Do we really need life to have meaning? Here’s an argument for why we don’t.

Heh, yes, that was a very interesting POV of Ron’s! I’ve actually been turning it over in my mind, like I said I would, in the background as it were, since I read it and commented briefly on it a while back.
Here’s where I’m on all of that at this point in time. Not an unshakeable hill I’ve staked out to defend, it’s where I’m tentatively at, and subject to change!
Goes back to another insightful comment Ron had posted, when responding to sant64’s AI. He’d said — Ron had, not the AI — that the idea is not to get rid of the (insubstantial, chimerical) sense of self, but only to clearly understand it for what it is.
That’s a very sensible approach, I thought. And I think it makes sense to apply that same principle to “meaning”, and also to that old Sapolsky chestnut you bring up one more time here, Brian.
When applied to “meaning”: We understand the insubstantiality of the self, and, in as much as whatever meanings we derive are derived from that insubstantial self, the meanings we ascribe are, in that sense, insubstantial as well. Which is good to clearly understand, and use that understanding and that clarity to ensure we don’t go all dysfunctional over clinging on to such: but it’s kind of going overboard in the other direction, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to therefore (want to) jettison all meaning altogether basis that understanding. Kind of like (wanting to) jettison the sense of self itself, rather than just clearly understanding it for what it is?
Likewise the Sapolsky thing as well. I’d expressed the same view back when this was discussed at length here, but this template of thinking expresses it well: it is good to understand the (insubstantial, chimerical) nature of our apparent free will, and it is good to use that understanding to temper, for instance, our condemnation of someone’s choices; but it is going overboard in the opposite direction, it is going all dysfunctional in the opposite direction, it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to therefore imagine that all admiration and condemnation is “meaningless”. That also is like concluding, basis an understanding of the insubstantial nature of the self, that life’s project is to try to eliminate the sense of self. That’s just crazy going-overboard-and-dysfunctional-in-the-opposite-direction, and instead of better understanding the baby and better dealing with it and nurturing it and taking care of it, just throwing it out while emptying the bath of the water-muddied-with-misunderatandings-about-the-nature-of-the-self/free-will/meaning.
———-
Yep. That’s where I’m at on this now. And where I’m going to leave this, for now.
Again, tentatively. Not a hill I’ve staked out to support to my last breath. But one I’m comfortable leaving this at, for now — unless some new POV comes up here, that makes more sense than this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/rfkhk6/i_had_the_opportunity_to_interview_professor/
What is it that you see in that face?
Silence
Taoist silence?

Words are tools ,, we use them when we speak to another person. When we use a drill we take into account the material, stone, wood etc the choice is related to the circumstances etc.
The metaphor of the nets as tools comes at the end of subdivision 10 in Chapter 26. The use of that metaphor comes AFTER Zhuang Zi giving some examples about the consequences when the means are turn into an end and into a disaster.
The final sentence is a kind of sighing lament [ hahaha … dad would use this as a wake up call]
of Zhuang Zi ..”for heavens sake where do I find a person that does not take words so literally and understands what is POINTED AT.
In that direction Christopher Tricker translated and explained that issue in his translation of Zhuan zI: “The cicada & the bird, the uselessness of a useless philosophy” page 285 [Nets exist for catching fish”

‘Brian points out “The influences that go to make us who we are resulting in some folks not having as strong a desire to find meaning in life.” Indeed, all our thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, opinions along with our various comments here are the result of years of the brain/body organism being programmed since birth through our experiences derived from our cultures, societies, families, religions
A.R. tells us that “Whatever meanings we derive are derived from that insubstantial self, the meanings we ascribe are, in that sense, insubstantial as well.” Yes, the self being the composite of a life-times experiences and information gathering.
And Um says that “Words are tools and are related to the circumstances.” True, and there are many words that have similar associations to meaning such as purpose, significance, worthwhile, fulfillment etc., all employed in general conversation to describe intent or an interpretation.
Meaning then, can be assigned to any number of ways of describing one’s feelings, hopes and experiences – and also to different situations. My main point of inquiry when focusing on meaning is that where we talk about meaningful experiences or a meaningful life, we are usually investing that thing or situation with a quality or essence that is really a product of thought and not something that is inherent in the thing observed or the emotion elicited.
It comes down to short circuiting the perpetuation of a self, a self that by its very nature, can only exist through a state of separation – with all the conflict and suffering that comes from being unable to acknowledge the interconnection of life, people and the world.

