> 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 w

> 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.