Meaning and Existence

[_grayskull]

I see coggins hasn't answered my question. As soon as it's shown that "intrinsic" meaning, or purpose as designated by a designer can be entirely petty and mind-numbing, such as the belief that the life of a worm is meaningful since God created them to nurish and strengthen the bodies of fish, then Coggins moves the goal posts and points to "free agency". So for all of you still having a conversation with coggins, he abandoned his position on the first page and admitted that design does not give life meaning.

But it's easy to see how absurd the new position is. Instead of a worm's life being meaningful by design as fish-food, let's grant it agency and merely remark that it is forordained as fish-food yet it can choose to escape if it wants. Now, life is meaningful for the worm that offers itself up freely to the hungry German Brown snapping at it.

[cacheman]

I am operating with the definitions Coggins supplied in his original post:

1. Meaning can have two senses which should not be equivocated:

a. Subjective, idiosyncratic meanings we create and ascribe to existence and phenomena within the phenomenal world.

b. Intrinsic, inherent meaning that exists as a function of the purpose for which the phenomenal world was created

I think his definitions are sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

-CK

One of the problems in Cogs' analysis is that in LDS theology, the universe is coeternal with God, so there is no "purpose for which the phenomenal world was created." According to Mormonism, there has never been a time when there was not a God, and there has never been a time when there was no phenomenal world (worlds without end, and so forth). So you end up with a universe that simply is. The only difference between that universe and the universe that an atheist might posit is that God exists within the LDS universe. But his existence has no more purpose than the rest of the universe.

[_Analytics]

Hello CaliforniaKid,

...

My coffee cup is inherently meaningful if and only if:

1- It was created for a definite purpose
2- Everything else in the universe was also created for a definite purpose
3- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited span of time, but rather must be applicable and relevent for the rest of eternity.
4- That purpose can’t be limited to a limited place in space (I.e. this earth), but rather it must have a meaningful purpose everywhere in the universe.

Is this addressed to me? If so, then I'd say yes to #'s 1 and 2. I'm not sure what you mean by 3 and 4 or why they would be necessary.

It was actually addressed to Coggins; sorry for the confussion. I threw in 3 and 4 because he keeps implying things like, "well, in a zillion years nobody will care, therefore the coffee cup has no meaning. The universe is really big and most of it doesn't care about your coffee cup. Therefore your cup has no meaning."

I am operating with the definitions Coggins supplied in his original post:

1. Meaning can have two senses which should not be equivocated:

a. Subjective, idiosyncratic meanings we create and ascribe to existence and phenomena within the phenomenal world.

b. Intrinsic, inherent meaning that exists as a function of the purpose for which the phenomenal world was created

I think his definitions are sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

-CK

Going strictly off of this, it seems that if something was created for a purpose, then it has meaning; my mug has meaning, because it was in fact created for a purpose. Why would everything else need to be created with a purpose, too?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Coggins,

If God created you to burn in hell for ever and ever as one of his non-elect, would you life have more meaning, or less meaning, then it would in Dawkins world? And which kind of meaning then, is more, er, "meaningful"?

I don't think this is a coherent question. This question mixes two different meanings of the word meaning. In the sense that there is meaning in the first world, there is no meaning at all in the second world. There is meaning in a another sense, but these are not comparable on abacus because they aren't the same kind of meaning. In the first world, there is objective meaning. This allows a person to rightfully say to another person that they're purpose is to do X and have this be a universally true, rational statement. Now, we might regard this world as undesirable given the outcome and lack of will, but you aren't asking about the desirability of worlds here; you are asking about how meaningful they are. In the second world, there is only subjective meaning. So if a person says it is someone else''s purpose to do X, they can only be reporting what they want them to do. They aren't able to make a universally true, rational statement about purposes this person ought to fulfill that exist independent of their personal feelings. Happily, neither I nor Coggins think we live in the first kind of world. So we don't have to grapple with the existential dilemma of people being fated to an undesirable outcome like a Calvinist or atheist might. All Coggins is saying is that one is able to make rationally meaningful,true statements about the purposes people ought fulfill in the first kind of world, but not in the second: That someone can be right when they say Nazis ought not use their bodies to kill Jews. People who live in the second kind of world can't. The second kind of world provides its own undesirable state of affairs, but more importantly than that, for this conversation at least, there are people in denial of this who try and maintain the illusion that their life has meaning in the first sense.

[_Analytics]

Coggins,

If God created you to burn in hell for ever and ever as one of his non-elect, would you life have more meaning, or less meaning, then it would in Dawkins world? And which kind of meaning then, is more, er, "meaningful"?

