7 ms·

I've never had an issue valuing my life knowing that it has no eternally persistent meaning. A poor analogy, but I like to explain a finite life's meaning by as

I've never had an issue valuing my life knowing that it has no eternally persistent meaning. A poor analogy, but I like to explain a finite life's meaning by asking if a movie is any less enjoyable knowing that it's going to end. Sure, eventually our existence is rendered meaningless but that doesn't make it meaningless for me, now. Call that an illusion if you want, but it's as concrete as anything you can prove. Besides, what would a "not-ultimately-meaningless" existence look like? I haven't heard any proposals that sound appealing to me.

adrianN 10y ago
Finding meaning in pleasure sounds like Hedonism to me.
- hx87 10y ago
  OP didn't say anything about finding meaning in pleasure, only finding meaning in every single moment instead of at some metaphysical end of time.
- CompelTechnic 10y ago
  Ain't nothin' wrong with Hedonism.
  - ctrlalt_g 10y ago
    There are many fundamental problems with hedonism, but hedonism avoids dealing with the problems because that's its nature.
    - delluminatus 10y ago
      Like what?
      - ctrlalt_g 10y ago
        Mercy killings and martyrdom (or any beliefs that optimize for the afterlife)
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      What are the inherent problems with hedonism?
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        Small example: not taking care of your parents when they get old because it's not pleasurable.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        That is a good example. On the other hand, whilst hedonists may shirk some responsibilities, perhaps their focus on pleasure also ends up improving their ability at finding pleasure in the situations they find themselves in. If you intend to find pleasure, you may find it easier to recognise the opportunities to create it when they arise. So to go back to your example of looking after parents when they get old, perhaps a hedonist would be resistant if that involved acting as a servant, but may be good company for them by playing games, telling stories, etc... Not all acts of compassion require self-sacrifice.
        ctrlalt_g 10y ago
        Finding value in pleasure is different than saying that only pleasure has value. It seems to me that a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents, since only the games and the (pleasant) stories have value, and that they would do these things in more pleasant company instead. Either way, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that accepting and knowing pain is an important part of the human experience.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker." For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure. "a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents" Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look to make situations more fun (for themselves, but this tends to involve taking others along for the ride). Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people, I'd say it's more than possible and I'm not even a hedonist (i.e. someone who looks for fun in a high proportion of their time, someone who is good at doing so).
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      Thus, no problem. The fact that if it fails to cause a fast death, it causes a big deal of suffering to the individual is not out of irony. But is still not a problem for it.
      - ctrlalt_g 10y ago
        Case in point.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Epicurus had some thoughts regarding avoiding the problems with hedonism while still basing 'the good' on pleasure.
  - singham 10y ago
    Dan Bilzerian embodies Hedonism
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ewzimm 10y ago
In a certian way of thinking, an externally persistent meaning is just an enforcement mechanism for slavery. When people talk about wanting to serve something bigger than themselves, they are implying that they aren't worth serving, that they can only achieve value by contributing to something, anything which is not like themselves. Is this personal devaulation necessary for a satisfying life? Another attitude is to embrace existence as we come into it, to love ourselves as we are. We can still love other people and things that are not like us. Appreciation for the world can even be enhanced by beginning with embracing ourselves as we are because we're part of the world and it's part of us. When we make the world a better place, we make our world a better place. Selfish behavior is almost always short-sighted behavior. When we expand our perception of the universe, the difference between self and other is weaker than it might seem.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  >Selfish behavior is almost always short-sighted behavior. Only with the assumption that leaving the world in a "better" state (and bearing in mind opinions differ wildly on what that means) is the correct thing to do in terms of value/meaning. Like, to the extremist - violent pursuit of their ideology gives their lives meaning. Vilifying selfishness is a weird position to my mind.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    I'm not trying to villify selfishness, only address the criticism that usually follows this kind of statement. People look at any philosophy that says love yourself first and say it's just embelished selfishness, self-worship, narcisissm. They imagine it might lead to a Mad Max style dystopia of perpetual war. There's a time for destroying and rebuilding things, but the kind of hostility that people usually associate with selfishness like corporations prioritizing short-term profits over the well-being of their workers is more a symptom of lack of long-term planning. What I'm saying is that it's possible to love yourself and serve yourself while still making things better for everyone without any kind of contradiction in motivation. If I'm the richest person in the world and everyone else is fighting for survival, I still have to live in that world and suffer the consequences. If I contribute to my environment, I'm improving my own situation. There's no need to choose one or the other.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Besides, what would a "not-ultimately-meaningless" existence look like? I haven't heard any proposals that sound appealing to me. Edward Jenner, perhaps? If humanity fizzles out it's all moot, but if it lasts in perpetuity, Jenner's work will have done incalculable good, for the rest of time.

adrianN 10y ago

Finding meaning in pleasure sounds like Hedonism to me.

hx87 10y ago
OP didn't say anything about finding meaning in pleasure, only finding meaning in every single moment instead of at some metaphysical end of time.
CompelTechnic 10y ago
Ain't nothin' wrong with Hedonism.
- ctrlalt_g 10y ago
  There are many fundamental problems with hedonism, but hedonism avoids dealing with the problems because that's its nature.
  - delluminatus 10y ago
    Like what?
    - ctrlalt_g 10y ago
      Mercy killings and martyrdom (or any beliefs that optimize for the afterlife)
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    What are the inherent problems with hedonism?
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      Small example: not taking care of your parents when they get old because it's not pleasurable.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        That is a good example. On the other hand, whilst hedonists may shirk some responsibilities, perhaps their focus on pleasure also ends up improving their ability at finding pleasure in the situations they find themselves in. If you intend to find pleasure, you may find it easier to recognise the opportunities to create it when they arise. So to go back to your example of looking after parents when they get old, perhaps a hedonist would be resistant if that involved acting as a servant, but may be good company for them by playing games, telling stories, etc... Not all acts of compassion require self-sacrifice.
        ctrlalt_g 10y ago
        Finding value in pleasure is different than saying that only pleasure has value. It seems to me that a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents, since only the games and the (pleasant) stories have value, and that they would do these things in more pleasant company instead. Either way, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to deny that accepting and knowing pain is an important part of the human experience.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hedonist Hedonist - "a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker." For the hedonist, pleasure is something to pursue. By having this focus, it gives you more experience of creating pleasure. "a hedonist would not bother playing games or telling stories with senile parents" Do you know any hedonists? I know some. They look to make situations more fun (for themselves, but this tends to involve taking others along for the ride). Perhaps you don't believe it's possible to have fun with old senile people, I'd say it's more than possible and I'm not even a hedonist (i.e. someone who looks for fun in a high proportion of their time, someone who is good at doing so).
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    Thus, no problem. The fact that if it fails to cause a fast death, it causes a big deal of suffering to the individual is not out of irony. But is still not a problem for it.
    - ctrlalt_g 10y ago
      Case in point.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Epicurus had some thoughts regarding avoiding the problems with hedonism while still basing 'the good' on pleasure.
- singham 10y ago
  Dan Bilzerian embodies Hedonism
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ewzimm 10y ago

In a certian way of thinking, an externally persistent meaning is just an enforcement mechanism for slavery. When people talk about wanting to serve something bigger than themselves, they are implying that they aren't worth serving, that they can only achieve value by contributing to something, anything which is not like themselves. Is this personal devaulation necessary for a satisfying life? Another attitude is to embrace existence as we come into it, to love ourselves as we are. We can still love other people and things that are not like us. Appreciation for the world can even be enhanced by beginning with embracing ourselves as we are because we're part of the world and it's part of us. When we make the world a better place, we make our world a better place. Selfish behavior is almost always short-sighted behavior. When we expand our perception of the universe, the difference between self and other is weaker than it might seem.

Ntrails 10y ago
>Selfish behavior is almost always short-sighted behavior. Only with the assumption that leaving the world in a "better" state (and bearing in mind opinions differ wildly on what that means) is the correct thing to do in terms of value/meaning. Like, to the extremist - violent pursuit of their ideology gives their lives meaning. Vilifying selfishness is a weird position to my mind.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  I'm not trying to villify selfishness, only address the criticism that usually follows this kind of statement. People look at any philosophy that says love yourself first and say it's just embelished selfishness, self-worship, narcisissm. They imagine it might lead to a Mad Max style dystopia of perpetual war. There's a time for destroying and rebuilding things, but the kind of hostility that people usually associate with selfishness like corporations prioritizing short-term profits over the well-being of their workers is more a symptom of lack of long-term planning. What I'm saying is that it's possible to love yourself and serve yourself while still making things better for everyone without any kind of contradiction in motivation. If I'm the richest person in the world and everyone else is fighting for survival, I still have to live in that world and suffer the consequences. If I contribute to my environment, I'm improving my own situation. There's no need to choose one or the other.

sliverstorm 10y ago

Besides, what would a "not-ultimately-meaningless" existence look like? I haven't heard any proposals that sound appealing to me. Edward Jenner, perhaps? If humanity fizzles out it's all moot, but if it lasts in perpetuity, Jenner's work will have done incalculable good, for the rest of time.