PocketMatrix

Do we assume the concept of greater meaning before asking if it is there? In terms of the evolution of this concept, are we inherently prone to becoming a slave to our own ideas about purpose, or do we first choose to accept the concept of meaning as our servant (a child accepting religion as a method of normalizing with his surroundings) and we become so dependant upon it that the roles are soon reversed?

Do we ask about a meaning in an existence without one? Is assuming the concept of greater meaning like assuming the concept of a higher power (the being to which greater meaning is usually tied)? In the end, do we find ourself investing energy (perhaps, even our lives) in something that never was?

We assume greater meaning and a deity, then vest them with power over our actions. They become real in the sense that matters (they have an active effect on the reality perceived). They are products of our desires, filtered through an impure lense provided by the self, polluted by others, distorted over time: that which was once our desire, our need to control and take, is transformed into a yoke.

No. It's not like that. People don't just "assume" the existence of a god for the hell of it; it's something ingrained into the way humans think. No matter who you are, atheist or otherwise, you have "spiritual" relationships in your life. If you don't worship at the altar of Athena, you worship at the altar of economics. It's the same relationship despite its differences, ie despite the fact that we can prove economics exists but we can't prove that God exists, the believer in economics has faith in its near-supernatural powers, its perfection, its supremacy, etc. It's a natural human tendency, and its natural conclusion is (for most people) the unwavering belief in God.

Rather than becoming a yoke, this becomes enriching for many people. Giving people a role within a system is comforting. Recall that most people enjoy being subservient in some way. The purpose they're assigned helps them to live, it doesn't impede them from living.

My question is why people constantly search for a meaning of life. I believe it to be a bit more enlightened to search not for a "meaning" of life, but a way to live life in its richest form. I could elaborate more, but I have to go pick up a Nitty Gritty Burger. Farewell.

We must assume that there is a meaning, and that there are causes to effects. We can never prove that effects require causes, we simply take it as truth that everything that happens was caused by something. Without these assumptions there would be no cohesiveness nor coherence to life.

There must be greater meaning. Because the world exists there must be a reason for it to exist, because it needn't exist. There is nothing in the world that necesitates its own existence. So the world is not ase esse or aseitic, it is contigent upon something else; it requires an outside cause. Because that cause is exterior to the cosmos we can never know the cause because we are in the cosmos.

In fact, if you feel like getting trippy, because The Alpha (the original cause) is outside the cosmos, the "beginning" of the cosmos needn't occur temporally prior to the rest of the events of history. No cause need come before its effect. Something from the distant future can be the cause of history. But now we're just getting into pop philosophy, which is bad.

Philosophy serves (for the most part) the same purpose as Einstein's thought experiments did/do. There is no 'real' answer, as the discussion is about things that are either abstract or impossible to reproduce in the physical world. What is important is the discussion, not the result, necessarily. Consider the idea of a man moving at the speed of light, holding a mirror in front of himself. Does he see himself in the mirror? The light is travelling to the mirror, well, the speed of light, but HE is also moving at the speed of light, so it never gets there...or does it? This thought experiment gave birth to special relativity.

So, how does this relate to philosophy? Well, you can't go the speed of light, much less holding a mirror in front of your face. Discussing it doesn't change that, nor give you guidance in how to do it or what to do in that situation. What it does do is provide you with a way to get to a deeper truth, worthy of exploration and possibly yielding results. A conversation on the meaning of life may not provide one, or be provable by experimentation, but it may lead to a deeper truth worthy of further investigation.

At the same time, it is pointless to try to move at the speed of light with a mirror...so too is it pointless to allow your life to be guided by trying to prove to a philosopher that he exists. Cogito ergo sum.