clintirwin:

Absurdism concerns inherent meaning, and as I read through this, you have a lot of examples of personal meaning. When it comes to the idea of inherent meaning, cubs may be meaningful to a particular bear, but not all cubs are meaningful to all bears. In fact, Bear A doesn’t give a shit in the woods for Bear B’s cubs and really wishes she would stop showing her the cubby pictures. Because a cub is meaningful to a bear does not mean cubs are intrinsically meaningful either in and of themselves, or to the universe as a whole. Absurdism is the idea that, to all appearances, meaning is arbitrary because the universe is just not in the business of handing out hard evidence of an inherent transcendant version of the stuff. We will only know for sure if there is higher meaning when we die, so we can 1) commit suicide, or 2) have faith like Kierkegaard that there is meaning beyond the Absurd, or 3) double-down like Camus on the Absurd, reject God and intrinsic meaning and realize that there is absolute freedom in the Absurd to build one’s own personal sense of meaning. 

I kind of like the idea of Camus: I don’t need your fucking meaning anyway, Universe. I’ll tell you what meaning is: bears! I like bears, so fuck you, Universe.

You know what is absurd? A bunch of monkeys walking around wondering what their meaning and purpose in the universe is. But the question is not universal to all the monkeys. The Buddhists never bothered themselves about meaning, only being.

If you really want to argue about meaning, talk to the nihilists.

I don’t think it is accurate to call the meaning of Bear A’s cubs personal meaning.  Perhaps that is individual meaning.  I agree; a cub means nothing to the universe, but it doesn’t follow that the universe is meaningless due to that fact or a series of similar conclusions.  Nonetheless, I cannot conclude that the universe has no inherent meaning.  That isn’t to say that I need a transcendent being to add meaning.  To the contrary, it is to speak solely on the possibility of meaning and nothing more.  I can continue to defend the intrinsic meaning of the Sun, the Earth, the galaxy, and other celestial objects within the universe.  I can continue to assert that if they’re meaningful then it follows that the universe is meaningful.  Nevertheless, that would not settle in some of our minds.  I can’t entirely disagree with anyone who posits that meaning is perhaps a construct of language and that before language, meaning didn’t exist.  Again, I can assert that the inability to express meaning isn’t tantamount to the absence of meaning.  Though the assertion is sound, it isn’t necessarily self-evident — not even for me and yet I make the assertion; but it is a bolder assertion still to positively and in the case of some people, absolutely consider the universe a meaningless place.  That is my issue with Absurdism in a nutshell.

I do like Camus’ approach.  If I were ever so naive as to embrace an Absurdist point of view, I would also embrace his approach concerning the Absurd.

Some of us do think we have a meaning or purpose in the universe.  However, that is another matter entirely.  I agree; such a notion is absurd because it is based in arrogance and naivete.  As far as nihilists are concerned, would a discussion on meaning mean anything to them?  Consider that a mild attempt at a joke, but it is no less true.

I’m interested; what is your take?  Are you an existentialist, an absurdist, or a nihilist?  I fundamentally disagree with each view and for different reasons.  Unfortunately, that leaves me in a philosophical dark.  There is no appropriate title for someone who disagrees with the aforementioned views — assuming a title is appropriate in and of itself.

clintirwin:

I just don’t think one needs the concept of meaning to motivate motherhood, or the transference of the instinct on another species. Instinctive feeling is not the same as meaning. Maybe you could give me a definition of meaning that you are going with because meaning as far as I know is supposed to imply an objective point for existence. To some, meaning comes from God. Why am I here? God made you with a plan in mind. On the other hand an atheist might say, well there is no pre-existing plan from an objectively existing God, but the existence of this single instance of myself in the vast history of the universe is so rare and beautiful that a sense of meaning comes from experiencing it to the full. On a more pedestrian level, there is the guy who works a crappy job all his life, but he finds meaning and a reason for his existence in just looking at his kids. My understanding of meaning is that it is a conscious process that arises from a question that not all peoples in all cultures are given to ask. I’ve never heard of a concept of meaning that requires no reflective consciousness, only a fact an experience of it, or the fact itself. That can be meaning to you personally, but it does not exist apart from you. At least not in most understandings of the word “meaning.” 

