5 ms·

>But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Stated without argument, and, as far as I can see, simply false. I know this pattern from "if ever

>But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Stated without argument, and, as far as I can see, simply false. I know this pattern from "if everything is bold, nothing is bold" (typography), where I'd agree with it (if all text is bold no single piece of text can stand out from the rest, which was originally the function of bolding text), I just don't see how it transposes to meaning. If 'meaning' is a perceived relation from 'A' to 'B', then adding another perceived relation from 'C' to 'D' does not change that in any way. Perhaps the author's point is that when only a few things meant something, it was easier to fall into the illusion that this meaning was more than just a relation between things which are meaningless in isolation, that there was some wellspring of meaning that goes above and beyond mere relationships, into a different metaphysical plane of existence, and one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point. By the way, what is meant by "meaning" anyway? The phrase "X means Y" is clear enough, but then the things the author really seems to want to say hinge on a non-relational use of the word, e.g. "X is meaningful", "there is meaning", "signifiers of meaning", "meaning that is meaningful". I know there's a colloquial use of "meaningful" but AFAICT "X is meaningful" then means little more than "X makes me happy (and less afraid of death)". It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once.

rmah 3y ago
It seems pretty clear to me that the author means "has meaning" means "is important".
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  having meaning is only definable if we say what that meaning is. So two things can have meaning and mean two different things. thus "if everything means something, nothing means anything." is wrong because 'meaning' as a property is not enough to establish that all items have the same quality and thus the quality does not serve to distinguish and becomes, excuse the phrasing, meaningless.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    If we follow @mah’s interpretation, we get “if everything is important, nothing is”, which makes sense in the same way it makes with “bold”. Our quest for “meaning” is a quest for what is important to us that we also have some agency in.
bowsamic 3y ago
> If 'meaning' is a perceived relation from 'A' to 'B', then adding another perceived relation from 'C' to 'D' does not change that in any way. I don't agree with this at all. Part of the properties of the connection between 'A' and 'B' are its relation to all the things that aren't connected. As soon as another two things are connected, the original connection indeed fundamentally changes. Every single time two new concepts are connected, every other connection in the world is transformed. Connections are meaningful because they denote the things that are connected, and indeed if every single connection is asserted, i.e. "everything means something", then there is no value in any connection. It's much like saying how maths would break down if every proposition were true, since the value of maths is that some propositions are not true and that we can find which ones are and which ones aren't, although (without loss of generality) relative to some axioms. > one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point. I'm a little perturbed by this, are you saying it's a naive illusion to derive fulfilment in your life via meaning? This seems almost like a fully nihilistic point of view. I don't see any evidence that we have passed this or should pass this. It is simply valuable to, for example, read a text and note how it connects to previously unspoken to aspects of being a human being, and receive a sense of awe and deep satisfaction from that. This is of course related to the author's central thesis, but I don't think you've given any reason for us to believe that this is gone or that this will ever be gone. That would imply that there is no longer any value in the story as a human cultural form, which is primarily something that we see ourselves in and thus connect to, and I see no evidence for this. > It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once. I hate to bring up this distinction but I think this is a continental vs. analytical philosophy thing. In analytical philosophy it is often as you describe: terms are clearly defined and manipulated. In so-called "continental philosophy" usually one just starts with a vague feeling of a term and tries to somehow draw some kind of elaboration of it from what it felt by us when we say it. Therefore it's not really possible to develop the terms a priori, the clarity of them is usually arrived at through the mental movements made in the essay.
- 3y ago
ysofunny 3y ago
I also think about this, but I don't focus on the meaning aspect as related to the specific thing I focus instead on the prefix, "any", "every", and "no" thing. so whether it's a thing, or a place (any, every, and no where) becomes less central to my consideration. everywhere includes places such as nowhere, hence I say that "every~" includes "no~" "any~" is neither "every~" nor "no~", so "any" implies "some" place or thing or whatever.
marcusverus 3y ago
This statement is simply false taken by itself, but in context it makes sense: > On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation. But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Words have meaning--they're supposed to. But some things aren't intended to bear meaning. Your word choice, for example, is likely not intended to bear any deeper meaning beyond that of the sentence as a whole. But I can read any amount of meaning into your word choice if I want. Maybe you use three words in a row that seem familiar or particularly elegant. So I google them, and they pop up in Das Capital! This would be, of course, entirely meaningless. But if everything has meaning, then your decision to use these words can't be mere coincidence! Suddenly I'm thinking my god, bondarchuk isn't just making an argument about cultural schizophrenia, he's carrying the war against capitalism onto the internet! This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! I would love to know the number of people who, when asked why they vote red/blue, give one of these schizo-narratives in their answer. I think the number would be shocking, and far, far higher than is required to determine the outcome of a given election. It has me deeply concerned about the long-term viability of our political process.
- msla 3y ago
  > This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing. And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames. (Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)
darkerside 3y ago
Bold is binary. Meaning and importance are not. So, I agree with you.

rmah 3y ago

It seems pretty clear to me that the author means "has meaning" means "is important".

