What's the meaning of life?

[Mason]

Well I don't have a long answer so I shall say this instead! Happy deleted - Maharlika (Easter)

[C Elegans]

I don't mean to disagree with anything you said, but you have stated a different reason than my own for believing that the question is meaningless.
{SNIP}
The subjective meaning of our lives is of course individualized, by definition. It is a product of our will, our desires, and our own individual beliefs, among other things. But this in itself points to an answer that has general applicability: e.g., the "meaning of our lives" is closely connected to the things that are important to each of us and the investments that we make in such things. Again, that's pretty banal stuff.

Yes, and it was meant to be a different reason. I agree with what you wrote above about the nature of the question, and in addition I also think the question is meaningless due to the variation in answers. It is not the subjectivity but the variability that makes me think the question is meaningless in this respect. Some subjective perceptions can be very general for human beings, whereas others may be highly variable and "the meaning of life" is something that is highly variable between individuals.

Since I do not believe in any transcendent things, I view the perceived meaning of life as an illusion which is a product of our evolutionary needs. Ie some people perceive love, partnership and family formation as the meaning of life, which I would view as a "culturalised", socialised expression of the evolutionary biological drive to reproduce. Others may view insight and connection with godly and spiritual things as the meaning of life, whereas I would view this as a by-product of the higher cortical functions in our brains, and some certain survival systems.

On the contrary, I think that searching for truth can lead to very uncomfortable sensations, mainly because most of us want a measure of certainty, but certainty is not easy to come by. There are too many things that simply cannot be known or proven. I'm not depressed, but I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by all of the things I cannot understand. We end up relying on blind faith because it "feels right", and we find our comfort in that. But sometimes when a person realizes that logical proof is out of reach, it causes discomfort. I don't think there's anything unhealthy or unusual about that.

Certainty outside of the particular moment, is an illusion for all of us, and I do think most adult people realise that. I often find myself overwhelmed by things I cannot understand, but that is human nature, we simply have to live with that and accept that our lives are tiny points of existence is a floating time-space we do not fully understand. Not to mention how little we understand about ourselves, in a biological sense.
I do not at all think it's unhealthy to feel discomfort the first time you realise how unknown and uncertain most things are for us humans, but I actually do find it unusal that people are uncomfortable with this for any lenght of time. Maybe I just have a skew selection? My experience is that people, especially younger people, talk about and search for the meaning of their life to such an extent so one gets fed up with it. Finding you inner self through mediation, retreats, mindfulness or whatever has been a fashion for years, and it is still very popular where I live.

I don't see how the word "pompous" applies in this context. To me, "pompous" means "vainly preoccupied with displays". Do you suppose a better word might be "pretentious", i.e., "vainly assuming that one has or deserves a position of importance"? That's the word I would use. It's not very important; I just think there's a difference between "pomp" and "pretention".

I wasn't sure it was the right word when I wrote it, but now when I see your definition, I think it was the right word to describe what I meant. In general, I find that people who talk a lot about what is the meaning of life and tell others how to find it, often do this as a vain display of how wise, deep, insightful they are themselves.

[VonDondu]

I do not at all think it's unhealthy to feel discomfort the first time you realise how unknown and uncertain most things are for us humans, but I actually do find it unusal that people are uncomfortable with this for any lenght of time. Maybe I just have a skew selection?

Just guessing, I would say yes, especially if there is a large proportion of atheist intellectuals in your sample. Every time I return to an uncomfortable issue, I'm almost as uncomfortable about it as I was before (unless I choose to put it out of my mind, which is a viable choice but which defeats the original purpose in contemplating those issues).

More to the point, I don't think Claudius was talking about "sustained" discomfort when people contemplate the "meaning of life". (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's how I see it, anyway.) I think he simply meant that people sometimes "leave their comfort zone" while they're actively thinking about such issues; I don't think he meant that it creates permanent discomfort.

My experience is that people, especially younger people, talk about and search for the meaning of their life to such an extent so one gets fed up with it. Finding you inner self through mediation, retreats, mindfulness or whatever has been a fashion for years, and it is still very popular where I live.

Some people also enjoy saying, "It doesn't matter, and I'm not concerned about it," which is somewhat pretentious in its own right. ("I'm too important to be concerned about such things.")

I wasn't sure it was the right word when I wrote it, but now when I see your definition, I think it was the right word to describe what I meant. In general, I find that people who talk a lot about what is the meaning of life and tell others how to find it, often do this as a vain display of how wise, deep, insightful they are themselves.

In that case, I would use the word "ostentatious" (as an adjective referring to a person, not an object): "fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display".

[Claudius]

I really accept a notion of meaning and I don't do this to sound better than anyone else it is just the way I see things. Consider:

"I think if other people went on, to whatever they next experience, in whatever form they are, but still as that recognisably individual person I love, then I wouldn't feel sadness and loss to the same degree.

