The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?

How would You determine that life makes no sense to someone? What would You take to be proof or evidence ~~ aside from one’s words to that effect?

Music could be the best.

Just for comparison.

[tab]Greetings from Spain. :slight_smile:


Ravel’s Bolera comes to mind here. There was a time when I found it to be a bit boring and tedious until I really listened deeply to it. It reminds me of such controlled Change.More of a meditation than a mediation. But I am not sure what is meant by mediation in his instance.

Is that you, Arminius? :astonished:


I am this of course:

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

Spain, 27.09.2017.pngSpain,_30.09.2017.png[/tab]

…I just knew he had dark blue eyes… :-"

…that is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.

…you been taking advantage of the clubbing facilities? I hope so… :smiley:


A good one.


A..gif :sunglasses: (The similarities are purely coincidental, by the way.)

Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?

Yes. But being like “SAM”, San Jaime (Saint James :stuck_out_tongue: ) is for all guests here in this area.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:


Meditation is well. Another aspect: Nietzsches favours the Artist even with philosophical questions. In art some Relations are wrapped, and we may ask what does this mean for science. Perhaps an outer perspective on science, e.g. questions like that for truth, couldn’t be established, but are thematised in art. As a consequence some other questions like that for life couldn’t be streamlined.

What does this mean for science?

What does this entire post mean???

Are you doing a Google translate from another language? Cause it ain’t working. :imp:

I just want to say, that art answers question which science doesn’t. We do not know what is truth in science, but we know what truth is in art. Perhaps, if the relation between art and science is enlightened science can Profit from it.


One could say that truth is unknown in both science and art because we do not have access to ‘absolute truth’.

One could say that truth is known both in science and art because all truth is subjective.

But how can one say that it is unknown in science and known in art unless one uses different definitions of truth for science and art?

With Vico man could understand what he himself produces. In art the range of this is wider than in science. So truth in art is deeper than in science. With a philosophy of technique like that of Gotthard Günther things are different. But transclassic logic must be applied to science, to get Vicos Claim even in science.

But truth is not always deeper in art than in science.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

Monument in memory of Pelagius (c. 685 – 737) at Covadonga, site of his famous victory:

Pelagius (Spanish: Pelayo, Asturian: Pelayu; c. 685 – 737) was a Visigothic nobleman who founded the Kingdom of Asturias, ruling it from 718 until his death. Through his victory at the Battle of Covadonga, he is credited with beginning the Reconquista, the Christian reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from the Moors. He established an independent Christian state (the independent Christian Kingdom of Asturias) in opposition to Moorish hegemony.[/tab]
Naturally, life makes no sense, because it has no natural goal. Or has it? Culturally, life makes sense, because it has a cultural goal - due to its soul.

Arminius wrote,

What do YOU mean by truth here, Arminius?
I may be wrong but I take your words to mean that it is not such an easy thing to grasp what it is the artist (in any form) is trying to convey. Art is open to interpretation and subjective thinking - as it is in the eyes of the beholder.
But that can also be the fun part of it too - akin to going on an archaeological dig.

Sometimes we tend to see what is only on the surface instead of seeking to find what lies beneath and looking through the eyes of the artist. Art is like philosophy in this way.

You meant to say “speaking naturally”?
Well, anyway, it might appear to have no conscious natural goal but wouldn’t evolution be Life’s natural goal? Could we say that? Would it be valid to say that?

And what if that culture’s soul is a means to destroy and devastate? Does that make sense?

If there is any meaning to life, it doesn’t come served to you on a silver platter. We have to go about discovering the meaning of life in a long and arduous life-long process.

We are given things to start–experience–and this is usually obvious, simple, and banal. I’m eating a banana. It tastes good. It satisfies. ← That’s the meaning in a particular experience you might have of eating a banana. To get at the deeper meanings of life, we have to start with these.

I’m not sure we have the capacity to comprehend these deepest meanings to life (if there are any), but if we can, they would have to be discovered by this same process.

I mean that life makes sense in a cultural way, because culture is something that is started and stopped by the cultural beings themselves.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:


Also, destruction can make sense too, at least to certain humans.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:


So are you looking exclusively at how the things we learn from culture contribute to our apprehension of life’s meaning? How do we tear that contribution away from the contribution of other experiences (ex. personal hands-on experience)?

We are both natural and cultural.

[tab]Greetings from Spain: