I keep a journal of “Pensees” on my computer, where I will write quips and short off-the-cuff essays. Here follows a recent entry. It deals with the idea that meaning is not “found” but “made” by man, and so in this “created” “meaning” man shall find his “meaning.” (I don’t know how to not use the quotations, because I find the idea absolutely ludicrous)
What is particularly difficult for an atheist to claim meaning is that he must demonstrate it without appeals to any supernatural and absolute force that would impute meaning into man, and so from thence man would find his meaning and rest in it. I have lately been studying atheistic philosophy searching out for how and why an atheist would preclude nihilism (utter meaninglessness of everything) and say there is meaning to existence. So far, I have found this answer, which at least has the appearance of a logical structure. Otherwise, some atheist philosophers seem to have more or less assumed the meaning of existence and moved from there, or forgoing with “atheism’s great strength,” reason, and delving into sophistry.
Notes to those who are unable to read discourse as, well, discourse.
1) I am not making the statement that atheists are meaningless. As a Christian, I acknowledge that everyone has meaning through the Creator, even those who do not acknowledge or know Him.
2) My subject is on meaning within an atheistic worldview. It is my conclusion (based upon study and discussion) that atheism can present no reasonable or demonstrable reason to believe that there is meaning to existence, rather than meaninglessness. It has nothing to do with God.
3) Enjoy and contemplate appropriately.
Here follows my reply to the particular idea that “Meaning can be made without it first being found.”
Atheism and Meaning
An atheist stated that meaning is not to be found, but made.
If meaning does not objectively exist, and so it shall not be found, then the objectively meaningless creature cannot make any meaningful meaning for itself, for a meaningless creature’s actions will all be meaningless, no matter what that creature has to say (for the creature is meaningless). Meaning can only be built up where meaning already exists, and if it cannot first be found, it cannot then be made.
Compare it to strength;
1) To make strength, you find (use) strength (i.e. lifting weights)
2) If you have absolutely no strength, you have no strength to find
3) If you have no strength to find, you cannot make strength
4) Therefore, you cannot make strength if you have absolutely no strength
So, atheism yet cannot demonstrate any meaningful meaning for the world. Hence, atheism logically implicates nihilism, and those atheists who don’t follow through to nihilism are inconsistent in their beliefs.
To capitulate and elaborate;
1) Something without prior (inherent) meaning cannot do anything meaningful
2) One must have prior meaning before they can make meaning, there must be prior meaning found for one to do anything meaningful
3) If no prior meaning can be found, then no meaningful meaning can be made
4) Therefore, prior meaning must be found before meaning can be made
Let me break it down from its less formal structure.
1) Speaking objectively, if something has no meaning (it is meaningless), than anything it does will be meaningless. Therefore, it cannot possibly do anything meaningful, which includes “creating meaning.” The “meaning” it would create would be ultimately meaningless due to the prior meaninglessness of the thing performing the action.
This premise will be true unless it can be demonstrated that actions in and of themselves can have meaning even when performed by meaningless creatures, which in turn give meaning to the otherwise meaningless creature. For instance, one might say “Eating grapes is an inherently meaningful action,” and, if this is true, premise (1) is false. However, it would have to be demonstrated that “Eating grapes” is in fact an inherently meaningful action.
2) This follows from (1). It is, more or less a restatement in the positive sense; for one to make anything meaningful, they must have meaning, which would give meaning to what they make.
3) This is a contingent scenario. In searching for prior meaning, if it cannot be found, then nothing meaningful can be made, not even meaning.
4) So, from the prior premises, the proper conclusion is that before one can make a meaningful meaning, they must have a prior (inherent) meaning that is found and not made.
The crucial premise is (1), which I am fairly sure is demonstrably sound.
An objection against premise (1) might be (in example);
1) Love is the desire of the highest good for another
2) To desire good for another is good
3) Good is meaningful
4) Therefore, a creature loving another has meaning
The crucial premise to this objection is (3). If we are meaningless, then what we do is meaningless, for “what we do” is nothing more than changing the arrangement of ourselves, and we ourselves are meaningless. So, “doing” is meaningless. Therefore, there is nothing we can do that is meaningful.