The following definition is from Merriam-Webster and it is the closest in the sense of the word I’m using:  significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

However, I’m not implying a hidden significance — perhaps a special significance that makes x or y valuable to us or other living things.  I agree; motherhood isn’t motivated by meaning, but parenthood leads to meaning or at the very least, it is supposed to.  How many parents begin to take better care of themselves after having children?  Can one conclude that the experience of parenthood influenced the parent’s decision and in turn, added value and/or meaning to that person’s life?  I agree with all of your assessments.  Meaning can be actual or imagined.  One can find meaning with or without god; one can find meaning via one aspect of their lives, namely the kids you mentioned above.  Again, and I stress this point, the inability to express meaning isn’t tantamount to the absence of meaning.  Can we safely conclude that the cubs meant nothing to the lioness?  Can we extend that conclusion and say that all cubs mean nothing to their respective mothers and/or parents in the wild?  Can we extend that even further and say that the Sun meant absolutely nothing to the 99.9% of species that existed before us?  Perhaps many of those species were incapable of recognizing value to then assign meaning; however, that doesn’t mean that the Sun has no value and thus, has no meaning. 

In the case of respective cultures, I don’t believe a question is required (i.e. what is the meaning of life?  Is there meaning in life?).  Finding value in life or in variables capable of adding value to our lives seems natural.  It seems that humans naturally seek meaning.  May I remind you, philosophers argued over such questions and their possible answers; some argued whether the questions were necessary.  This, in turn, led to existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism.  I would conclude that a question isn’t required.  I’ll use myself as an example; I was never asked a question concerning the meaning of life or the meaning of and/or in my life.  Nonetheless, I’m not blind to the value of certain factors in my life that in return add meaning to my life.  My friends and family have value and undoubtedly add meaning to my life. 

I can also agree with a statement that says:  something that has no value can have meaning.  That is to question the truth value of said object.  God(s) are a good example of that.  For me, god has no value for I do not believe in god.  I take that further and conclude that it is meaningless to believe in a god and that having one will add no further meaning to my life.  Others hinge to their faith and find meaning through it.  This discussion could go a lot further if we start discussing true meaning versus imagined or even false meaning; or, whether all meaning is imagined and if there’s a such thing as true meaning.  Nonetheless, my point in the original post is that it is quite the stretch to conclude that the universe is meaningless.  That is a conclusion I dare not subscribe to.

clintirwin:

What meaning did the stars have? What Sagan and Tyson describe is not meaning without their own added feelings. The facts themselves are just facts. Science is not designed to arrive at meaning, only facts. Meaning is a particularly human pursuit. Even the most intelligent animals show no sign of needing meaning. The idea of meaning itself is probably relatively recent in human history, and possibly particular to certain cultures.

I agree; they did state the facts and science isn’t meant to assign meaning.  However, it is safe to say that the stars had meaning before we were able to assign them meaning.  Because of the stars, complex chemistry has led to sentience.  Some physicists posit that the laws of physics are favorable to life — this is known as the anthropic principle.  Therefore, that implicates a universe that is favorable to the same and far from meaningless. 

Meaning isn’t a mere human pursuit.  Why did this bear kill herself and her cub?  Doesn’t that show that the cub meant something to her?  Why did this lioness care for an antelope calf after losing her cubs?  Doesn’t that imply that the cubs meant something to her — something so profound as to change her predatory nature — if even temporarily?  These examples show that meaning isn’t a human endeavor.  Furthermore, the inability to express meaning isn’t tantamount to the absence of meaning.  As I stated previously, the Sun meant light and energy for 99.9% of species prior to our existence and it means the same for all existing species.  The Sun was meaningful prior to human language — the very thing that now assigns it meaning after the fact. 

I also disagree on meaning being particular to certain cultures.  Motherhood is a generality that verges on universality.  I learned of a culture that doesn’t seem to value motherhood; however, it isn’t an absence of meaning concerning their children, but rather, economic pressures that face them in their society.  Due to these pressures, these mothers are forced to abandon their children at home in order to work.  They do this when the children are infants and many of these infants die.  They are taught not to mourn for them who are supposedly taken to become angels of god, but some mothers mourn notwithstanding.  Even in such a brutal society, meaning is applied where necessary.  Therefore, meaning is a universal human endeavor for even the worse amongst us assign meaning to something.  

