Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Are meaning and purpose the same thing? It seems that, while I don't think my life has any purpose, it does have meaning.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Are meaning and purpose the same thing? It seems that, while I don't think my life has any purpose, it does have meaning.

I would say purpose leads to meaning (even if the concept of a life is entirely a biochemical delusion)

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Are meaning and purpose the same thing? It seems that, while I don't think my life has any purpose, it does have meaning.

I would say purpose leads to meaning (even if the concept of a life is entirely a biochemical delusion)

I was thinking the opposite: that determining the meaning lays the groundwork for finding one's purpose.

BurtReynolds wrote:Is it possible for two people, or two groups of people, to have conflicting, incompatible interests and both be morally justified? Or does one person or group always have the moral high ground?

I think it's the first one.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Are meaning and purpose the same thing? It seems that, while I don't think my life has any purpose, it does have meaning.

I would say purpose leads to meaning (even if the concept of a life is entirely a biochemical delusion)

I was thinking the opposite: that determining the meaning lays the groundwork for finding one's purpose.

Probably depends on how broadly you are applying the terms.

What

Think of a tool like a hammer. Imagine you have no concept of what it is for. A hammer is not created in a vacuum though and we can deduce it's use by experimentation. Add in a few other variables like wood and nails and a building diagram and it's intended purpose becomes much clearer.

How we value the evidence, how much weight we place on a particular bit of data is what I would call meaning. So we derive purpose from meaning. Meaning is the weighting by which we sort out the chaos of the world and form it into a coherent, ordered story called "purpose." We judge how close we got to the the 'right' purpose on how closely we get coherent meaning - aka. result we expected - back from pursuing and working that purpose.

What is considered meaningful will vary based on your background, your height, your experiences, your education, etc. But broadly Human's as a category will find similar evidence 'meaningful.' For instance we prefer to be warm and dry, not cold and wet. A fire is far more meaningful to us than a swamp. Though we can find meaning in a swamp too! We prefer happiness over sadness and so we consider happiness more meaningful. Sadness has meaning but usually the meaning we derive has a lot to do with how it relates in our future ability to feel happiness in contrast.

I think religious frames that provide a strong purpose driven world help lock down the relative, amorphous quality of meaning and give meaning itself purpose. If all you have is meaning but no purpose then you jump from meaningful experience to meaningful experience but that's all you get. If you have a purpose but no meaning then all is drudgery.

This is a good question! The more I think about the more complicated it gets!

Meaning goes deeper than purpose. Meaning is( more often) used for words, phrases and things that are intangible. Purpose is more about the simple reason for a tool or an activity. When my uncle was in boot camp, the drill Srgt would march behind the men yelling;" What's the purpose of the M16 field rifle?!" The soldiers would respond; "To KILL!! TO KILL!! TO KILL!!"

Words have meaning. That is their purpose.

I believe meaning evolves from a sort of compromise in a social context - which is to say the notion of semiotics is based in communication. In a Nietzschian sense, I think this is to some extent between existential rivals. If man existed without conflict, there would be no notion of "meaning"- a sense of intentionality maybe, for purposes of conversation, but I don't even believe that.

Meaning is less about man vs world than man vs man. Meaning is essentially a social construct between conflicting entities. Its about dominance and compromise.

And before people start losing their Christian marbles over "postmodernism", think long and hard about the behaviour you are engaging in right now.

As the other poster who mentioned Schopenhauer noted, we can develop practical theories about the world, but the idea of purpose is always ambiguous in the grand scheme. Meaning follows suit imo. Its relative at best, and I believe that relativism is born of social conflict through arbitration and consensus.

As Schopenhauer said it is easy to explain how the Pythagorean Theoram works but impossible to explain why.

They're spelled and pronounced differently.

--- wrote:

--- wrote:

washing machine wrote:

--- wrote:

I will say that first 9 minutes with the comedian intro was rough. It seems to be settling into a groove now.

BurtReynolds wrote: