Finding Meaning in Suffering
Patrick Testa on the extraordinary hope offered by Viktor Frankl.
A second way Frankl believed we could find meaning is through love, whether it’s love of another person, or of art or nature.
Over and again, however, from my frame of mind, words like “love” can mean many different things to many different people. There’s the dictionary definition – “an intense feeling of deep affection” – and there are all of the at times conflicting things that men and women actually feel deep affection for. In other words, morally, politically and spiritually what or who you love dearly others might hate dearly. The part I root existentially in dasein, but the part others root instead in one or another One True Path. The part that revolves around as the song says “love my way”.
Or else.
I certainly do agree that in regard to the lives we live from day to day and our interactions with others, meaning is bursting at the seams. It’s everywhere. On the other hand, what if we live in a world where there is no essential meaning – purpose, dignity – applicable to words like love?
I might be completely wrong about this, but I suspect those like Frankl who have experienced great suffering or have been around it on a mass scale, find themselves in a situation where they are either able to provide themselves with something in the way of a meaningful antidote or it all collapses into an essentially meaningless world in which “shit happens”.
My retort is quite simple, if I may, that the basic law of intentional change of mind, hence of historical determinism it’s self is
That turning, not only in the context of how Heidegger termed it of shifting away from the meaning of meanings or residing in the restricted Jewish place of the Holy of Hollies, but in the the sense of willing the redemptive ‘facticity, of offering the other cheek.?
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
In their 1983 film The Meaning of Life, Monty Python took their departing shot at the movie-going public, and simultaneously at philosophical aspirations. With their customary combination of profundity and profanity they systematically skewered the idea that any meaning at all can be derived from the pell-mell absurdity of human life.
Meaning what?
Really, there’s no getting around the fact that our lives are bursting at the seams with meaning. But that’s not the point. Well, not mine anyway. Instead, the point seems to be that in regard to value judgments there does not appear to be a way in which to reconcile all the conflicting assessments such that in regard to moral and political interactions the optimal, deontological meaning can be ascertained.
In other words, not just up in the theoretical clouds.
Tracking Shakespeare’s ‘Seven Ages of Man’, the film derided every scheme by which humankind tries to assign purpose to the universe. It culminated in the following pronouncement:
Lady Presenter: Well, that’s the end of the film. Now, here’s the meaning of life.
[Receives an envelope]
Lady Presenter: Thank you, Brigitte.
[Opens envelope, reads what’s inside]
Lady Presenter: Hmm. Well, it’s nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations…
What I call a “general description intellectual contraption”. The point isn’t to embrace those goals so much as it is to come up with a way in which reconfigure those theoretical assessments into actual social, political and economic policy.
That’s often what the moral objectivists among us will go about serving up as well. Technical points they may or may not be able to instantiate existentially.
Of course, in reality it doesn’t work like that at all. Instead, the vast majority of men and women around the globe are indoctrinated as children to embrace one or another One True Path. And though some change course as adults, it’s usually only to shift gears to yet another One True Path.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
The Context of the Question
We were two-thirds the way through a unit on metaphysics [in his high school philosophy class] when we ran into a chapter bearing the ambitious title ‘A Meaning for Existence’. The text then plunged into the various views on God: Theism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism…
There are a few more as well…
Of course, some of them do challenge the idea that mere mortals have access to an essential meaning. Well, perhaps, not counting those who argue that in fact this is the essential meaning of human interactions.
Which of course reflects my own “rooted existentially in dasein” assessment. If only in regard to the is/ought world far, far, far more than the either/or world.
On the other hand, what could possibly be more indicative of human social, political and economic relationships? It just comes down [for most of us] to whether or not we are then inclined to insist as well that others are either “one of us” or “one of them”.
So, which one makes the most sense to you? Then, given a particular set of circumstances, note how, in your view, one is different from the other “for all practical purposes.”
Then the part where one way or another any number of philosophers are eager to insist that it’s “my way or the highway”.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
An illustration may help. ‘Apples are red’ is a synthetic judgment, because apples can also be green, or yellow, or brownish, or whatever. On the other hand, when we say ‘Apples are fruit’, we are not attributing to apples a thing which is optional like their particular colour, but rather we are specifying a property intrinsic to the meaning of the word ‘apple’. Thus, the statement ‘Apples are fruit’ is an analytic statement: no one who genuinely understands what we are referring to by the words can avoid conceding that an apple is necessarily a fruit – unless they want to refer to a different concept altogether, such as ‘a picture of an apple’ or an ‘Apple computer’. To proceed analytically, then, is to discern the definition of the concept itself, not to posit some changeable or contingent quality of it.