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
having meaning is only definable if we say what that meaning is. So two things can have meaning and mean two different things. thus "if everything means something, nothing means anything." is wrong because 'meaning' as a property is not enough to establish that all items have the same quality and thus the quality does not serve to distinguish and becomes, excuse the phrasing, meaningless.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  If we follow @mah’s interpretation, we get “if everything is important, nothing is”, which makes sense in the same way it makes with “bold”. Our quest for “meaning” is a quest for what is important to us that we also have some agency in.

bowsamic 3y ago

> If 'meaning' is a perceived relation from 'A' to 'B', then adding another perceived relation from 'C' to 'D' does not change that in any way. I don't agree with this at all. Part of the properties of the connection between 'A' and 'B' are its relation to all the things that aren't connected. As soon as another two things are connected, the original connection indeed fundamentally changes. Every single time two new concepts are connected, every other connection in the world is transformed. Connections are meaningful because they denote the things that are connected, and indeed if every single connection is asserted, i.e. "everything means something", then there is no value in any connection. It's much like saying how maths would break down if every proposition were true, since the value of maths is that some propositions are not true and that we can find which ones are and which ones aren't, although (without loss of generality) relative to some axioms. > one could even be in communion with it in ones daily life ("actual fulfilment") by attending to a few common myths or stories or what-have-you. Alas, I would say this is just an illusion and while it might be legitimate to lament the loss of a comfortable state, you would just be fooling yourself by closing your eyes and going back to it at this point. I'm a little perturbed by this, are you saying it's a naive illusion to derive fulfilment in your life via meaning? This seems almost like a fully nihilistic point of view. I don't see any evidence that we have passed this or should pass this. It is simply valuable to, for example, read a text and note how it connects to previously unspoken to aspects of being a human being, and receive a sense of awe and deep satisfaction from that. This is of course related to the author's central thesis, but I don't think you've given any reason for us to believe that this is gone or that this will ever be gone. That would imply that there is no longer any value in the story as a human cultural form, which is primarily something that we see ourselves in and thus connect to, and I see no evidence for this. > It's certainly not a unique fault of this article but it would be nice if someone were to define their key terms, for once. I hate to bring up this distinction but I think this is a continental vs. analytical philosophy thing. In analytical philosophy it is often as you describe: terms are clearly defined and manipulated. In so-called "continental philosophy" usually one just starts with a vague feeling of a term and tries to somehow draw some kind of elaboration of it from what it felt by us when we say it. Therefore it's not really possible to develop the terms a priori, the clarity of them is usually arrived at through the mental movements made in the essay.

3y ago

ysofunny 3y ago

I also think about this, but I don't focus on the meaning aspect as related to the specific thing I focus instead on the prefix, "any", "every", and "no" thing. so whether it's a thing, or a place (any, every, and no where) becomes less central to my consideration. everywhere includes places such as nowhere, hence I say that "every~" includes "no~" "any~" is neither "every~" nor "no~", so "any" implies "some" place or thing or whatever.

marcusverus 3y ago

This statement is simply false taken by itself, but in context it makes sense: > On the other hand we have schizophrenia, a relationality so unkept than anything and everything is packed full of meaning, connections are drawn between everything, and existence is pure pattern and relation. But, if everything means something, nothing means anything. Words have meaning--they're supposed to. But some things aren't intended to bear meaning. Your word choice, for example, is likely not intended to bear any deeper meaning beyond that of the sentence as a whole. But I can read any amount of meaning into your word choice if I want. Maybe you use three words in a row that seem familiar or particularly elegant. So I google them, and they pop up in Das Capital! This would be, of course, entirely meaningless. But if everything has meaning, then your decision to use these words can't be mere coincidence! Suddenly I'm thinking my god, bondarchuk isn't just making an argument about cultural schizophrenia, he's carrying the war against capitalism onto the internet! This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! I would love to know the number of people who, when asked why they vote red/blue, give one of these schizo-narratives in their answer. I think the number would be shocking, and far, far higher than is required to determine the outcome of a given election. It has me deeply concerned about the long-term viability of our political process.

msla 3y ago
> This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing. And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames. (Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)

darkerside 3y ago

Bold is binary. Meaning and importance are not. So, I agree with you.