What do you keep living for? Is there a specific person, goal, or idea that you work for? Is there no meaning to life in your opinion?
Context: I’ve been reading Camus and Sartre, and thinking about how their ideas interact with hard determinism.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m not sure if believe in a “meaning” to life, but I’m here for a good time. I’m married (2nd time) with 3 kids. I work to support us and pay the bills. But why do I keep living? Why not kill myself in leiu having a cup of coffee? Because death is inevitable and if it’s going to happen anyway, I can use the brief time here to experience all that I can.
I figure the Universe is going to go on with or without me and there’s not a thing I can do to change anything. But I’m not here to change the Universe, I’m here so it can change me. I’m a bird soaring through an infinite void with a brief passing through a bright window. Why not appreciate the view while it lasts? And if I can, why not try to make anyone’s else’s brief time out of the void a good time too? Life is absurd, existence is chaos, and it’s all just funny as absolute shit.
I think really, there’s no reason for anything but ice cream is good, hikes in the woods are rad, hanging out with pets and friends is joy. Why stop doing that just because nothing matters?
This is my philosophy. I credit George Carlin for summarizing it with “People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point.”
Because death is inevitable and if it’s going to happen anyway, I can use the brief time here to experience all that I can.
There it is. As far as we know, this is the one chance we have at existence. Revel in it.
Damn. I’m saving this in my notes.
I’m no well read philosopher, but the idea that life has a meaning is repulsive to me. It implies that there is a correct state of affairs, and introduces the possibility that you’ve done something wrong, that you failed to fulfill some purpose. Nuts to that, there are no wrong choices, besides the obvious ones like murder and not brushing your teeth
Well mate I’m sorry to say you just funded a new philosophy school AND a new religion called shiny teeth.
Jokes apart, I agree 100 with you and the concept that only the person themselves can decide what is the purpose of their life. And 11 out of 10 times it won’t make sense to anyone else, so no point in taking it too seriously.
Meaning to me necessitates having gold teeth. You don’t need anything else in life if you can glint at people.
Interesting perspective. I think I kinda agree.
I have a logical view of the universe as deterministic and that nothing matters, but my feelings contradict this, which is fine.
However, the thought that life HAS to have meaning as something negative is a new perspective, in that it implies moral and ethics.
This is one of my cats, do you think she’s looking for meaning?
Life just… is. Don’t look for a deeper meaning. Enjoy what you have.
Now imagine your life without the luxury of a pampered, beloved floof by your side?
Unfathomable, and thankfully not something I have to worry about (there are animal shelters near you that will just give you a cat if you give them money)
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work.
For example, I’ve had fairly good success upon a range of animal companions going back to early childhood, but a few years ago, I made the mistake of taking on a ‘problem cat’ from a family friend.
Such a beautiful creature, but she just couldn’t… settle down, I guess are the words. Now me, living with a terminal disease is already hard, but unfortunately, that rascal just turned it up to ‘11,’ bless her lil heart. So in the end, I had to donate her to a local no-kill shelter. Not my finest moment, but the lack of sleep was pretty-much the lynchpin, for me.
I love cats, but I just… haha, kinda got spooked hard by that experience.
Adorable picture :) Unfortunately my cat has found a purpose - being a bastard and knocking over anything she can, and loudly demanding attention at 2am. She’s still wonderful of course!
Ive been lucky to have discovered Stoicism early in life and that what has been driving me for decades now!
To put it shortly Stoicism focuses on self growth with things like identifying natural human virtues (need for knowledge, justice, temperance, courage) and focusing life around improving those. This is expressed through a princicle called dichotomy of control which says that there are things that are out of our control like death that we shouldn’t focus on and things that are like natural virtues that are something we can do to improve upon.
It also deconstructed and included all of the cool contemporary ideas like mindfulness and being cosmopolitan two millenia ago so its a really great suite of natural philosophies that survived the test of time.
Stoicism is also low key Idealist as in your natural perception of your own virtues and state is the only real thing that matters which is what makes this ideology so much more freeing. You don’t judge yourself against some mystical ideal but to your own perception of purpose and growth.
It’s an easy, frictionless and a highly rewarding way to live :)
It’s interesting, I think I’ve tried engaging with Stoicism before, but it feels to me that it kind of ignores how sometimes the romantic should take control? I can’t remember which Stoicist (Epictetus I think?) said that we should be so detached that the death of a child should feel like a glass breaking, but I don’t think I would be able to rationalise and internalise that personally. Do you think there’s space for strong feelings in Stoicism?