"‘The analytic/synthetic distinction’ refers to a distinction between two kinds of truth. Synthetic truths are true both because of what they mean and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone. ‘Snow is white,’ for example, is synthetic, because it is true partly because of what it means and partly because snow has a certain color. All bachelors are unmarried,’ by contrast, is often claimed to be true regardless of the way the world is; it is true in virtue of meaning,’ or analytic. oxford bibliographies
Again, this is the part where, in my view, meaning revolves around things that we are almost always able to actually verify. And then agree on. An apple is an apple around the globe. You merely have to go further in your description…variety, color, taste, cost, etc.
On the other hand, no one is able to demonstrate that, for example, apples taste better than any other fruit. Instead, these subjective assessments are rooted more in the arguments I make regarding value judgments and conflicting goods.
If “I” do say so myself. Though, even then, only here and now.
And then back to the part where for thousands of years now the definitions given have never been such that philosophers in regard to value judgments and conflicting goods now all agree on the optimal assessment?
And given any context?
This is the part where I ask others here if they agree with this distinction. And, if so, would they please note how it is applicable given their own interactions with others. What parts are synthetic and what parts are analytic.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
The Question of Meaning
What my students were interested in was whether or not there was a meaningful sense in which we could ask, ‘Does existence have any meaning?’
Consider…
What does it mean to go grocery shopping?
What does it mean to graduate from high school?
What does it mean to win the lottery?
What does it mean to submit posts here?
What does it mean to have an abortion?
What does it mean to have a brain tumor?
What does it mean to commit suicide?
And on and on and on with questions that, in any number of cases, are clearly [and often indisputably] meaningful to all rational men and women.
In other words, the quandary here revolves far more around the extent to which we can actually demonstrate that what we do find meaningful encompasses a completely rational – virtuous? – frame of mind. Which always brings me back around to human interactions in the either/or world vs. human interactions in the world of conflicting goods.
More to the point [mine] are all those who are not only entirely convinced that their own life’s “purpose and justification” reflects the best of all possible worlds, but insist, as well, it is the only possible world for those who wish to be thought of as either enlightened or eligible for immortality and salvation.
Come on, let’s be blunt. Conflicts erupt daily around the globe precisely because assessments of meaning and morality emerge from those on the extreme right all the way to those on the extreme left.
And what is human history to date if not a constant barrage of those who embrace “my way or the highway…or else”?
Conflicts erupt, sweetie, because humans refuse to anchor their definition on what is perceptible.
You being one of them.
In fact, existence is brimming with meaning, if you define the term by connecting it to the experienced world.
What you “mean”, sweet woman, is life has no purpose.
This is, wrong, as well, because life’s purpose is to reproduce life.
This does not satisfy you, I know, dear.
You NEED a higher purpose to give meaning to your suffering.
This is why free-will exists, my dear woman.
You can give yourself a purpose… and it will define you and expose your motives…and, dear, it will determine your success, because not all objectives are equally attainable.
Some are, downright, absurd…like the kind you need.
In fact, sweet buns, the fact that we can all CHOOSE different purposes, or CHOOSE to share different purposes, is why there are conflicts.
We are competing and fighting over which purpose will determine the fate of mankind.
Like your collectivism.
Undermining everything that stands in its way is, of course, how you were taught to promote your shared objective, your purpose.
Like free-will and morality.
Take your words off the skyhooks, and bring them down here, in the real world…the world we can all experience and falsify and verify independently.
Let the testicles drop, princess.
Stop clenching.
And please, give us another predictable answer.
Those are becoming fun…nier, and fun…nier.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
Meaning Beyond Personal Existence
On the other hand, since our own personal experiences can vary significantly, is it any wonder that, in regard to meaning, “failures to communicate” run rampant?
But this, in my view, revolves far more around conflicting value judgments rooted historically and culturally – i.e. socially, politically and economically – in any number of incompatible convictions regarding, among other things, the best of all possible worlds?
More to the point, however, regarding meaning and morality, there are hundreds and hundreds of objectivists “out there” who insist [sometimes brutally] that only their own “intelligible” assessment is acceptable. Either that or they have acquired the power to simply impose their own political agenda on citizens.
Of course, “in reality” there does not appear to be a neat and tidy “one size fits all” understanding of where thinking/thoughts actually do give way to feelings/emotions. Besides, in my view, both [along with intuition] are rooted existentially in dasein.
And, as always, that crucial distinction between existential meaning derived from our day-to-day interactions with others, and an essential meaning said to be applicable to all of us.