In a nutshell, the Absurd is the conflict that arises when we search for meaning in a universe that seems meaningless.  To prove the existence of such a realm, one has to prove that the universe is meaningless — a bold statement coming from a primate species born via natural selection roughly 200,000 years ago.  We cannot prove that the universe is meaningless; to the contrary, we can prove that it has meaning.  Follow me here.  Let us begin with the stars:

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”

— Carl Sagan, Cosmos

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”

— Neil deGrasse Tyson

The stars had meaning before our ancestors gave them meaning via astrology and other ways of worship.  Stars are inhabitants of our universe per se.  Prior to the dawn of human language, the stars had a meaning.  That leads us to our Sun.  The Sun has provided light and energy for approximately 4.6 billion years.  It sustained all manner of life many years before the age of mankind.  Thus, before we were here to assign it meaning, it already had meaning.  It meant something to 99.9% of species who were perhaps unable to describe their appreciation — perhaps incapable of assigning meaning.

What about Earth?  Earth, like the stars — including our Sun, was formed by wholly naturalistic processes.  Planets and stars are still forming throughout our galaxy and its satellite galaxies.  The Earth has meaning to us.  It is our home; it is our reality.  However, it was the same for many before us.  Prior to and even while there were homosapiens, Neanderthals shared our home.  Prior to them, h. ergaster, h. erectus, australopithicenes, and a great number of our ancestors shared our home.  Fossils are relics of their existence — a subtle reminder of the ancestral beneficiaries of our planet and our Sun.

What about other planets?  Many scientists consider Jupiter our protector.  Its gravitational pull attracts many asteroids — asteroids that could have annihilated us.  Speaking of asteroids, we are in the process of perhaps mining them in the future.  They may someday provide us with key natural resources.  Arguably, even they had meaning before we assigned them meaning.  If not for the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, we would not be here.  In a random but naturalistic way, that 6-mile wide asteroid helped pave the way for humankind.

Then there’s our moon — the controller of our tides and the stabilizer of our axial tilt.  Perhaps we would have evolved without our moon, but eventually our axis would become to unstable to support life.  That of course would occur in a time scale of billions of years.  However, that doesn’t undermine its importance.

We can continue to assign meaning after the fact.  There is no doubt that all of these celestial objects had meaning before we were able to recognize that and put it into words.  I can prove that even supermassive black holes have meaning.  Galaxies have meaning.  There are 200-500 billion galaxies in our universe.  It is highly probable that there are other stars that mean something to its habitable planets and that those planets and stars mean something to the species that inhabit them — whether or not they’re able to express such meaning notwithstanding.  Thus, it would follow that the location of their solar system within their galaxy is also meaningful as our location within our galaxy is meaningful.

When considering all of these variables and when considering that I was reluctant to expound on some of these factors, how can one conclude that meaningful objects arise in a meaningless universe?  Wouldn’t it follow that meaningful objects exist within a universe governed by meaningful laws?  That isn’t to say that some creator gave it meaning.  May I remind you of the nature of galaxial, star, and planet formation — all occur via naturalistic processes.  There is no “intelligent design” or divine hand behind the curtain.  The forces of the universe are enough to explain how they come into being, albeit barring some crucial details namely in the case of galaxial evolution.  Given all of these facts, absurdism buckles and falls from the stilts it stood on.  The universe isn’t meaningless and even if the facts aren’t enough to convince you, who are you — a species that opened its eyes fairly recently in the history of the cosmos — to say that the universe is meaningless?  According to the facts, the universe is meaningful and thus, there is no conflict between the universe and our search for meaning in life.

Is such a philosophical stance related to Atheism?  No.  Atheism doesn’t lead to absurdism and vice versa.  As a matter of fact, absurdism finds its origins in the work of Soren Kierkegaard; he was a Christian.  That is why I find it curious when Christians say that Atheists are absurdists.  Nevertheless, any person with or without a religious affiliation is free to subscribe to absurdism.  This idea isn’t exclusive to any affiliation or lack thereof.  Nonetheless, I think it is safe to conclude that absurdism is absurd — pun intended.