
The Meaning of Life - kulpreet
http://sivers.org/ml
======
Codhisattva
"Let instinct trump logic" \- bad advice. Instinct is simply pattern matching
current conditions against memory. Without experience, instinct is a poor
criteria and logic should be employed. Read Kahneman for the supporting
research into that.

~~~
djim
However, as he states in the article, instinct is the result of experience. He
is saying the mechanism of instinct is older in humans than logic, so the
process is more refined/trustworthy when comparing the two. Seems right to
me..

~~~
daliusd
There is very good book on this topic "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel
Kahneman. Instincts can be very misleading sometimes.

~~~
Codhisattva
Research trumps all :)

------
spking
For the vast majority of people, constantly thinking about the meaning of life
and dwelling on the fact that you're going to die seems like a recipe for
anxiety. Trying to adopt a set of contradictory rules to follow would likely
only compound that anxiety. To summarize the formula laid out by the author:

1\. Remember, you're going to die!

2\. Plan for the future, but not too much or you'll have multiple divorces and
no friends.

3\. Think about the present, but not too much or you'll end up poor and
unhappy.

4\. Think about the past to remember how far you've come.

5\. Only do work where you are in "the flow", so you can be happy when you're
dying (remember, you're going to die!)

I'm not saying these activities are pointless or bad in isolation, I just
think it's unrealistic and generally not practical to have all that rattling
around in your head while you make decisions about how to spend your time.
Just buckle up and enjoy the ride. Be nice to others, find interesting things
to work on and have some fun. If you spend all your time worried about whether
your current activity and state of mind is somehow optimized for achieving the
meaning of life, you have a good chance of being overwhelmed and paralyzed by
it.

~~~
drumdance
I think of it more as exception driven:

1\. Am I happy now? If so, keep doing what you're doing.

2\. If not, is what's making me unhappy really important in the scheme of
things? If not, goto 1.

3\. Focus on changing your situation, or your reaction to it.

If you get to #3, ideally try to find meaning in the process of change itself
rather than focusing too much on the end state.

------
hawkharris
I went to a debate about the existence of God a few months ago. Dan Barker, an
atheist who has contributed to the Daily Show, had the winning quote:

"There is no meaning of life -- and that's a great thing: it means that
there's meaning _in_ life."

The quote is poignant regardless of your religious affiliation. Barker was
saying that the meaning of life is intensely personal. Each of us invents it
through our own experiences.

~~~
deckiedan
Do I understand you correctly:

\- "meaning" or "purpose" in life is whatever we feel "meaningful" or
"purposeful".

\- those feelings are derived through our upbringing, culture, biochemical
quirks, etc.

Therefore if we could find whichever set of chemicals or brainwashing
techniques made us feel 'meaningful', then that sense would allow just as
valid and 'meaningful' an existence as any other?

Isn't that merely hedonism, just with 'meaning' as the ultimate pleasure?

~~~
return0
Arent we already doing that? Isnt 'meaning' just a word, a product of the
human brain? Plus many people under hallucinogenics report experiences with
various intensities of 'meaning'

~~~
deckiedan
If I understand the argument, then yes. And it seems rather tragic to me. One
of the philosophical benefits to faith in God is that 'meaning' actually is
more than just another 'meaningless' chemical reaction. There actually is a
reason to live beyond just trying to stay happy.

I do believe in God, I do believe there is more to life than keeping the
chemical state of my body such that I feel happy and fulfilled. I do believe
that my life can have a purpose. I've tried, and failed, to find a reason to
without a deity who gives a metaphysical meaning to it all. I stand in awe of
atheists - I simply don't have the strength to live without the faith and
relationship with God that I believe I have.