Of course, a defense might be made of the example syllogism I presented as an objection against my own syllogism, or a defense with a similar logical structure, or even an entirely new defense.
The only thing that cannot be defeated is an assumption. If one assumes we have meaning, then nothing can be said against that person, theist or not. But, if one presumes to have a logical and reasoned worldview (as so many atheists portend), there ought to be demonstrations of the truth of certain propositions that it contains.
Bravo again Bryce! Yes, well said.
If the materialist atheist argues that everything came from nothing (an absurd notion to me, but lets grant it for the sake of this argument) then eternally there are no things (rights, wrongs; goods, bads; etc.) that say “the universe (and its laws) MUST BE such and such.” Nothing inherantly objective about the way our universe necessarily turned out, it just happens to be “this way.” And so an atheist materialist would also have to concede that our observations of “survival” and “reproductive success” seem to be really all there is to life on this planet earth. To attribute any more “meaning” to our existence would simply make us guilty of specie-ism and thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought, for at the core we truly are no different than the bacteria we kill with antibiotics.
So since objective meaning is not an option only subjective, created, made up meaning is available (as you alluded to). But this too fails, for there’s nothing necessarily meaningful about it. Its neither good nor bad, neither just nor unjust, its just opinion. Hitler had one meaning, Mao another, Stalin still another. And on the other end of the spectrum, Gandhi had one meaning, Jesus another, the Buddha still another. None better or worse (for indeed those are invalid categories when we’re talking about subjective natures of created “meaning” (however problematic such a statement even is!)) – they’re just there.
Indeed, some atheists have actually said the ignorant masses might as well go on believing objective meaning (and objective moral law and justice and so forth) exist, for it keeps them in line. Many a thorough atheistic thinker knows full well that a meaningless life truly is… meaningless. But this is unacceptable for it could lead to anarchy and another holocaust which is somehow “unacceptable” or has evil meaning (huh???) attached to it… hmmm… strange!
REV
Easily rebutted. First, proof by analogy is complete and utter, excuse my language, shit. It sounds good but has nothing to do with anything. It’s not an accepted argument in, for example, Cross X debate for a good reason.
Now for the argument.
1) Something without prior (inherent) meaning cannot do anything meaningful
Ehm… What the fuck? No.
M-W for example defines meaning as “significant quality” many other definitions are similar, as relevant to this topic. Where do you get this first assumption from? I really really hope not from your analogy that you get strength from using strength. Where does a fetus get strength then?
2) One must have prior meaning before they can make meaning, there must be prior meaning found for one to do anything meaningful
Since the first premise was false, the rest is meaningless, but assuming you still buy that premise, creating meaning must not be a meaningful act itself until AFTER you give it meaning because now you created meaning.
3) If no prior meaning can be found, then no meaningful meaning can be made
Sure it can. I can make meaning, just by arbitrarily defining it to be so.
4) Therefore, prior meaning must be found before meaning can be made
So how did GOD make meaning?
Jan, I am speaking of objective meaning, not any “significant quality” that would exist only because a person applied meaning to itself or something.
My first premise is wholly reasonable. It merely means “A meaningless thing cannot do anything meaningful.”
So, how is the first premise false (and further, can you manage to demonstrate without swearing)?
On the second premise, you make an absurd statement. You have not demonstrated how a meaningless thing can make meaning, and moreover, what is a meaningless thing’s power to create in the first place? Where does that come from, and why is it even necessary (Ockham’s razor?)?
I still have absolutely no idea what you mean by objective meaning. That is to say, who said meaning was objective? Therefore, “A meaningless PERSON cannot do anything meaningful” is still completely unfounded. Why do you get to define objective meaning? Whereas as a humanist, I claim that people are the object as well as agent of meaning, the subjective meaning which humans create ex post facto.
On a total sidenote, what’s wrong with swearing?
If meaning is subjective, all that goes away.