Reluctant … the human mind, can and should only be used for what it was given ..all uses beyond that easily develop into an “evil of wealth”
The mount Everest exists.
The mount Everest CAN be climed.
Climbing needs human dedication, skill and effort.
Climbing can and will result in satisfaction, admiration etc
BUT …that said
Neither the mountain exist for that reason nor is man born for that reason
There are many Mount Everests … hahaha … this very moment I am listening to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ9mJaMk9tQ

“My main point of inquiry when focusing on meaning is that where we talk about meaningful experiences or a meaningful life, we are usually investing that thing or situation with a quality or essence that is really a product of thought and not something that is inherent in the thing observed or the emotion elicited.”
Sure, agreed.
If a particular association carries “meaning” for me, than true, my instinctual intuition — generic “me” — is to invest that association itself with meaning. It is good to clearly understand that no such meaning vests with the association itself, other than what our mind supplies to it.
If that understanding, that clarity, ends up diluting the meaning, or even dissipating it away, then that cannot be helped. Agreed as far as that, as well. (Which seems to have been the case with you personally, Ron, basis your comment in the other thread.)
But such meaning as persists beyond that understanding and that clarity, is no less “meaningful” for having been manufactured by our mind, is where *I* was coming from.

“Do we really need life to have meaning? Here’s an argument for why we don’t.”
Are you kidding? We don’t need life in order to have meaning?
Without life you can’t have anything! Then you would be dead.
How can you have meaning if you aren’t alive?
This has got to be one of the most absurd statements, Brian.
You have to be alive to have any kind of opinion about anything.

Haha, ok, story time, Spence.
There was once a novice in Buddha’s camp. As Buddha lay in the Lion Pose, delivering his last sermon, and having announced that he would pass away that night itself: this novice also wanted to go.
But, to his sorrow, the abbot wouldn’t let him. Instead, he tied up the novice, and brought out a whip and started whipping him with it.
The novice was outraged. Not so much at the whipping, because when you’re a monk, then weirdness is par for the course. But he was heartbroken at not being allowed to listen to Buddha’s last Be-Ye-a-Light-unto-Thyself sermon at first hand.
Finally, when both novice and abbot were exhausted, and the Buddha flown away to Mahaparivarvana land, then the novice croaked out, Can you at least tell me why?
And the abbot smiled, the pure smile of an enlightened soul, yet tinged with sadness, and said:
When I taught you yesterday, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, then kill him”, I did not mean that you were to surreptitiously feed him poison, and actually end up killing him.
And immediately on hearing these words, the novice was enlightened.
———-
Or, to move on from Um’s idiom of part-commonplace-bromides and part-nonsense, all of it cloaked for no good reason in mysterious sounding faux-profoundness, and to put it in plain words:
Nah, I agree that how you parsed that also makes sense grammatically, but in context of the article itself it doesn’t. That isn’t how Brian meant it. What he meant was to ask is, Does life necessarily need to have meaning? Re-read that with that sense in mind, and you’ll see what I mean.
In his last article/post, Brian had talked of things that give him meaning. Whereupon Ron pointed out that life sans meaning is perfectly kosher, given reasons. And Brian liked that counterpoint, even though it contradicts his own theme, and highlighted that wise observation. (To which my own two cents was to observe that such meaning as might persist beyond clarity is also perfectly kosher.)
———-
Heh, I’ve stopped pointing out the nonsense thrown around in Comments these days, given that’s all there is, most times, and given the complete futility of such, in terms of any meaningful discussion over it. Nevertheless I made an exception this time, because this one’s so very obvious and straightforward, that I’m left a bit curious whether you’ll:
(a) Throw in non sequiturs and spin this all the way to Anami Loka and back;
or (b) Tell me your refulgent master within asked you to tell me I’m mistaken;
or (c) Simply keep mum and disappear;
or (d) In straightforward terms either acknowledge that straightforward error/misunderstanding I pointed out, and move on, or maybe, if at all called for, then engage in some sane reasoned discussion over anything you might have to discuss, whether to agree or disagree or add further to what I said just now.

Ah, apologies. I should have resisted that impulse. That was unnecessarily mocking of both of you, Um and Spence. And for no good reason, at this stage of the game, because at this point I know full well neither of you can help it, or change yourselves, kind of the no free will thing. Therefore, this trying-to-be-clever-at-your-expense thing, it was completely unnecessary.
Gawd, I really really should have resisted the impulse. Again, apologies, the both of you. Don’t mind me, carry on.

