Diekon I’m not sure what kind of meaning your looking for. Perhaps the kind of meaning you have in mind is the one “where you, give, protect and worry” about other’s people’s worth. What do I mean by this word worth. I mean the things they desire. For exp if your me and living with your parents. If your parents want someone to wash dishes you wash the dishes for them. This kinf of meaning can only be found through selfless thought of others.
Yes, I read them, and I’ve read Nietzsche, not Kierkegaard or Emerson.
Maybe I had some experiences that are comparable with what you are getting at, I do know the state of a sort of profound derealisation where every belief, rational understanding of why I do (or think I do) certain things just become wholy transparant, and seemingly illusionary. It just doesn’t make sense anymore, and yet I am very lucid and just know what to, things make sense. I’m not questioning, nor do i feel the need to conceptualise everything, i’m living now and drop everything else. If I look at other people then, I’m just puzzled by all the frantic things they do and say, and I can see right through it all so to speak. I’m in the proces of forgetting all conventional standards… But usually this doesn’t last that long, and I talk myself out of it, thinking this state isn’t really helping anything and I need to get back to my life, earn a living et al. And it really isn’t helping anything, not in terms of common goals anyway, maybe if i wanted to become a mystic…
What I don’t see is the face of God, or anything in the order of an underlying shared awareness, not clear enough to discern anything anyway.
And it’s hard to tell if this is what you are referring to, because both Nietzsche and you are allways very brief and cryptic here, which is maybe understandable since it’s is pre-rational so to speak. But in the end, if this is all the info i’ve got, it’s to little to believe this is the route I should take, it’s to little to have faith.
I’m not sure I follow, I’m not exactly looking for A specific meaning here, I’m questioning the notion, and want to hear what you all think about it. But maybe, yes, I think a greater or inherent meaning is a BS concept, and individual meaning doesn’t seem to do the trick either.
The way i see this is that this nagging question “meaning/purpose/definition of life/existance” is simply the most vague question a person can ask, since the whole point of that question is to simply understand it, but the more we go into it we all circle back to the other half of the question (life/existance), but the first half of it is already dependant on a presumtion about the second half.
ok, to be a bit clearer about things.
Understanding the question:
meaning or purpose: as defined by “human” perception it is the goal of something or what is that “being” or “creature” trying to do on a more larger scale, the whole word comes from “understanding” something, “explaining” something. Now if we go around all these words in quotes it seems very natural to us that the word “meaning” is a bit revolving around it’s undefined self. anyway the point of this nonesense is that meaning is definitly “human”, definitly related to “living” or “existance” which we all are. so then we go back to “what the hell are we?” question which is a bit further down the sinkhole. i doubt a rock can define itself, i don’t think action can define itself. and if we look at ourselves as “material” since we all live in a material world, we are simply a combination of action materials and consequence. unless there’s something else someone figured out.
anyhow, the purpose of life falls back to being able to define or explain our own self (or mind).
which we all agree on as something impossible simply because noone dares to touch such subject without being beaten to death by the larger population. there are more than a few definitions of animals, and we are animals as much as we would like to deny it.
to be clearer on that subject animals definition is basically based on “material” definition with something else, which is also an improbability. now i’m not gonna get into the subject of defining matter in anyway, that’s a huge discussion on it’s own.
before alienating myself as i do always. what i’m simply stating in these mumbled words is that the one thing we need to keep in mind before we go on defining or searching for “answers”, is that we need to be able to understand the question to begin with.
Now, i do not deny the question or the need for questions. i do not deny that we are all but different versions of the same compulsive thinking animal.
i guess all i’m trying to say is that the one only answer we can get from all these questions which all revolve around the same sinkhole, is that we cannot define life no more than a puddle can define reason. it might become a bit clearer to mention that making reason out of chaos is simply a headache.
The one reason behind this whole mess of “matter” and “action”, “motion” and “energy” is consequence (by reason i mean a way to understand or “know” the goal of something, whatever that might be). so then what i can say after all this mess i’ve mentioned is that humans can define reason (as in consequence) to a very very very limited point of view.
we have not yet finished discovering all the elements in the equation of “life”, why do we then search for answers.
This is no answer, it is simply an answer denying all answers on the subject.
However, if we consider such things as all humans consider (based on their senses), as in everything we sense exists, living is anything that has controled and “reasonable” actions (reasonable as in there is a certain “selfish” reason or “desired” “consequence” behind what these actions are).
The word that comes to play here is “selfish”, since the goal of life is only subjective, never objective. The only type of mind that can sometimes reach objectivity or thinking in a more global perspective is the human mind (well i mean on this planet), now i can only come to admire the human mind. But that does not lead me to presumptions about God, or “global purpose”, since “global purpose” or the global result of this whole mess of existence, is dependant entirely on the “choices” these 6 billion people make, and animals and certain other factors that we might be able to predict.
Where are we heading, i cannot tell. but i can pretty much tell you that it might be probable that this earth dies out eventually. Thinking of a global reason for living, thinking of the “result” or aim of where we are heading is like predicting the result of a ball or chess match while you’re playing. The Only abstract constant i can give you here is consequence, not because i believe in cause and consequence but the majority of human minds have agreed on physics. I can not tell you whether consequence is what drives Man, or is it “Reason”, i say reason, what is reason? Reason is the most addictive human action.
Now life’s question is merely a way to understand the chaos of 6 billion minds on this planet within one single mind. It is very improbable.
But the need for the question as it circles down is basically the need to predict consequence without knowing the current actions in play.
That’s how i see it. in the shortest terms i could find.
all in all, it might be “evolution”.
(but again, the answer to such an un-selfish question cannot be accepted by our selfish minds)
cheers~