Yes, and this works well for many. In fact, it works so well for some, they then insist that it will work well for everyone.
Or else.
Okay, here we go again. Do you share this assessment? If so, then please note how it is applicable to the behaviors you choose given particular sets of circumstances. Behaviors revolving around both the either/or world and the is/ought world.
Mary is still dependent on authorities.
Women cannot think independently. No wonder she rejects free-will.
Her dependence she wants to universalize.
Meaning is nothing more than how phenomena inter-relate, creating matrices of meaning.
Meaning is not purpose.
Mary needs a purpose to be given to her.
Purpose has to do with objectives, or ideals, and this is why there’s a multiplicity of competing and conflicting purposes… which women, like her, surrender to…
Sometimes this way, sometimes that way… the story of her life.
She’s constantly being swept off her feet by power… because she cannot anchor herself in the real, down here on earth… not the skyhooks she floats on.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
Meaning Beyond Social Existence
At that point, we could see that a proper answer to the meaning of life question would be something everyone who could understand language could at least in principle understand (whether they chose to agree with it or not).
And how is agreeing with something “in principle” different from agreeing with something “theoretically”? Don’t both revolve basically around agreeing with the definition and the meaning given to the words in the argument itself? On the other hand, “you do not yet know the details or know if it will be possible.”
Like the religious folks here going on and on about the existence of God by quoting from one or another Scripture.
On the other hand, language becomes entangled in historical and cultural contexts, in social, political and economic interactions ever and always unfolding in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
As for the philosophical implications, well, back to what I construe to be the clear limitations of language in regard to conflicting value judgments…conflicting goods.
Yes, in fact, it does. At least for the objectivists among us. The only limitations for them revolve basically around deciding what to do to those who refuse to become “one of us”. Or for those of the wrong color or gender or sexual orientation or political convictions…? Let’s note their fate given the history of human interactions to date.
More to the point [mine] is that philosophically “my way or the highway” still prevails among many of these folks: List of philosophies - Wikipedia
And, I suspect, until the deontologists and ideologues among are able to pin down the One True Path to a truly enlightened moral philosophy…? Or a God, the God reveals Himself…?
Of course, I go beyond that. It’s not what people are arguing about or what they’ve come to believe is true that seems most important to me. Instead, I’m far more fascinated with how, existentially, out in a particular world understood in a particular way, we come to acquire one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.
Then the part where philosophers have been around for thousands of years now and yet in regard to conflicting goods …?
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
This led us to a new question: does meaning have to exist prior to our discovery of it, or could it be in some sense constructed – a product of personal reflection and social consensus?
Clearly, any number of things in our life are not only meaningful to us but meaningful in the same way to others. We come into this world hard-wired to either discover or to invent meaning. Meaning that is derived from material interactions embedded in the laws of nature. So, from the cradle to grave we come across things that are meaningful to us and to others. Only the meaning they give to it might be considerably at odds with the meaning you give to it. Then, depending on the context, a failure to communicate can result in any number of conflicts.
Human history to date, for example.
And yet “intercommunal discourse” between any particular community happens all the time. Especially in a modern world awash in mass communication technology. And now around the globe. The part where things are found essentially and objectively meaningful in the either/or world and the part where any number of folks on any number of one true paths are historically bent on insisting that only their own path actually counts. God or No God.
Over and again: it depends on the context. And the extent to which some believe “in their head” that something is essentially true because, well, they believe that it is. As opposed to being able to actually demonstrate why what they believe all rational men and women are in fact obligated to believe in turn.
Okay, but out in the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions this can only be manifested in communities that accept one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law. As opposed to those communities that are sustained given a “might makes right” mentality or a “right makes might” mentality.
And in a world still bursting at the seams with any number of conflicting dogmas, how exactly would “we’re right from our side you’re right from your side” play itself out for all practical purposes given the part where conflicting moral philosophies have to be manifested politically in actual legal prescriptions and proscriptions.
They establish their legitimacy by commanding obedience [the blinder the better] or else.
On the other hand, there are always going to be those like Trump who may claim to be “draining the swamp” but the presence of all those billionaires around him suggests otherwise. And any number of his evangelic supporters are intent, as well, on embracing “prosperity gospel”.
Make of this what you will. Only I suggest that what most will make of it revolves existentially around dasein. In other words, fuck things like “principle” and “ideals”. Unless, of course, you are absolutely convinced that your own One True Path reflects them beyond all doubt.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
…philosophical and religious communities of meaning certainly seem to think they can debate each other: but that is merely an empirical observation, not an analytic judgment on the meaning of meaning
.
