4 ms·

Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life. My personal take on reality is that the whol

Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life. My personal take on reality is that the whole shebang is a "meaningless treadmill", but I'm willing to accept that it might not be true for the next guy.

bd 17y ago
The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever. Because this is just a ride." -- Bill Hicks
- jimbokun 17y ago
  Isn't that just Zen Buddhism? Was Hicks a Buddhist?
  - gruseom 17y ago
    It certainly isn't just Zen. There are many spiritual traditions that quote could plausibly derive from. It sounds rather more Vedantic to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29).
- hardik 17y ago
  Could not help notice that this was also quoted in (in fact, was a subject of) one of Pete's older articles.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
I agree. My take on this essay is that it is but an early milestone on the path to enlightenment. It asks an interesting question, but ends in a total cop-out, where the author literally claims that divining the meaning of life is "easy": The easy part to culling the bullshit is to ask yourself: Is this activity making a positive, tangible difference in my life or anyone else’s life? Easy for him, maybe. It's fine to make the limited argument that certain games devolve a bit too quickly into flavorless tickling of the brain's pleasure centers. So long as you are clearly arguing about taste in game design, not about the ultimate meaning of life. But when you decide to delve further, to the point that you've argued not just that crack cocaine and MMORPGs are ultimately meaningless, but also that education, money, casual acquaintances, success, and writing comments on HN are ultimately meaningless, shouldn't you keep going until you get to the end? Which would be something like: All achievement is porn; that is, it is ultimately empty. Although I would never phrase it that way; I prefer a more classical phrasing, like this [1]: Life means suffering. The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Now that is a general principle. --- [1] I cribbed these lines from http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html , because that's what came up in Google. There are probably a few other sources... ;)
- kingsley_20 17y ago
  You're right. I play life because it's more fun to pretend that it's real than succumb to the inaction which would be the only logical response to the idea that it's not. In other words, I seek the coin under the lamp rather than in the dark corner I lost it in, and I'm fine with that.
pringle 17y ago
I don't get the upvotes for this comment. Most of the philosophers we revere did exactly this -- define and put forth universal ideas for what is meaningful in life. No one is forcing these ideas on you, and it's easy to take shots at the "man in the arena" who steps forward to tackle a subject. I found it pretty interesting, as I had never thought much about the impact of this new class of "achievement" modern society has created. These kinds of reactions only stifle dialogue and debate. I think it's generally understood that this is his opinion, and that he doesn't have designs to become a dictator and make this opinion the law of the land.
- sgoranson 17y ago
  If it makes you feel any better, I enjoy taking potshots at revered ethicists as well.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  A lot of the other philosophers we revere did exactly the opposite - proclaim that nothing is meaningful in life, or that we're all just mistaken and can't express our ideas clearly. Eg. Nietzsche, Wittgenstein.
- gcheong 17y ago
  "...and that he doesn't have designs to become a dictator and make this opinion the law of the land." Yeah, I think he wants to be the next Tony Robbins: "My mission is to inspire people to think clearly, to live deliberately, to conquer fear and embrace possibility, to express beauty, and to love completely. Prepare to be scorched then reborn, authentic and complete."
afgeneralist 17y ago
"Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life." - I think this statement is lazy in that it's taking the cultural relativist approach. By this token, we shouldn't make judgment on female circumcision in Africa, or the one child rule in China. In their societies these practices have very important value but I think most of us probably feel like it's morally wrong. I think we can argue there there is a world where there should exist universal qualities. I certainly wont knock the author for trying to argue video games inherently don't have the same value as say "going for a walk" and helping your family or community...
- sgoranson 17y ago
  s/lazy/existentialist Universal right and wrong just isn't my thing. YMMV
- zitterbewegung 17y ago
  What gives you the power to decide what is good and what isn't? People should define themselves by their own merits and what gives them the most utility.
  - sofal 17y ago
    What? Is someone claiming power over objective definitions of right and wrong? I hope you understand that just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't render the model useless. What if it just so happens that a lot of this marvelous "utility" that you mention comes about through a reasonable consensus on morality, brought about through persuasion?
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  '"Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life." - I think this statement is lazy in that it's taking the cultural relativist approach.' And the funny thing is, such statements come off as absolutist claims about how other people should not be making absolutist claims. I mean, isn't it pretty arrogant to declare someone else, um, pretty arrogant? :) It's hard to criticize someone for criticizing someone, or to judge people for judging people.
lsd5you 17y ago
You are equivocating. Not all paths are equal, or at least in the completely subjective/nihilistic universe in which they are, the words good and bad have absolutely no meaning. We have to have some value system, if only to maintain our standard of living. Like most things, moderation is king. Extremely shallow but effective manipulations of behaviour are a bad thing. A lot of people consuming these will agree ultimately that they have wasted their time and post-hoc have prefered to been forced to do something more challenging and fruitful with the time. Challenge, discipline and delayed-gratification remain virtuous (in my opinion) and good despite technological advances short circuiting reward sensations.
Confusion 17y ago
He's not trying to define what should be meaningful: he simply accepts what people actually claim they consider to be meaningful and shows how their behavior does not lead to the kinds of achievements that they themselves consider meaningful.