There is a difference between subjective and objective meaning. A subjective meaning is self-defined, an objective meaning is something innate that would be recognized, not self-defined. Although a subjective meaning can be created, without an objective meaning that is truly present, our recognition of it or not, even this subjective “meaning” we will have created for ourselves will still be ultimately objectively meaningless, no matter how much the meaningless person claims to have meaning.
It’s like this; I am a human person. This is a quality that is not self-defined, but is objective, because rather than myself self-defining what I am, I recognize that I belong to the species of homo sapiens sapiens. Even if I claimed I was a giraffe, and no matter how strongly I claimed it, I would still be a human.
On your side note, swearing is unnecessary, and I would like to keep my blog, and its comments, civil.
So you define objective meaning. Why?
Bryce, you continue to use your theory of some “objective meaning” as a reason for proving your points without providing any sort of explanation for what this “objective meaning” might be defined as. Your example of being a human rather than a giraffe doesn’t suffice. Being human is not any kind of “meaning” as far as I see things, much less an “objective meaning.” Therefore the analogy serves only to explain objective vs. subjective, but omits any explanation of meaning itself.
Any dictionary definition of “meaning” would support Jan. “Meaning” refers to significance, value, importance, and intention. It would seem that your argument is based upon some mysterious definition that Webster is unaware of. You can hide behind your definition, but words are only useful if they can be explained and understood such that they communicate reason. Your words currently do not.
And I will refrain from swearing, but remain perplexed as to why you insist on this. It is just a sound, after all. Actually, being in writing, it is just an arrangement of pixels. Its meaning is not inherent–humans gave it meaning. And seeing as you dislike man-made meaning, you shouldn’t object to such usage.
Interesting back and forth. I’d like to jump in too.
First, the side note on swearing… I appreciate a well argued thesis, but I feel insulted when someone needs to drop four letter words on the things I might say. It communicates to me (though perhaps not the author’s intent) that I’m stupid and not worth their intellectual time. Ok on to the rest…
Jan, certainly you could create meaning for something (say a gift you bought for a friend or loved one, it would have great meaning for you and for the one you bought it for) but – if I’m understanding Bryce correctly – it sounds like Bryce is saying that ultimately said gift is meaningless. For since you created the meaning and the receiver of the gift also shares at least some part of that meaning AND since both of you are mortal (I’m assuming?!), then when you and the receiver of the gift are no more, the meaning is no more. Its not objective in any such sense and certainly not eternal.
If I understand Bryce rightly, he’s driving at meaning that exists regardless of my experience (like giving a gift) or even my existence. That is, if you didn’t give the gift, would that particular gift have the same meaning? No. But are there things/morals/ideals/persons that have objective meaning regardless of my existence/opinion/giving meaning? Bryce seems to be arguing yes. Even if the three of us don’t exist, at a minimum SOME things have meaning.
On the matter of Bryce defining objective meaning, I don’t see him taking the position of “God.” Rather I see him attempting to make observations about the world and reality and considering the possibility that they might be objective. Perhaps the keyboard I’m typing on would objectively exist even if I did not. I suppose its entirely possible it would also cease to exist, but there’s no real evidence that the universe works that way. Likewise I don’t get the sense that Bryce is positioning himself as THE arbiter of objective meaning. Rather I sense he’s making the case that it exists and because it exists its pointing to something.
Thoughts?
REV
Jan, I use such a definition because that is more or less what I am searching after. A subjective meaning doesn’t matter if there is nothing objectively meaningful of the subject (i.e. humans) in the first place; as much as you or I might say we as humans have meaning (that it actually matters what we do, and what is done to us, and other conditions), if there is no objective meaning, then objectively, our ’subjective meaning’ is meaningless.
That is all I mean by the word. I am not using the word purpose, which has an altogether different meaning (no pun intended). A purpose is what we are here to do, meaning is whether something matters.
And Dharma, you clearly miss the point of my illustration about my claiming to be a giraffe. My point is that, since I am a human being, I am not a giraffe. I would not be a giraffe even if I claimed to be a giraffe. The collection of beings I belong to (homo sapiens sapiens) is an objective fact of reality.
In the same way, if I am objectively meaningless, even if I claimed meaning, I would still be ultimately meaningless, since this is the objective fact of reality.