Merely empirical observations? As though in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, analytical judgments take precedence? And of course those who come into conflict regarding meaning and morality can debate each other. It’s just that these debates have been ongoing now for thousands of years.
Enough said?
Many different communities merely presume their own assessment of the human condition is either the optimal assessment or, in fact, is the one and the only rational assessment there can ever be.
Here, however, is where I interject with my own subjective assumption that the focus should be less on what different communities say about “one of us” and “one of them” and more on how – existentially, historically, culturally, experientially etc. – they came to think and feel as they do in the first place.
In other words, the part where particular ethicists acknowledge this yet insist that using the philosophical tools at their disposal, they can provide mere mortals in a No God universe with a deontological meaning and morality. They’re either still working at it or are already convinced they’ve found it given all of the One True Paths there are that do insist they’ve found it.
Thus…
God or No God. But however strongly someone thinks and feels about something pertaining to meaning and morality, that’s not the same as actually demonstrating why all other rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.
All those of my ilk are left with is challenging/provoking the objectivists among us to at least attempt this.
Yeah, that’s basically how I go about it myself. The distinction between existential meaning all up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum, and essential or universal meaning in a No God world.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
…it seemed clear there was no way to do justice to the question “Does existence have a meaning?” without understanding ‘existence’ to imply some sort of universal meaning.
Then the part where any number men and women around the globe will embrace that wholeheartedly. But only, of course, if by universal, it all comes to revolve around “one of us” vs. “one of them”.
In the interim, however, any number of objectivists among us already assume that what they champion on their very own One True Path need be as far as anyone goes if they wish to become enlightened. And, for others, saved.
I know: let’s not go there?
On the other hand, while there may well be no essential meaning mere mortals in a No God world can agree on, existential meaning may well be better than no meaning at all. It has to be, doesn’t it? At least until one or another God decides to reveal Himself or one or another philosopher/scientist is able to provide us with a deontology moral philosophy.
That may well be the real question here but what on Earth is the real answer? Then back to those who clamor to bring others around to their own way of thinking. In other words, to either enlighten or save them. Or both, of course.
On the contrary, some suspect, any number of those who have come to embody the above frames of mind might insist their path already encompasses not only the idea of objective, ultimate meaning, but morally and politically and spiritually they, are acting this out given their interactions with others.
My own bottom line, as well. However, how do the objectivists among us obviate even the possibility of this? Well, they simply believe what they do about it “in their head” and that is what makes it true.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
Meaning Beyond Universal Existence
But the issue of ‘ontological priority’ (existing beforehand and independently) implicit in the question raised a final difficult issue. We had not yet observed a very important analytic feature of the word meaning: it implies intention – someone has to mean something for something to have meaning. Or, for something to have a meaning there must be a ‘meaner’. But who or what could do the intending in the way required?
Intentions? Don’t some tell us that the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions? And, from my frame of mind, intentions are no less embedded/embodied existentially in dasein. Then the part where the “meaner” either embraces might makes right or right makes might in order to make it clear that others had better come around to sharing that meaning as well. Or else.
That’s why any number of us still cling to God as the mother/father of all “meaners”. After all, with God and religion, the “or else” part can be particularly ominous. Also, for many Gods [and flocks of sheep] this is all backed up with omniscience and omnipotence.
That’s the quandary for some. If natural disasters are but another inherent manifestation of the “brute facticity” embedded in a Godless universe – a shit just happens universe – then what? Better to take a leap of faith or to make a wager or to pray to one or another God capable of providing us with “ontological priorities”. Not to mention “teleological priorities” encompassed in this One True Path to enlightenment, immortality and salvation.
Here though we are in the same boat. Given all of the many, many existential variables that come together [historically, culturally and experientially] to create a particular sense of identity and given the manner in which the Benjamin Button Syndrome puts many of these variables beyond our either fully understanding or controlling, why should it surprise anyone that “failures to communicate” are ever piling up.
“I” just explore what I construe to be an important distinction here between an objective self in the either/or world and a considerably more problematic “self” in the is/ought world.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
…only intelligent agents can intend: purpose and personality go together. Yet we have already seen that personhood is not enough by itself to generate ultimate meaning, since this is not the meaning of a private life or of a specific community, but of existence as a whole.
That’s basically the point I raise here…
Now, some insist that is why there are so many deontologists and/or objectivists among us. In other words, the belief that, in utilizing the tools of philosophy, it is possible to take into account all of these varied historical and cultural “rules of behavior” and technically pin down the optimal deportment.
In theory. In reality, however, look around you at the world we live in. Red states, blue states, purple state. Countless conflicts erupting around “us” vs. “them” involving countless conflicting goods.
