the universe
>you are the universe
>>28342896
>That seems like a really trivial fact, though.
Sure. If to YOU it does.
>Why do people talk about Meaning as if it's something important?
Because importance is subjective and it values to them. Why do bronies talk about my little pony as if it is important? Because to them it is. There is no absolute in regards the concept of meaning.
>>28343025
I'd like you to prove existence apparent from the conscious perception of it.
There are potential planets existing in the minds of conscious beings which may at some point come into their awareness, prior to which they did not exist.
>>28343041
No, I think the way depressed people talk about Meaning goes way beyond that. When they say "Life has no meaning!" they don't mean "I don't value anything!"
I mean obviously they value some stuff. They probably just think that their values have been shaped by a "meaningless" universe so it doesn't count.
Basically I think one of the symptoms of depression is being upset at not having things that you were never promised in the first place. (I say this sympathetically.)
>>28343035
No, the universe is part of me.
>>28343092
When they say life has no meaning it is them coming up against the wall of the fact that there is no objective meaning, which is true because it is impossible for objective meaning to exist, also, if they are "depressed" it just means they are deeply saddened that existence as it is does not conform to existence as they would like it, and that thereby negates their sense of meaning.
>>28343215
>it is them coming up against the wall of the fact that there is no objective meaning, which is true because it is impossible for objective meaning to exist
Yeah but I know lots of non-depressed people who have followed the argument that objective meaning can never exist. They agree with the argument, it makes sense for them. But it doesn't affect their mood.
It's not that depressed people suddenly realise there's no objective meaning, it's that depressed people suddenly WANT there to be objective meaning.
Usually because their sources of subjective meaning have come up short.
>>28340882
Then whatever meaning people want they have. Like you're meaning to shitpost on /r9k/ to feel better about yourself.
Meaning is subjective, there's your answer.
>>28343268
Too bad for them I guess, eh?
Proving that there's meaning (not the same as purpose) to someone who doesn't believe it is like trying to tell a fish what its like to breathe on land.
>>28343459
Well you can't "prove" meaning anyway, it exists in different forms within different beings, meaning there is no one definition of meaning that can be proven. You can only convince others change theirs. Also, whether they believe it or not there isn't a single, conscious person who doesn't have some meaning, so what they believe in doesn't have any affect in regards to meaning existing as such.
>>28340541
biologically, life has two purposes: to survive, and to reproduce. that's literally it. the rest is up to you
Obtain food
Survive and age to maturity
Reproduce
That's it. Genetically and scientifically
>>28343722
>That's it. Genetically and scientifically
>le science
Ideology is subjective, Anon.
>>28343722
Why do we have those desires in the first place though?
Formally speaking, "prove" can only mean that something follows from something else. This is why arguments or models from "first principles" don't pan out, because first principles have to be taken on faith so they always have exactly as much credibility. You do probably believe things that could be abducted into life having meaning, for example most people believe in teleology, but that doesn't really matter because you want life to be meaningless and so it will be. This is just another retread of the economist who wants to believe that everything comes down to rationality, so rationality is the only thing he's capable of seeing.
>>28343980
ideology is subjective, but science is objective
>>28344893
literally tumblr: the philosophical post
>>28344893
>This is just another retread of the economist who wants to believe that everything comes down to rationality, so rationality is the only thing he's capable of seeing.
Actually, the funny thing is that most economists will happily tell you that they're only talking about consequences of mathematical models. They probably consider that "too technical" for the layman, but they know it.
The problem is the cynical use of economists by politicians. It's as if politicians were using mathematicians to prove that numbers exist. Mathematicians are quite happy to be formalists most of the time, they don't need to believe in numbers!
>>28340541
papyrus waifu
>>28344975
Ah, the cognitive dissonance defense. "I have a PhD and use it to develop models that have no applicability to the real world, and somehow don't spend every evening drinking myself to death." But in your defense, this isn't the first time I've been fed that line of bullshit.
>>28344969
You've accidentally hit a sore spot. This is actually the Maurice Merleau-Ponty post, and philosophical postmodernism and consequently Tumblrites are a sad degeneration of phenomenology.
>>28340541
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALiBlxJaCQ
Your professors can eat my ass, this video is solid and proves Judaism is divine beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Not addressing you if you dont watch the whole thing, cause if you dont its because you dont give a shit about the truth, but what else is new with you piece of shit millennials.
>>28345297
A better one imo:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DlCrwVEYYU
>make advancements in science
>go to space
>rule universe
>blow up universe
>???