~~~
baddox
Are you saying that you express belief in God not because you actually believe
God exists in a factual sense, but because you are unable to handle believing
that God does not exist? If that's what you're saying, it seems a bit odd,
even from a religious perspective. I believe that the major theistic religions
teach that God (or gods) _actually_ exist, which is to say their teachings are
not just helpful but also _true_.

~~~
deckiedan
I actually do believe in a factual God.

I was brought up in reasonably traditional Christian family(in the faith
sense, rather than the cultural one), but always given the choice &
encouragement by my parents to explore and find my own answers.

As a teenager, a lot of my friends at church were very strict hard-line
evangelicals, and a lot of their attitudes irritated the crap out of me.
However, my atheist, agnostic, new-age and Buddhist friends consistently were
supportive and friendly to me. I felt far more at home in that environment
than amongst those who (ostensibly) shared the same faith as me.

I became very disillusioned with the church, and investigated the beliefs of
my friends, co-workers, and what I believed, trying to figure it out. I came
to a personal belief that either

a) there is a personal/relational God, not a vague force, nor some angry
judgemental law-stickler

or

b) there is no God, the limit of existence is physics. Love, relationships,
meaning, etc. are all merely chemical reactions inside the 'clockwork' (for
lack of a better term) bodies that we, by some weird happenstance believe that
we have/are.

All the other alternatives (dualism, polytheism, paganism, Confucianism,
Buddhism, etc) seemed to be either total nonsense, or wishy-washy without real
answers (apologies to anyone of those positions - I'm speaking of my feelings
at the time).

So with those two positions, I found that I couldn't accept that everything
was meaningless - or in a "positive" light, that everything was equally
meaningful. That my parents loving me was as "meaningful" as someone else's
parents abusing them out of some misguided sense of discipline.

I couldn't make myself believe that. So I believe that there is some kind of
moral framework that makes love "better" than hate. That makes everyone alive
actually of worth, rather than simply an arrangement of atoms of equal value
to a chair, or pile of primeval slime.

Either there is some kind of external person that gives meaning and relational
value to people, and to the "higher" concepts of love, faith, hope, trust,
acceptance, loyalty, or else there was nothing. Men who run away with younger
women who meet their sexual desires could be complemented on having found
satisfaction, rather than accused of disloyalty - for loyalty would be nothing
more than an outmoded evolutionary advantage for helping survival.

So, I found a faith. I asked God - if he/she/it were there, what the hell the
point of it all was, and if he/she/it did exist, how I could actually do
something worth while with my life, and I believe they answered me.

I've been working unpaid the last 8 years for a charity (OM), raising my own
sponsorship from friends/family/churches to work with this God, who I believe
is trying to save humanity. I believe I have a relationship with him, that my
life has purpose, and that there is a reason to exist: God loves us, but
allows us to have free will (under the restrictions of physics, etc...) so
that we can have a free relationship with him, un-coerced. I believe he loves
me, that I love him, and that the best thing I can do is introduce others to
him.

So, that's my story...

------
javert
Here is the meaning of life.

There is only one inherent value to consciousness, and it is pleasure.

What is the evidence for this claim? It is directly perecptible. To see the
proof of this, all you have to do is look.

Everything else you value should be for the sake of this ultimate value.
(Because there is no other ultimate value for them to be for the sake of.)

Now, this isn't an endorsement of hedonism, which I take to mean "doing
whatever feels good." Rather, you should pursue pleasure systematically.

First, it must be sustainable over the long term (your lifespan). Second, it
must account for the various kinds of emotions (e.g. serenity, self-esteem,
etc.). Third, it must account for the fact that these emotions are effects
that have specific causes.

~~~
baddox
I think "pleasure" is the wrong word to use here, because it conceals that
what you're really saying is a tautology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're
saying that people should pursue the things that they desire. Words like
"pleasure" or "happiness" might imply leaving out things like uncomfortable or
painful exercise and diet in pursuit of future happiness from improved health
or appearance, or sacrificing something of value for a friend or charity.