Contingency, along with chance and change, are embedded everywhere in human interactions. The Benjamin Button Syndrome. No one really knows with certainty how new relationships, new experiences and access to new information and knowledge might impact what we think, feel, intuit, say or do.
Imagine, for example, the world we live in today had Thomas Matthew Crooks been a better shot?
With each new startling revelation from cosmogonists, the mystery often gets and deeper and deeper. It’s just that, with God, it’s teleology all the way up or all the way down. Whereas, with one or another rendition of Pantheism, how exactly did the universe acquire meaning and purpose?
As for this…
Start here: Rummy’s Rule. In particular the part that revolves around all of the things in the cosmos that we don’t even know that we don’t even know about.
"A new study of 263 galaxies has provided fresh evidence to support a theory that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Using data from Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope, researchers at Kansas State University in the US discovered that the majority of the galaxies were rotating in the same direction. The Independent, March 2025
Go ahead, fit yourself into this somewhere and get back to us.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
Meaning as Unintelligible
Having analyzed the question to the point of understanding its implications, we were now in a position to make a better judgment about its legitimacy. We could ask, “Are we well-advised to ask ‘Is there a meaning for existence?’”
Me, I’ll stick to the part where all one need do here is to believe their own assessment does in fact reflect the essential meaning of, what, one’s life? the human condition? existence itself?
And is or is not the world awash in any number of social, political and economic contexts whereby the moral objectivists among us anchor their own dogmas to one or another rendition of “or else”.
Same thing though. If you genuinely believe your own assessment is not only intelligible but reflects the most intelligible of all possible assessments then you will no doubt act on this conviction. And it is our actual behaviors that precipitate…consequences?
Contingencies indeed. But also chance and change. Contingency, chance and change. The Benjamin Button Syndrome. Then the gap and Rummy’s Rule.
On the other hand, given the profound mysteries that suffuse both cosmology and cosmogony, we may never ever know why there exist something instead of nothing. And why this something and not something else.
On the other hand, run this by them and you’ll encounter any number of hopelessly conflicting assessments. Why? Because, given the psychology of objectivism, this all has far more to do with being able to anchor the Real Me to one or another One True Path…what that path might happen to be is rooted existentially in dasein.
In other words, whatever that means in conjunction with the life we live. Then the facts revolving around death itself.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
If a meaning for existence is an unintelligible concept, then how are we to avoid despair?
Of course, for the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe, meaning is anything but unintelligible. And they demonstrate this from day to day by acting on what they believe does reflect the most intelligible human interactions. In fact, many are adamant regarding their very own “meaning of life”. It is said to be either the optimal or the only rational explanation for, well, everything?
Again, not entirely sure what this means “for all practical purposes”. Instead, I fall back on the assumptions I make regarding what I call the “psychology of objectivism”. In other words, any number of people will embrace one or another essential meaning and/or morality because it allows them to anchor themselves to one or another transcending font. God or No God.
In a sense, this reflects my own assumption that objective meaning and morality may well exist…just not for me “here and now”.
Well, there are the stoics and the cynics and the sophists and the epicureans and the hedonists and the narcissists and the sociopaths. And for any number of them there are no long-standing concerns of humanity. There is only dealing with the “human condition” so as to, above all, further their own self-interests.
Sorry, I’m too lazy to read others’ thoughts when I have my own — already undeniable. Space is an isolation filter for biology. The universe figured out that the harsh radiation of cosmic space is the perfect way to contain the infection of the biological virus. Unpleasant to realize you’re a harmful virus, isn’t it? They told you you’re the “kings of nature”? Seriously? And what’s left after you little humans? A nuclear wasteland? A dump of chemical waste where nothing lives anymore?
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
Stephen Anderson asks what we mean when we ask if existence has a meaning.
Conclusion
For those readers who still wish to ask, ‘Is there a meaning to existence?’, the upshot is this: we cannot even ask that question without granting that the answer must be rendered as an intelligible proposition of the sort that others can comprehend and discuss.
Then the part where these discussions break down when one person comprehends a proposition regarding, say, the morality of homosexuality that another person comprehends in an entirely conflicting way.
Up to a point, sure, there are particular facts about homosexuality that everyone can agree with. Why? Because they are, in fact, true for everyone. You can look the word up in a dictionary if you’re not sure of what it means. But where do you go to get the optimal assessment of it morally and politically?
Again, however, run this by any number of these folks…
…pertaining to a particular moral conflagration and see where they take it when the “concept of meaning” comes down out of the philosophical clouds.