Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Thoughts on meaning, nihilism.

Poll - Total Votes: 8
Existence has meaning
Existence is meaningless
We can't know either way
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
On the level of human psyche there is definitely meaning at least to us, in Jung's studies into archetypal symbology he found that throughout human history and through studies of dreams he'd found the same recurring themes and images, the same patterns of characters also found in alchemy recur in all great human stories (Alchemy being a form of early psychology mixed with spirituality, the Egyptian word alchamet meaning "out of darkness", it was the origin of the theory of shadow work, exploring the unconscious etc).

Nihilism of course is the belief that there is no objective meaning to anything. I can partly agree with it for the same reason that I can't, that it falls into a matter of subjective definitions. If meaning exists to us as people (which I've argued definitely does, whether you want to put that down to biology or having a soul) then it objectively exists. To say existence itself is meaningless to myself seems to disregard what we already know to be true in ourselves. Now one could say "But by what measure, and outside of human existence what is the meaning?" as eventually we reach a point where you ask the nature of existence itself and that's not empirically answerable by any measurable degree.

Perhaps the point of existence is merely to be able to experience existence, that in itself would have the deepest meaning of all tbh. Perhaps we're what we call souls inhabiting bodies in one dimension to then learn and experience existence to become more. Perhaps we are god or source itself experiencing itself subjectively in order to become more of all that is by experiencing itself in more complex ways, even questioning its own existence. Maybe we are god questioning itself, like the collective unconscious of source itself.

To me, the conclusion that everybody just becomes mulch for the soil doesn't seem to be an end all conclusion that I accept. Considering the richness of existence, the experiences of dreams meeting dead relatives, the strange unexplainable connections some of us have EG. people I know seeing things that eventually happen, personal experiences I've had of spirituality, it seems far too early to conclude everything like that. It's like the god argument, I'll never say source or god doesn't exist or does because I can't know, so I feel the same towards the approach of nihilism. It just feels so soulless and lazy, cynical almost.

Be interested to see what others think overall.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F Best Comment
To be honest I don't even know what "meaning" means here, like how it relates to existence. Is it purpose? I don't believe in a greater purpose because I think existence came into existence by chance, if that makes sense... And true, many people like to invent a purpose, and they think that "if my life is meaningless then I might as well die" but I don't get why you need to have a purpose in the first place. If you were born, that's a good enough reason for you to exist, just like for everything else on this planet. I like to say that the meaning of life is that there's no meaning at all. I like what you said here too
Perhaps the point of existence is merely to be able to experience existence, that in itself would have the deepest meaning of all tbh.

Perhaps I'm a nihilist, I really don't know. I just don't find any of it comforting, or the opposite. And maybe I personally never needed comfort so that's why I don't understand it.

Like even if god exists like most people imagine this "being" to exist, why did he create anything at all? I'm surprised I've never came across any religious person asking that. Was it a need of his? Was he bored? Did he feel anything at all while creating? To me it's all just too anthropocentric and that's why when it comes to such vague terms and existential questions I don't like any religious or spiritual explanations. Even if there's a creator greater than us, we're thinking of it very simplistically because we like to apply humane characteristics in just about anything. Even the thought of having a purpose is just too humane and therefore not superior than any other feeling. "Today I'm sad, I have no purpose." "Oh I finally found my purpose so I'm so happy!". For some reason purpose is associated with goodness. So yeah I don't think it's anything superior or crucial in the long run.
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
@HannibalAteMeOut I agree about the human definitions of a god or entity and about your thoughts on the idea of needing purpose. I never understood the need to genderise all that is as one of the other either, all that is or the source of creation would surely be much more and wouldn't be so anthropocentric as you said yourself. The people of old and today still project human traits like anger and cultural aspects like the want to punish others, why define it in such a limited way?.

The way I would think of source or god would be like the span of universal or existential consciousness that we all experience. Like if consciousness for everything had a plane of existence outside of physicality. Almost like our experience is the focal point of a large consciousness that can focus on many at the same time. I think if consciousness exists then more layers of complexity may also exist, things tend to scale. At least that's an interesting thought anyway.

Purpose is an interesting thing, I believe that purpose truly is subjective to all things and people. Meaning I define as something that just is, what elicits an objective reaction in our psyche EG. The immeasureable feeling one gets when looking at something beautiful (good example as it's not pathologised by science or evolutionary psychologists), we all know how beautiful sunsets are at least to humans who can see colour. Or like purpose, some meaning is also subjective.

I don't like the way evolutionary scientists or psychologists rigidly define aspects of existence, even though much of what they discover is very useful obviously. It's like those who say you're for science or god, you could say science is the study of all that is, it's just a mechanistic study of the laws of "god" or "source". Goes back to the same point, we don't know. Maybe it's this and that, it's not one or the other.

I think you're just open to many interpretations, to be a little nihilistic is healthy I believe as it is to question everything and deconstruct. True nihilism is the conclusion that nothing means anything and all is pointless.
HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F
@Ryannnnnn it's hard to tell anything about consciousness yet as we don't know too much and I agree, it doesn't have to be either god or science. Maybe science will explain "god" some day.

I don't believe anything is pointless right now, I've heard of some scientists saying that even if you went back in time and removed one grain of sand from one beach, the world would be different in some way. Much like the butterfly effect, like every little something can contribute to something greater, so everything matters.
However I could believe that everything is pointless too, when we have "forever" as a time frame, because what if things were different? Since things are as they are and they will be as they will be, there's not much point to it all either.
Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M
@HannibalAteMeOut I think that's where I disagree. I don't believe things become meaningless in relation to time or anything else. I think it's a very human thing to do, we see things in heirarchies, if we're just a tiny spec in a universe that somehow makes it less significant. I don't think meaning or significance is reducable by scale. Also whereas we might concieve as the future being seemingly forever, the only thing that objectively exists is now. The future is merely a conceptualisation of the now we'll exist in soon.

Depends on how we look at it really, we can either see it as "with so many possibilities we are but one so it makes us insignificant" or "with so many possibilities we are the one that exists so that makes it significant". Plus the other existences are what if's as we're what exists, I guess if you follow that train long enough we'll end up in the realms of fatalism.
HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F
@Ryannnnnn yeah what you explained in your second paragraph is basically what I meant but couldn't express it well enough.