I don't think this is a coherent question. This question mixes two different meanings of the word meaning. In the sense that there is meaning in the first world, there is no meaning at all in the second world. There is meaning in a another sense, but these are not comparable on abacus because they aren't the same kind of meaning. In the first world, there is objective meaning. This allows a person to rightfully say to another person that they're purpose is to do X and have this be a universally true, rational statement. Now, we might regard this world as undesirable given the outcome and lack of will, but you aren't asking about the desirability of worlds here; you are asking about how meaningful they are. In the second world, there is only subjective meaning. So if a person says it is someone else''s purpose to do X, they can only be reporting what they want them to do. They aren't able to make a universally true, rational statement about purposes this person ought to fulfill that exist independent of their personal feelings. Happily, neither I nor Coggins think we live in the first kind of world. So we don't have to grapple with the existential dilemma of people being fated to an undesirable outcome like a Calvinist or atheist might. All Coggins is saying is that one is able to make rationally meaningful,true statements about the purposes people ought fulfill in the first kind of world, but not in the second: That someone can be right when they say Nazis ought not use their bodies to kill Jews. People who live in the second kind of world can't. The second kind of world provides its own undesirable state of affairs, but more importantly than that, for this conversation at least, there are people in denial of this who try and maintain the illusion that their life has meaning in the first sense.

Hi ALITD,

In the first world (i.e. the one in which God created you to burn in hell for ever and ever as one of his non-elect), what makes the meaning objective? It sounds like you are saying that since God created the situation, he has the authority to ascribe meaning to it. Since he is the unique creator, he is uniquely entitled to declare what the meaning is, and thus the meaning he declares is “objective”. Is that what you are saying?

It would then follow that the person who created my coffee mug is uniquely authorized to declare what the purpose is of the coffee mug, and that thus the mug has an objective purpose.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

-Analytics

[_grayskull]

A light,

In my words to Coggins, I simply question whether he's taken the time to understand half of the vocabulary he throws around and that his "objectivity", "free will", or "metaphysical materialism" don't likely buy what he's shopping for.

I'm questioning his commitments more than I am trying to give an exhaustive treatise on "meaning."

[_Some Schmo]

You are all trying to salvage personal meaneing in a random, accidental, meaningless universe by clinging to your subjective fantasy constructs that tell you it does have meaning.

Actually, I agree that, because I'm an atheist, it leads me to conclude that there is no, as you put it, "intrinsic meaning" to the universe. I disagree with the quoted sentiment, however. I have no trouble with "trying to salvage personal meaning." You were the one who pointed out in your original post that personal meaning and intrinsic meaning (using your terminology) were separate things. Why does foregoing an intrinsic meaning have to lead to giving up personal meaning?

Assigning meaning is a human need. That's it. Most people don't like to think their lives are meaningless, so in the absence of being told what the meaning is, they make one up. So what?

My life is about loving my wife and daughter, making a few people laugh, and hopefully providing others with a few fun memories along the way. That's what it means to me. It's not important that it means that to others, or that anyone else agrees with it. What difference does it make?

But the simple fact that I've come up with a meaning for my life in no way makes an intrinsic meaning a reality or even necessary, any more than deciding to have eggs for breakfast dictates that it was my fate to eat eggs today.

[_Coggins7]

Actually, I agree that, because I'm an atheist, it leads me to conclude that there is no, as you put it, "intrinsic meaning" to the universe. I disagree with the quoted sentiment, however. I have no trouble with "trying to salvage personal meaning." You were the one who pointed out in your original post that personal meaning and intrinsic meaning (using your terminology) were separate things. Why does foregoing an intrinsic meaning have to lead to giving up personal meaning?

It seems that with the other secular naturalists here, you don't seem to be able to get a handle on this. So here it is again: The reason you have no trouble salvaging personal meaning is easily explained by evolution. You have an incredibly sophisticated cerebral cortex that allows you to do that kind of thing, or paint, sculpt, do mathematics, or create philosophical systems. However, the objective, actually existing universe in which you are embedded as a peripheral phenomena is quite meaningless. Now, if the universe is meaningless, then all its contents are meaningless, including you and me.

It is then the case that meaning is a function of your high intelligence, and your high intelligence is a function of millions of years of fortuitous random mutational alterations. Hence, you have no intrinsic meaning, but this doesn't not prevent you from believing, wishing, or hoping that you do.

[_Analytics]

Now, if the universe is meaningless, then all its contents are meaningless.

Why? Is there a logical proof that if the universe is meaningless, then all its contents are meaningless, or are you merely assuming this? It appears the later.

[_amantha]

For me the happy middle ground is that in a meaningless universe, if that is truly what it is, meaning is a human creation. So the meaning that is created by believing in Mormonism is just as valid as the meaning created by believing in anything else.

Some Atheists (particularly those who are anti-faith)believe that meaning should be(or is best) created in the same way they do it.

Some Muslims believe that meaning should be created in the same way they do it.

Some Mormons believe that meaning should be created in the same way they do it.

But if we live in a universe where we are the only ones who give it meaning, then Dawkins is incorrect in asserting that Wise (sorry, reverting to other thread)is wasting his life and Elohim via Joseph Smith via Mormon Culture via Mom and Dad, etc etc. are incorrect in asserting that we are wasting our lives if we don't follow their "Plan."

This is why I assert that no matter what the truth actually is, the only thing that matters is if we are happy. Whatever meaning we can create to bring us happiness is meaningful. That's sounds truthful to me.

And, in my opinion, for humans to be happy they have to believe in the meaning which they create. If you don't believe it then it is meaningless.

I can't believe in Mormonism now. I aslo can't believe that faith is inferior to reason. There is a reason for faith, if only to create meaning.
In that sense, the science brings meaning to Dawkin's life, which is then meaningful to him and makes him happy.