Spence, I figured that when I said “Do we really need life to have meaning? Here’s an argument for why we don’t,” people would recognize that I was talking about whether we really need life to have meaning while, obviously, we’re alive. I guess the sentence would have been even clearer if I’d said “Do we really need for life to have meaning?” but it still seems clear to me the way I had it. I suspect few people read that line the way you did, as me questioning whether being alive is necessary for life to have meaning.

@ AR
Don’t worry …what you write are YOUR appreciations of what you READ and you are not to blame for it.

“Don’t worry”
👍
———-
” …what you write are YOUR appreciations of what you READ and you are not to blame for it.”
Haha, there you go again! No harm done, then, clearly.
God bless you, old friend. Cheers

@ AR
No, no harm done , I have swallowed enough coffee… but…… consider the possibility of harming yourself in reacting the way you do.

@ AR
Many, many years ago he wrote me to do my duties as [naming all the roles I had to perform in those days], but do not get emotionally involved in these ties nor in the persons involved.
It proved that it was not something that could be “learned” / taught but it could be caught … if anger is part of a persons viewpoint / standpoint in life, there is nothing he can do to get rid of it … and … suppressing emotions eventually harms the body. So to get rid of that type of emotions one has to step aside and take another position from where to look at the world.
Only by drinking lots of coffee I finally understood … hahaha … it took quite some time. too

” AR
No, no harm done , I have swallowed enough coffee… but…… consider the possibility of harming yourself in reacting the way you do.”
Hahaha, God help us, there we go again. …Okay, I’ll bite. Although I ought to know better, but still, I’ll bite.
Which reaction of mine do you mean, Um? My original comments to Brian and Ron? My making fun of your compulsive obscurantism and Spence’s compulsive propensity to spin? Or, in perhaps an overabundance of considerateness, my subsequently regretting doing that? Or something altogether different than these three?
And what kind of harm do you imagine might follow, from whichever reaction you had in mind?
———-
“Only by drinking lots of coffee I finally understood … hahaha … it took quite some time. too”
Haha, Gawd help us, full blast on, again.
Any chance of clearly spelling out what you mean to say? Or do you insist on carrying on with your inscrutable-wise-man-speaks-only-in-cryptic-riddles persona? Much like I’d parodied in my comment to Spence?
I actually have no idea what on earth you’re trying to say here, Um. And, again, I see no reason why on earth you cannot clearly tell me. Chances are it will take fewer words for you to do that, than it takes for you to throw out these cryptic hints and to spin these riddles, all for no good reason.

@ AR
Why don’t you just go with your own appreciation of my words?
Why force yourself to understand what you do not appreciate and why force me to write other-ways?
What can the poor painter do when somebody does not like his style of painting, his color pallet and the things he puts on the canvas? Should he stand on his head and paint with his foot?
hahaha …fortunately i do not stand in the need to sell my paintings and have the luxury to paint for my own pleasure.
Be assured AR that I never leave this place empty handed…this os a place of inspiration… free for the taking.

@ AR
Comfort yourself with the idea that MOST people I came and come across, sooner or later just did not appreciate what I have to say and how I say it

My dear Um, it’s perfectly fine. I don’t mind, at all.
Thing is, my essential purpose in spending as much time here as I do — here, and nowhere else, online — is, essentially, a serious one, and to me an important one. Even if I do not necessarily always comport myself oh-so-solemnly.
No reason at all why **you shouldn’t simply spend the time of day here, abstract-painting away, if you like, with your focus on your quirky style rather than on the substance underneath — whether to understand and learn, or to explain. (Which is a gentler, more courteous way of what I’d said before, about blathering away. Same thing, really. The “blather” wasn’t a put-down, at all.)
And, no reason why you shouldn’t do this! I’d already recognized the nature of your odd comments, and started dealing with them accordingly: by exchanging content-free pleasantries with an old friend when that is what one wanted to do, and other times just ignoring the blather.
That’s exactly what my apology was about. The completely unnecessary discourtesy, even though expressed playfully, given that I know fully well where you’re coming from.
Just, I kind of got carried away, after that, and ended up taking you seriously again, and, against my better judgment, looking for meaning in your words one more time. That was silly of me, I agree. I won’t, again, I assure you.
Cheers, old friend

@ AR
Meaning is in YOUR hands, it is given, attributed by YOU … and nobody else.
I need not to call you names if you refuse to do so, or unwilling or unable….for .. if you don’t … you miss something and I do not lose anything.