That’s a common misunderstanding and Stoicism is not about detachment. The quote you’re referring is mostly a thought exercise to illustrate that dwelling on past is unproductive even in extreme circumstances.
Though contemporary Stoicism acknowledges importance of ritual and grief but it still has to be within reasonable context of dichotomy of control as in you can’t change the outcome no matter how hard you grief and you’re just losing finite minutes of your life but you can spend this time to fairly honor the event and memories.
Temperance is a key virtue here and its heavily inspired by Aristotel’s Golden Mean which says that extremes are really inefficient and should be avoided at all times.
As for strong feelings - Stoicism has nothing against them either. Justice is one of the virtues and its really impossible to get to a just conclusion without strong feelings like sympathy. Though, just like Buddhism, Stoics practice mindfulness and have to choose to go to strong feelings not obey. This is again due to dichotomy of control where thoughts and feelings just appear and we can’t do anything here to stop that but we can choose how we react once we process them!
Stoicism is a very powerful framework cause it doesn’t really tell you what to do exactly just gives you a logical framework based on human nature. It doesn’t mean you becoming a robot - quite the opposite - you should become more human not being hijacked by unfair processes.
Wow, really interesting, thank you!
Stoicism can sometimes read like a very early form of cognitive behavioral therapy
You’re not far off - it was put together by dudes who just wanted to socialize and talk philosophy and metaphysic on a porch which is called Stoa thus literally Stoics.
CBT is actually heavily inspired by Stoicism and the author openly credits Stoicism and especially Epictetus :)
Meaning must be generated, not found.
About 20 years ago, I was walking through a city centre with a friend, on the way to catch a train. A couple of Mormons tried to stop us, asking, “Have you ever thought about the purpose of life?”
Barely breaking stride, I shouted out, “Hot sweaty man sex!”
I don’t consider that to be the purpose of life1, but remembering the look on their faces helps keep me grounded whenever I’m inclined to consider questions that cannot be answered.
That said, my resolution to the conflict between free will and determinism is to assume assume that ‘truth’ operates on a principle of equivalence. That’s to say, if two models generate the equivalent outcomes, they are equivalently ‘true’. The universe we observe could have deterministic rules that give rise to the same observable outcomes as one in which we have absolute free will, in which case the two models are equivalent. It would make no sense to endow one with a greater truth than the other.
That’s a slightly difference definition of ‘truth’ than is commonly accepted, but it works for me.
1: It’s just a nice bonus.
I don’t think I necessarily agree with the way you present truth, but it’s an interesting line of thinking. I do definitely agree with your opinion on the bonuses life has to offer!
I’m going to throw a trigger warning on this next part just in case:
suicide ideation
I have been living with major depression for decades. I am taking medication for it, but that just makes it more manageable; it doesn’t go away.
I am alive today because killing myself would hurt the people I love. Also, because I have a cat that I love very much, and I don’t want him to have to miss me. Also, this is a much more minor driver, but I am excited for new seasons of my favorite shows and for movies I haven’t seen and books I haven’t read.
I find living to be a burden, but I feel obligated to do it because of my relationships. At the very least, though, I can find entertainment while doing it.
You might be underselling entertainment to yourself here. Experiencing creation and your own interpretation of these creations is pretty fucking magical when you think about it.
First, great choice in reading (Im a fan of Camus as well).
As for the meaning of life thing…
Thats the neat part. You don’t.
Thats why in absurdist fiction like Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42. Its not supposed to make sense and the universe is under no obligation to do so for you (the books even postulate that the universe does not want anyone to know so if someone figures it out it winks out of existance and replaced itself with something weirder, some scientists think this has happened before).
That goes back to Camus point about the remedies for the bleakness of early-mid 20th century philosophy. He proposed three options, Nhilism, a leap of faith (looking at you Kierkegaard), or absurdism, the last being what the doctor perscribes, but also requires the most effort because you have to find your question to the ultimate answer your self… Or not, who cares. Lets go spend some time by a lake that thinks its a gin & tonic.
I hope that I can come around to the absurdist perspective sooner or later, it does seem quite appealing to me, but I’m still yet to be convinced by Camus’ argument that the rebellion against the absurd has any more value than your other options. How would you say you find that sort of value?
Lets break down the arguments, and throw up that content warning because were about to do a philosophy.
