Meaningful Experience Inevitable

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A previous thread I was reading the other day had me pondering on the meaningfulness of life. This is what I came up with…

When looking at experience, ie. all aspects of life, from an objective standpoint it becomes evident that everything that occurs in life has equal importance. I can derive at this fact by examining the definition of objectivity: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. If this is the case, all experience must be perceived as equal. For to interject any thought in order to place value or judgement on the experience would diminish the objectivity in this case.

Now that experience can be denoted as equivalent from an objective standpoint, there must be some value placed upon it as to analyze experience itself. For it is not enough to simply say all experience is equal, but rather it is evident that experience can lie equal at two different antitheses. Meaningful, or having some specific merit for further basis or meaningless, being insignificant and having no basis for further revelancy. In trying to distinguish between which would be more closely associated with truth, the meaningful hypothesis seems to be more sensical.

It is difficult to claim all experience equally insignificant for the simple fact that we can claim it to be not so. This appears to be begging the question, but allow me to explain further. All experience is dependent upon the self, subjective in nature, so meaning can be ascribed to experiences according to the individual. This notion in itself is enough to decry the notion of experience being insignificant, for in labeling the experience insignificant an individual is ascribing, or giving some quality or value to experience as well. To be able to label experience significant, or insignificant yields the assumption that all labeling in itself is significant. When one labels experience insignificant, that is the meaning to their experience. The fact is to them, that experience has no specific meaning or significant point, and presumably when taken as a whole has no effect on any other aspect of their life or life in general. This in itself denotes meaning, for to be able to place any value, including placing no value to something, provides to that something meaning. To say something is pointless or meaningless, is essentially to say that the something is in contradiction to what is meaningful for that particular person. For instance, to say that a television program was pointless, is basically the relative point of view that the television program did not coincide with what was meaningful to the person at that point in time. To say that experience or life is insignificant and has no meaning, is essentually to say that all experience or life is in contradiction to what could be relevant or meaningful for them. Subjectively they have an opinion or belief on what should be meaningful and relevant, but since experience does not live up to this belief, it is labeled as meaningless.

Now that it has been established that experience cant be insignificant when considering the relative nature of the assumption, I will now attempt to prove experience significant using the same format.

Since all experience appears to be relative, life in itself speaks to each individual in a particular way suited for the individual. For experience gains its relative revelance only when it is experienced by the individual. There can be no other experience outside of this. In pondering objective experience, it appears that it cannot exist within the mind. Even when opening oneself up to higher consciousness, it seems as though things would be experienced objectively, but not entirely. This brings us back to the suggestion that all experience would be experienced equally. It is suggestable that this experience cannot be completely objective, for it is human nature to have some type of emotion or feeling. Emotion derives from thought, and all human beigns experience it, whether enlightened or still asleep. It is probable then that even when experiencing life from a standpoint of objectivity, or simply equivalency; for objectivity cannot be established any further beyond this notion of equivalence simply due to our nature, there is some thought about the experience, which inevitably renders meaning for the reasons described above.

I would appreciate any comments or expressed variance from this opinion.

2

I mostly like your definition of objectivity, but I would dispute the idea that there is anything that is “independent” of thought. Your thoughts affect everything that you perceive. For example, this morning I was working in the kitchen and at one point decided I needed a spatula. The spatula was in plain sight while I was in the kitchen, but I didn’t notice the spatula until I was looking for it. My state of mind in the kitchen affected what I noticed there, and I expect the same is true of everyone else. I would simply remove the “independent of thought” criterion and emphasize “perceptible by all observers”, which is the important thing. The important thing for objectivity is that everybody can sense it, whatever it is. If you add “independent of thought” then objectivity describes nothing at all in the human experience and is therefore a useless definition.

Now using this modified definition let’s examine your assertion that from an objective standpoint, everything in life has “equal importance”. Specifically, does everyone share a sense that everything in life has equal importance? Certainly not! There’s hardly a more incorrect sentence one could utter. Everyone considers certain aspects of life much more important than others, and rightly so; if we thought everything equally important we would be unable to function. In my case, the spots on my wall, the bricks in the building outside my window, my individual hairs, and the general smorgasborg of color and light that is my experience would overwhelm me. I would be unable to focus and do anything useful.

Therefore, I say assign meaning to your experience with impunity, unfairness, and extreme prejudice. Perhaps then you’ll make something of your life besides the nothingness that is your independent-of-thought-and-feeling “objectivity”.

3

Whether you define your life as having meaning or not does not affect reality. No matter how much i may think i am a donut, i am not. Every moment that has passed is no longer a reality. Therefore what you have done is gone. What you will do will perish. And in 60 or so years nothing will “matter” to you at all.

4

First of all, I appreciate your reply.

aporia wrote:

I understand the difficulties presented within the definition, for indeed perception cannot completely be interpreted objectively. This is why the use of the words "independent of “individual thought” are used. This suggest that individually we have our own subjective thought, but if analyzed from the position of collective thought(or thought as a whole), which; though may not exist as a single perception but still contains merit for discussion for the simple fact that the experiences can be perceptible by all observers, there has to be some consensus between what is being perceived in order to truly get as close as possible to objectivity. This consensus must be perceived as equivalent. So objectively speaking, just because individually everyone may not “share a sense that everything in life has equal importance”, from this concept of all thought or perception taken as whole; experience must be considered as equal, as it is experienced by everyone, equally having the ability to ascribe their own meaning to it at the same degrees.

I agree with your assertion that “if we thought everything equally important we would be unable to function”, and this is simply why we dont. But when considering humanity as a whole, it becomes evident that our own assertion of meaning is just relative to us, while there must be an assertion that exist outside or independent of individual thought, for this is the aim of looking at the situation objectively.

aporia said:

Considering that life, cannot be experienced objectively from an individual perspective, it must then of course be experienced subjectively. This does not, however imply that our subjectivity should consist of the negative aspects of unfairness and extreme prejudice, but rather should imply the complete opposite when attempting to be objective as possible in our inevitably subjective thinking.

5

lllllll wrote:

Indeed, but what you have done was important to you subjectively at that time. Now ponder the possibility that objectively there is no time, ie. everything that existed or will exist is continually existing always. The meaningfulness that you have ascribed to your life of being a donut will continually exist.