Ah, epiphany!
Or at least, “epiphany” might amount to unwarranted hyperbole, but I’ve finally arrived at what appears to be the perfect answer to a question I’ve long been asking.
And while it is I myself who have been able to supply the answer to this question, that has long been tormenting me: but yet, without a doubt it is this discussion here — what Brian said, and what Ron said in response, and what I said in response to both, all of that, this whole discussion — that made me come up with this answer.
My sincerest gratitude to both Brian and Ron, for enabling me to arrive at this answer to my question.
(And no, that last, my expression of gratitude, is *not* hyperbole, and certainly not meant facetiously. I mean that completely literally, and completely sincerely.)
———-
This is the question that has been troubling me:
Both as basis my abstract, intellectual understanding of the nature of reality and the nature of self; and, more importantly, basis my organic, first-hand practice: basis both, I’ve found my …ties, my attachments, loosening away. Which is …kind of a bit of a quandary, at all times, but particularly when you’re not exactly old.
By God’s Grace I’ve got it good, if nowhere close to actually opulent, in terms of work, in terms of my personal life, in terms of friends, in terms of it all: and yet I find it increasingly difficult to keep my nose to the grind, even though it isn’t “grind” at all, and even though it is a pleasurable enough thing and of my own choosing. More and more I find myself asking why anyone, with any amount of realization at all, would want to do any more than just the proverbial fetching water chopping wood.
Nor is this a recent matter. For near a decade, I think, I’ve been struggling with this. I’ve asked this of people who I believed might know. I’ve asked here, in this forum, as well, more than once. And I’ve also sought out and asked the actual pros: actual monks and clergy, across traditions, Catholic and Buddhistic and Advaitic.
And never once have I got a satisfactory answer. The “selfless service” business — Nishkam Karma, in Advaitic/Indic parlance — has been the one most often trotted out, and the one that was the least dogmatic (as opposed to, for instance, RCC doctrinal halfwittery). But that too has always seemed completely incoherent to me, unless you buy into a great deal of woo that Advaitic types don’t always spell out but implicitly take as given.
———-
So, well, the answer that now occurs to me, organically as it were, is, essentially, an extrapolation of what Ron said, as applied to my particular question.
Yes, as one’s identification with the trappings of life lessens, sometimes one’s drive to keep on keeping on, it dilutes away sometimes, and sometimes it dissipates away altogether. And when that happens, then it is what it is.
If after clarity you’re still left with robust meaning and purpose: well then, all good, go for it. If you find your meaning and purpose diluted away, loosened, well then that’s how it is. And if you find your meaning and purpose and drive whittled down to a barebones drawing water chopping wood level, well then that’s how it is. …And if, perchance, it is whittled down to where you see no reason to eat and drink and draw breath even, as was allegedly the case with the Buddha himself immediately after his enlightenment: well, then, *that* is how it is.
———-
It is what it is, is the answer I find to my question.
An obvious enough answer, in retrospect. But yeah: it is what it is. If meaning and purpose drop away, then they drop away. And that’s all there is to is. If as a result, one’s life ends up changing: then it will, and it is good and right then that it should, should that happen organically and with full clarity. It is what it is.
Again: My sincerest thanks to Brian, and to Ron, for helping me arrive at my own answer to a question that is very important to me.

Hi Brian
Ah life. It’s just one damn misunderstanding after another.
But that if that thing we call life is just a complete misunderstanding, then what is meaning? Isn’t that the tail wagging the dog?

Appreciative Reader, what you said in your recent comment makes sense. For you. For other people also, perhaps, but it seems to me that what provides someone meaning (or a lack of meaning) is highly subjective. Maybe “highly” understates the case, because it might well be that meaning is totally subjective. I’m just not aware of studies that look at how people view the meaning of their life at different phases of life and how constant this is across cultures.
I am acquainted with some studies that show how “Eastern” and “Western” perspectives can differ. For example, I recall that when presented with a photo, or maybe a video, of an aquarium, Japanese people (I think it was) would describe the aquarium in holistic terms, focusing as much on the background of plants, rocks, and such as on the fish. Americans, or Westerners in general, would say something like “I saw a large orange fish and some blue ones a bit smaller.”
While this isn’t the same as ascribing meaning to the scene, it does seem to reflect something you mentioned about “selfless service” being a source of meaning in some people’s lives, such as in India, while in the United States “selfish advancement” is a common source of meaning. We worship billionaires like other cultures worship spiritual leaders.
Anyway, you seem to have come to some conclusions about what gives you meaning at this phase of your life. My daughter and her family visited us the past week, My 18 year old granddaughter came with a friend who also just graduated from high school and will be starting college this fall. I tried to express some grandfatherly wisdom from time to time without making this too annoying for the young people.
I told them at one point that what seems to important to them at 25 probably will be quite different from what’s important to them at 35, 45, 55, 65, and so on. So I said that they should expect that when they look back at who they are right now, they shouldn’t be surprised if the person they remember being seems almost like a stranger from their perspective as a considerably older person.
Like you said, meaning just is what it is. It isn’t a constant, but an everchanging adjustment as we age, learn, evolve, adapt.