(Sad dead Dutch/French thinkers)
The first option was to embrace Nhilism, this option is the worst outcome because one of the logical outcomes is if the universe has no meaning, why, as a part of the universe, should you. We’re going to drop this option right here because one of the physical representation of this viewpoint is suicide and thats not a healthy state of mind to be in, plus someone would have to clean up your mess.
The second option is Soren Kierkegaards leap of faith, by putting your faith (synonomys with “meaning of life” in this context) in something other than your self, you are no longer responsible for it. A leap of faiths original intent was to join a religion (cough christianity cough), but this is Lemmy and atheists abound in the 21st century so there isnt much point delving into this option here. The point is that your faith is put into an entity higher than yourself. I would argue that it does not need to be an abastract entity like the abrahamic god, gaia or Tom Cruise anymore, anything that can be used to provide a higher objective meaning works (as irrational as it is). This option could be viewed as suicide in a philosopical sense because you cease seeking meaning, because you claim to have already found it.
The final point, rejection of the absurd, is unfortunatly the last option and also requires the most effort. To use it as a personal philosophy involves the rejection of objective meaning and focusing on subjective meaning in spite of the absurdity of it all. That is the part that I feel takes effort, spite (without anger) is a taxing state of mind to maintain, and it does not provide the structures that tends to come with the package of option two. To quote many of the other thread and to use it as a jumping off point, the phrase “Do no harm”, the first word is Do, an action, something altered in the universe, something changed. If the universe is meaningless, then to revolt is to simply doing something and putting in the effort to make it a subjectivly good something.
This is the point where people would comicly point out that Camus being very French (Algerian), rebelion and revolt are sorta their national past times, and Ive always gotten a chuckle out of that.
Damn this took all day to write and got a little rambly… Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.
Thanks for the detailed response! It’s helping Camus’ writing make a bit more sense, still not 100% convinced but this is getting me closer.
Glad I could help. Remember a personal pilosophy is subjective, your going to have to reach those conclusions on your own. But if you want to talk shop, nerds are here to help.
I think “What is the meaning of (my) life?” is not a question that we should be focusing on. It assumes that there is meaning to life. Neither is saying “Life is meaningless,” as it assumes exactly that. Both approaches presupposes an answer.
I’d rather think about “What can I do today/tomorrow/this week/this year/in this life?” That is a lot more digestible than chasing a meaning, or dismissing what could be meaningful about my actions.
I’m already here, so… What is it under my control that I can do something about? What can I do about it? Something along those lines.
PS:
The overall tone of my response might be nihilist, or having shades of stoicism, but I am personally biased towards Epicureanism (not the present-day meaning, but the more classical meaning) which gives emphasis to ataraxia, or put very loosely, that state of contentedness. It’s not about avoiding pain and preferring (temporary) pleasure, but rather a more stable state absent of pain and having pleasure that is brought about by mindful actions. I am not exactly learned in this so please take my words with a pinch of salt (or several).
🥰
I have a lot of books left to read.
Books and computer games for me
It’s shits and giggles all the way down, my friend!
until someone shits and giggles
It’s a great relief to come to the realization that there is no grand inherent meaning to life, and no need for one. No constant worrying about what the meaning is and how much time you have left to “figure it out”, no need to feel like there’s some big thing you have to accomplish, no pressure to be someone important or make an impact on the world. No need to find the correct religion or moral code. It’s simple: we’re all (humans and animals) just trying to live our lives in peace and find happiness, so as for goals: Live and let live. Try to not hurt each other, and better yet, help each other–helping1 someone isn’t always easy but it’s a good feeling. It creates a feeling of meaning/purpose better than most anything else I can think of.
1: besides doing some task for someone, it could also be as simple as a smile, a kind word, or just listening/being there.
Logically I am a determinist and a nihilist. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
But I can’t live life like that. Life is lived through feelings and it feels like I have free will. So I feel meaning by contributing positively and that my choices in life matter.
So, I contribute, try to do good, be helpful and nice to people, and also fulfill some hedonistic desires such as good food, lovemaking, shows, etc.
Isn’t the idea of a meaning of life irrelevant if you believe that the universe is deterministic?
Well sure, I can say that objectively it is pointless to try and give my life meaning - but I think that it is still part of the human condition to try and strive for some purpose. More of an emotional need than a philosophical need would be the way I would frame it.
There is none. You get used to it.