I am more or less driving towards an answer to the question “Do we have meaning? How do we have meaning?” My conclusion so far has been, that if we assume a world without the existence of God, there is no logical way to prove the existence of any objective meaning in reality. Seeing as the proposition “There is meaning” is a positive proposition, then if it is true, then it likely ought to be able to be demonstrated. Sans a God, there is no logical way to do this (especially in the argument “We create meaning for ourselves” above). With a God, there is a logical possibility, as a God, by definition, has absolute and unparalleled power, presumably enough to impute meaning into being.
Bryce, I didn’t miss the point of your illustration. You were distinguishing between objective and subjective reality, saying that even if in your subjective reality you were a giraffe, in the objective reality you would still be a human. I understand that just fine. What I don’t understand is how this explains what you are defining as “meaning” because it seems like you aren’t using the standard dictionary definition of the word but some other definition that is deeper and more specific.
Meaning refers to the positive matter that gives worth to life; the person, who they are and what they do and what is done to them. It is a philosophically existentialist definition, which is usually the kind of meaning entailed by pondering whether we have meaning in the philosophical sense.
This is a good and necessary back-and-forth, but I would caution all involved not to get bogged down in minutiae and squabbles over slightly nuanced understandings of words, lest we lose the forest to the trees.
So I will attempt to be helpful rather than plunge us further into examinining leaf-structures, root systems, and sap production. I chose to turn to the American Heritage Dictionary. “Meaning”:
1. Something signified; sense
2. Something one wishes to convey especially by language
3. Intent; end
Bryce, am I right in understanding that you are pushing in the direction of #3? Asking what is the end or intent of human existence? What is the “meaning of life” in that sense? I suppose this then leads into the other two, for arguing for #2, for example, you are arguing (correct me if I’m wrong) that God wishes to convey something in the creation of the universe and specifically of humankind.
Materialist humanism cannot account for any objective account of these definitions when it comes to human existence. #2 seems to be what Jan was suggesting: simply assigning meaning to something. But as has been pointed out, however valid this may be for that individual it is ultimately and objectively meaningless.
#3 is often answered by secular biologists and anthropologists as “reproductive success,” which has replaced the older “survival of the fittest.” This is for a variety of reasons, most notably the observation that the fittest doesn’t always survive and/or reproduce successfully. Rather a species “has purpose” (teetering on “meaning of existence”???) insofar as it successfully reproduces its DNA in the next generation. But this meaning is not spoken into reality (akin to #2) objectively, rather its based on observation which is typically rooted in chance (that is, humankind does not necessarily exist, it only exists by happenstance).
And in a cold, dark, kill or be killed, try and reproduce – only if you buy into that “meaning” – world, Bryce seems to be arguing that nihilism and despair really are the only option objectively. Sure, we may fool ourselves into our own created meanings, but at the end of the day our life truly was worth nothing. We humans were merely the lucky (or perhaps unlucky!) highly evolved slime that started to think about its only slimy existence and decided to give meaning to it. Since we’re arbitrarily assigning this meaning – each of us – then its admittedly not objective. Being that its admittedly not objective, there is no standard for whose meaning is “superior” or “more correct” than another. This will take us down a scary road, however. Hence Bryce’s only true alternative: nihilism.
Thoughts?
REV
That is more or less my argument. Materialism offers no insight into the idea of meaning, and certainly an atheistic worldview (which implicates materialism) could then not offer any argument for meaning; and lacking meaning, nihilism. Humanism, on the other hand, is in fact antithetical to materialism since it espouses the idea that meaning is found in humans and their relationships with each other and the world. However, from the materialist perspective implicit in the rejection of a Creator God (which humanism is more or less antithetical to as well), humans are nothing more than the sum of their properties and history; highly organized societies made up of individuals who are historically nothing more than evolved sludge, which is matter. If matter is in itself meaningless, and we are nothing more than a certain organization of that matter, then the result is that we are as meaningful as what we are made up of, which makes us meaningless. The “human element” stressed in humanism is deceptive, because it would only be without analyzing our properties and history that it could seem we are something set apart from the rest of the universe.