They are on their path, I on mine, and I had the fortune and privilege to know them, to be associated with them at some stage. I can pray for them on their path, I can wish them well.

If virtually all of them ceases at the point of death, their personality, the quirks that make up them as a person and only some essence that was there at the core of them, that doesn't have any personal flavour, as it were, is what carries on after death, then most of what I loved and have known is lost and stops at death.

That is then loss and ending of the person I loved. It doesn't really make much impact on my feeling to know that some impersonal core of them might continue. If the person inside, experiencing life as it is now, if that continues, then I feel it isn't the end. I cannot see them, but they are not gone, their chance is not over, my hope for them can be there.

So, I still have a question. Is it clearer? Am I asking a question that just shows a lack of understanding and cannot be answered?"

Lama Shenpen:

No your question doesn’t show a lack of understanding – it’s a good question.

You can start looking for the answer yourself right now in this life. Look at the person or people you love and really link into the love you have for them.

Then ask yourself is it their body you love? Their body as it is now, as it will be? How about if they lost their face, or their limbs - would you still love them? If they became paralyzed and/or couldn’t talk - would you still love them?

What would that feel like? What would be the them that you loved?

If they became disorientated with Alzheimer’s or dementia, are they still the same person - do you still love them? What is the core and/or essence of that love? What is the most important thing of all about your connection to them?

It isn’t really any one thing is it? It’s an intuitive sense that their being is real and matters - their being has meaning and gives the rest of us meaning. We may hate the circumstances we find ourselves in yet that person is still a person and we know that. If we try to turn our backs as if we didn’t care we feel diminished ourselves.

Look at it this way. The person you think is there this moment is gone the next and yet their story continues and has meaning.

Their essence is at the heart of their story - much of that story you don’t know and will never know and yet while they share this world with us our lives are mysteriously intertwined - we are integral to their world and we to theirs. This is inescapable.

The love we put into that connection is not something that can be grasped - it isn’t anywhere, it is not in time. Love is a choice we make to be truly human and when we choose to be truly human we find we are inseparable from all other humans - quirks and all.

Apart from their quirks they are their Awakened Buddha Nature* in which there is no real past present and future - that is such an astonishing and wonderful thing to realise.

The quirks are all still there - but what is shining through them is what is of lasting value. It’s not an impersonal essence - its a living essence that we can communicate with in a genuine way on all sorts of levels.

I find that really inspiring. How about you?

*The nature of a sentient being when awake

[C Elegans]

Just guessing, I would say yes, especially if there is a large proportion of atheist intellectuals in your sample. Every time I return to an uncomfortable issue, I'm almost as uncomfortable about it as I was before (unless I choose to put it out of my mind, which is a viable choice but which defeats the original purpose in contemplating those issues).

There is a very large proportion of atheist intellectuals, and a few religious (christian, muslim, buddist, ie organised religion) intellectuals in my sample. I don't really know any other people in the western culture. (Other cultures I exclude from this discussion due to language barriers and survival situations where the individuals find this question is irrelevant).

I am trained to develop uncomfortable issues in a way as to make myself accept it. Some things you can influence, they are not difficult to accept. Difficult things that you cannot influence, are more difficult to accept but you just do it because you really have no other choice and everything else is a waste of energy.

More to the point, I don't think Claudius was talking about "sustained" discomfort when people contemplate the "meaning of life". (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but that's how I see it, anyway.) I think he simply meant that people sometimes "leave their comfort zone" while they're actively thinking about such issues; I don't think he meant that it creates permanent discomfort.

I got the impression that Claudius meant uncomfortable in an avoiding way, which implicates lasting discomfort. Not necessarily active discomfort, but discomfort in such a way so that people choose to avoid, which reinforces discomfort for any aversive stimuli. I am not sure what the expression "leave the comfort zone" means since I have never heard it before, but my interpretion was that he meant people are trying to avoid "what is really meaningful" because they have a need to "defend their habits and ego" and stay in their "habits". This I think, is not true.

Some people also enjoy saying, "It doesn't matter, and I'm not concerned about it," which is somewhat pretentious in its own right. ("I'm too important to be concerned about such things.")

I think any subjective statement can be viewed as pretentious when it is meant to be generalised to other people. In general, I find people who spread obviously subjective things such as religious beliefs or ideologies around them as if they were true for all people, are both pretentious and stupid. Stating "the earth revolves around a star we call the sun" is quite a different thing from stating "the meaning of life is this and you should do this and that to achieve it".

In that case, I would use the word "ostentatious" (as an adjective referring to a person, not an object): "fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display".

I never heard that word before, so thanks

[C Elegans]

I really accept a notion of meaning and I don't do this to sound better than anyone else it is just the way I see things.

Sure, we are all free to hold whatever spiritual or religious we wish - or none at all as I - but we must also all accept that our values are not shared by everybody else and that all religious beliefs are subjective and equal since they are totally subjective