Interesting observations, Brian.
Agreed, about what you said about differences in attitudes, in that respect, in the “West” vis-a-vis the “East”. …But of course, that’s a generalization. A correct enough generalization, I should think: but individuals are individuals, not stereotypes, nor even the statistical mean.
And that difference ends up a bit more …fractured?, when one focuses specifically on the religio-spiritual answer/approach. At least in my own experience, as I found out when I asked. Catholic prescription would tend to go for, essentially, the selfless service thing, even if couched in doctrine that amounts to outright drivel. Likewise Advaitic teachings as well, even if the drivel is veiled and implicit. The Buddhistic approach, well, sometimes they do go for the selfless service thing as well, for purely psychological reasons: but when you closely examine their reasons, you espy mumbo jumbo doctrine there as well, if less in your face. I suppose the diametric opposite of all of these would be the prosperity gospel evangelists, and their kind-of-sort-of cousins: but while, as you know, I do know a few such, but I wouldn’t ever ask them this: I mean, only a complete fool would even consider approaching an outright charlatan for any kind of meaningful advice.
But you’re right, how that all settles, all of those interesting fluctuations in one’s data, is to smoothen out to what you observed about broad differences across “Western” and “Eastern” cultures.
But again, while interesting and insightful, such a difference over broad sociological differences at the level of culture, is of limited use to the individual, given that the individual is …well, individual.
———-
Also interesting, your observation about how meaning sometimes shifts, dramatically even sometimes, over time for the same person.
———-
Thanks much, Brian, for those very insightful observations.
I’m sure you granddaughter appreciated your kindness and your wisdom! At least I hope she did. While not all old men are wise, but equally, nor are all old men tiresome fools. And some of them are actually very cool, even.
(Heh, that was a compliment sent in your direction, absolutely! But I also think back now, as I often do, to my grandfather, who has been a central influence in my life, as far as my “seeking” — if I may use that somewhat grandiose term! A wiser more knowledgeable man I’ve never had the privilege of knowing and interacting with, nor one more completely openminded and accommodative of a naive ignorant but endlessly curious and questioning young mind, as I had been back then.)

“No, no harm done , I have swallowed enough coffee”
Dear Um, this specific portion of your comment to me, that had escaped me before, jumped out at me now.
Coffee is a lovely beverage, in many different ways. And one of its many uses, that not many put it to, is to anesthetize against pain. (And a completely beneficent anaesthetic it is, too, unlike drink, and unlike other drugs.) …My point is, I know where you’re coming from. Been there.
Having noticed this now, I wanted to reach out to you in sympathy, in empathy. And to express regret if I’ve added to the things that a gentle soul might need to anesthetize themselves from. Please don’t let my comments affect the pleasure you derive from this place, or your participation here.

Hi AR
You replied to my comment to Brian
“That isn’t how Brian meant it. What he meant was to ask is, Does life necessarily need to have meaning?”
You’re saying Brian Assumes that life is a given and exists entirely separate from whatever meaning we project onto it?
Then Life doesn’t need our imagined meaning and has existed just fine for eons without it.
Do WE need it…. That’s what you and Brian are getting at.
So why bring “Life” into it?
That’s just an insult to Life.
But how typical to try to make LIFE a tiny subject of thought rather than thought a tiny part of LIFE… How typical.
OK, did the enlightenment happen yet?
No? Just keep reading the above… 😉
Still need it spelled out?
A. Life already does all on its own and doesn’t need our permission.
B. We question life when we don’t understand it.
C. Because we don’t understand life we cannot with any ‘Meanng’ attribute meaning to it. Doing so is just Hubris.
D. At best we can state what we like. ‘Meaning’is beyond parochial thought.
E. And so using the word “LIFE” when you mean “My tiny narcissistic ego trip” is indeed pretty insulting to LIFE, which has graciously provided this opportunity for you to indulge in such narcissism.