bd 17y ago

The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever. Because this is just a ride." -- Bill Hicks

jimbokun 17y ago
Isn't that just Zen Buddhism? Was Hicks a Buddhist?
- gruseom 17y ago
  It certainly isn't just Zen. There are many spiritual traditions that quote could plausibly derive from. It sounds rather more Vedantic to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29).
hardik 17y ago
Could not help notice that this was also quoted in (in fact, was a subject of) one of Pete's older articles.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

I agree. My take on this essay is that it is but an early milestone on the path to enlightenment. It asks an interesting question, but ends in a total cop-out, where the author literally claims that divining the meaning of life is "easy": The easy part to culling the bullshit is to ask yourself: Is this activity making a positive, tangible difference in my life or anyone else’s life? Easy for him, maybe. It's fine to make the limited argument that certain games devolve a bit too quickly into flavorless tickling of the brain's pleasure centers. So long as you are clearly arguing about taste in game design, not about the ultimate meaning of life. But when you decide to delve further, to the point that you've argued not just that crack cocaine and MMORPGs are ultimately meaningless, but also that education, money, casual acquaintances, success, and writing comments on HN are ultimately meaningless, shouldn't you keep going until you get to the end? Which would be something like: All achievement is porn; that is, it is ultimately empty. Although I would never phrase it that way; I prefer a more classical phrasing, like this [1]: Life means suffering. The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Now that is a general principle. --- [1] I cribbed these lines from http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html , because that's what came up in Google. There are probably a few other sources... ;)

kingsley_20 17y ago
You're right. I play life because it's more fun to pretend that it's real than succumb to the inaction which would be the only logical response to the idea that it's not. In other words, I seek the coin under the lamp rather than in the dark corner I lost it in, and I'm fine with that.

pringle 17y ago

I don't get the upvotes for this comment. Most of the philosophers we revere did exactly this -- define and put forth universal ideas for what is meaningful in life. No one is forcing these ideas on you, and it's easy to take shots at the "man in the arena" who steps forward to tackle a subject. I found it pretty interesting, as I had never thought much about the impact of this new class of "achievement" modern society has created. These kinds of reactions only stifle dialogue and debate. I think it's generally understood that this is his opinion, and that he doesn't have designs to become a dictator and make this opinion the law of the land.

sgoranson 17y ago
If it makes you feel any better, I enjoy taking potshots at revered ethicists as well.
nostrademons 17y ago
A lot of the other philosophers we revere did exactly the opposite - proclaim that nothing is meaningful in life, or that we're all just mistaken and can't express our ideas clearly. Eg. Nietzsche, Wittgenstein.
gcheong 17y ago
"...and that he doesn't have designs to become a dictator and make this opinion the law of the land." Yeah, I think he wants to be the next Tony Robbins: "My mission is to inspire people to think clearly, to live deliberately, to conquer fear and embrace possibility, to express beauty, and to love completely. Prepare to be scorched then reborn, authentic and complete."

afgeneralist 17y ago

"Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life." - I think this statement is lazy in that it's taking the cultural relativist approach. By this token, we shouldn't make judgment on female circumcision in Africa, or the one child rule in China. In their societies these practices have very important value but I think most of us probably feel like it's morally wrong. I think we can argue there there is a world where there should exist universal qualities. I certainly wont knock the author for trying to argue video games inherently don't have the same value as say "going for a walk" and helping your family or community...

sgoranson 17y ago
s/lazy/existentialist Universal right and wrong just isn't my thing. YMMV
zitterbewegung 17y ago
What gives you the power to decide what is good and what isn't? People should define themselves by their own merits and what gives them the most utility.
- sofal 17y ago
  What? Is someone claiming power over objective definitions of right and wrong? I hope you understand that just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't render the model useless. What if it just so happens that a lot of this marvelous "utility" that you mention comes about through a reasonable consensus on morality, brought about through persuasion?
jamesbritt 17y ago
'"Trying to define what should be meaningful for other people is pretty arrogant and an insular perspective on life." - I think this statement is lazy in that it's taking the cultural relativist approach.' And the funny thing is, such statements come off as absolutist claims about how other people should not be making absolutist claims. I mean, isn't it pretty arrogant to declare someone else, um, pretty arrogant? :) It's hard to criticize someone for criticizing someone, or to judge people for judging people.

lsd5you 17y ago

You are equivocating. Not all paths are equal, or at least in the completely subjective/nihilistic universe in which they are, the words good and bad have absolutely no meaning. We have to have some value system, if only to maintain our standard of living. Like most things, moderation is king. Extremely shallow but effective manipulations of behaviour are a bad thing. A lot of people consuming these will agree ultimately that they have wasted their time and post-hoc have prefered to been forced to do something more challenging and fruitful with the time. Challenge, discipline and delayed-gratification remain virtuous (in my opinion) and good despite technological advances short circuiting reward sensations.

Confusion 17y ago

He's not trying to define what should be meaningful: he simply accepts what people actually claim they consider to be meaningful and shows how their behavior does not lead to the kinds of achievements that they themselves consider meaningful.