>life has meaning
Basically if we can branch out from this insignificant planet and leave an impression on the whole universe before we are forgotton/eaten by sun then we have done something meaningfull
>>28345367
Can anything have meaning if it doesn't late though? If there is nothing to witness that impression you make?
My own worry is that eventually far before the heat death of the universe even you and everyone who ever even had a memory of you will be dead and your internal struggle with this issue will have been so less than meaningless that it is questionable whether it ever existed in the first place.
>>28346168
>>28345367
It seems the most you can hope to achieve is self actualization at best which you might as well term delusion depending on your outlook.
Honestly I am just happy to see there is a thread that isn't just about posting sad frogs and if fucking another man in the ass makes you gay or not.
>>28340541
I guess that depends on what you mean by "meaning", and the relative scale you're judging that on. From a universal perspective, all of us are doing jack shit. Unless we find a way to somehow break the law of entropy the universe isn't going to change in any way that would actually make a difference in the long run.
Personally, though? Well I guess that depends on what activities you concern yourself with and how important you think those are.
>>28340541
Make others fail
>>28340541
for that you need a broader view
go do psychedelics on a nice day
>>28340751
Nice opinion, who asked for it btw?
>>28341294
>purecoincidence.png
How do you know they're not the same size? Do you blindly believe everything that science books tell you?
>life has no meaning so I'll be a sad cunt all my life, that'll teach them ahah
The sentence "life has no meaning" is not a proposition, and is not truth apt.
You are ascribing something "Meaninglessness" to an object "life". If life is meaningless, the sentence is true, if it is not, the sentence is false. I argue that no such attribution can be made, since "meaning" is not a well formed concept, and is not testable, verifiable, or logical.
I contend that your statement is merely a complex emotive expression showing your distaste with living. You are sad, and you express this sadness with "Life is meaningless". The immediate corollary of this is the provability of the statement - There is none. You and I can differ on life's meaning, just as we can differ on the deliciousness of pizza.
>>28347094
This is literally a science experiment that any kindergartner can do.
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/AtHomeAstronomy/activity_03.html
Anyway, if the Sun and Moon were the same size, that wouldn't prove shit about the meaning of life.
>>28340541
Prove that you exist.
>>28340541
life has the meaning we assign to it
you've chosen to live an empty life and that's fine. how you live your life isn't up to me.
>Can't cook, never tried and eat take out all the time
>This week I decide it's time to give it a shot
>Ask my only friend an easy, cheap and tasty dish to make
>He tells me spaghetti is fucking easy
>Go out and buy two bottles of ketchup/tomato sauce, some mince, a fresh tomato and an onion and some pasta
>Put pasta in water and boil it
>Put all the ketchup, mince, onion and tomato in after chopping it up
>It is finished
>The pasta is fucking mushy and the sauce tastes shit
I can't even fucking provide for myself.
Considering that the concept of meaning is only relative to the conscious of any given agent that builds universe models, I don' think ANYTHING has inherent meaning. But, that sort of meaning is different from the kind of meaning that people talk about.
>>28347444
That experiment just plainly assumes the distance between Earth and Sun is 93M miles. Why should I assume that?
>>28340541
can't prove a negative
>>28347489
Cooking is fucked up. Normies think it's easy as hell and that you just have to follow a recipe but not only do I find the act of following through the recipe thoroughly difficult and stressful but I also always end up with fucked up results.
>>28340541
Go bash your hand with a hammer.
Why not?
Because avoiding pain has meaning, it is not supernatural in origin, but it has meaning. So does being a stoic patrician and creating your own meaning.
I think atheist fedora tippers such as yourself are actually more superstitious since you can't conceive of value existing in the physical world.
>>28341170
>complaining he believes something because its his benefit
Fucking moron, and the prospect of living in eternal bliss after you miserable life is over is not the same thing?
Also pascals wager has been thoroughly debunked firstly what kind of god would forgive you because you believed in him simply on a risk calculation, fucktard
Secondly, which hell? There are trillions of possibilities of hells that could exist and religions that could be true pick any of them and you're going to hell in the other one if you're wrong.
KYS
I never understood how people could be so retarded to believe in Pascal's wager. There's a shitton of gods to believe in, not just one.
>>28341615
If god exists god was created from nothing.
>Failing to see the inherent absurdity in your own washed up argument
>>28349092
the word god itself is used to describe that which we know had to come first but we dont know how it got there
Are you literally retarded?
>>28342594
I don't think I'm my body, I don't think that I'm even my brain. It's like Me is just a process run by the brain, which would mean that amnesia would be like death.