"Utility" might be a better word than "pleasure" or "happiness."

~~~
javert
I'm saying that people should pursue pleasure, not whatever they happen to
desire.

To concretize, pleasure breaks down into two categories: physical pleasure and
emotional pleasure. The former includes being full instead of hungry, etc. The
latter includes happiness, joy, serenity, etc.

So you need to realize that attaining certain kinds of desires lead to
maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, and adjust your desires accordingly.

If you just pursue whatever you happen to desire without reference to any
further standard, which is hedonism, you will not maximize pleasure and
minimize pain.

For instance, I may not feel like exercising or going on a diet, but if I
realize that those things will maximize my pleasure, then I now have the
ability to desire to do them, because they are a value to me.

When you suggest "utility" as a better word, you are begging the question.
Utility for what? To whom? Why would one kind of thing constitute utility, and
not something else?

The answer is that there is only one kind of ultimate, inherent utility for a
conscious being: pleasure. Everything else that has utility has utility for
the sake of pleasure.

Let me know if you have any thoughts and want to continue the conversation.

~~~
baddox
It's a false dichotomy unless you can actually provide an objective dichotomy
against the two types of pleasures you mention. I derive pleasure from saving
my money, because I know that earns me some financial security and allows me
to buy bigger and cooler things in the future. I derive pleasure from exercise
that is physically uncomfortable, because I know there are future benefits.

"Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has
the connotation of immediate physical euphoria without regard for future ion
sequences. In a way, you're right that it's begging the question. Saying
"people should do what gives them utility" is basically saying "people should
make the decisions they prefer," or "people _should_ do what they think they
_should_ do."

~~~
javert
> "Utility" is absolutely a better word for this, because "pleasure" often has
> the connotation of immediate physical euphoria

Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure. I'm
just stating it in more fundamental terms than you are, and getting right to
the point. Talking about it, intsead, as "utility" is just making it more
absract and muddying the waters.

And it doesn't matter what connotation you think pleasure has---I have stated
the definition I am using, and it's not the connotation you want to associate
with it. If you have a better term than "pleasure," let me know, but "utility"
is not it. "Joy" would work. "Happiness" would work. Presuming a certain
definition of those things which essentially equates to a generalized form of
long-term emotional pleasure.

~~~
baddox
> Utility is worthless without getting you something, which is pleasure.

"Utility" is generally defined to mean getting what one desires. It's not
abstract. "Pleasure" could be defined in the same way, and if you're defining
it to be synonymous with "utility" then that's your choice, but it usually
carries the connotation of _immediate_ sensory euphoria whereas "utility" does
not. But I don't understand your criticism of the word "utility."

~~~
javert
I'm not defining pleasure to mean "getting what one desires," hence it is non
synonomous with the definition you are using for "utility." Pleasure is a
particular sensation.

For instance. If you get something you desire, you may feel pleasure, or you
may not. Or maybe you'll feel pleasure for a little while, but not as long as
you expected to.

Going in the reverse direction, if you feel pleasure, you may have gotten
something you desired, but you may not have---e.g. a massage may feel good
even if you didn't expect it to beforehand.

When I talk about "pleasure" I do mean something that you experience in the
moment---just like "hot" and "cold." You feel it at a particular time, or not.
But that does not exclude a long-term experience of pleasure, such as a
general state of emotional happiness. In fact, the latter is what I am more
interested in.

Some people associate the word "pleasure" with a _necessarily_ temporary and
immediate experience, but that is merely _a_ connotation, it is not the
definition of the word.

~~~
baddox
Why then do you think people should pursue pleasure (your definition) rather
than things they desire?

~~~
javert
Pleasure is the only thing that is inherently valuable to a conscious
organism. It feels good.

There would be no reason to pursue the things you desire if pursuing them
and/or getting them didn't make you feel good.

If pursuing them and/or getting them does make you feel good, there is a
reason to pursue them. But the reason is because they make you feel good---
because they bring pleasure.

~~~
baddox
For me, it feels good to pursue things I desire, even if it involves immediate
physical discomfort, like exercise.

~~~
javert
That is the same as saying: For me, it is pleasurable to pursue things I
desire, even if it involved immediate physical discomfort, like exercise.

In fact, if you want to replace "pleasure" in my whole argument with "good
feeling," that is perfectly fine.

Separately, I think you may be equating "satisfying desires" with "feeling
good." They definitely aren't the same. In fact, you want to pick values
(=desires) in your life that are going to maximize feeling good when you
pursue and achieve them.

------
F_J_H
In summary, finding the meaning OF life (to quote Dan Barker - thanks
@hawkharris) is to find the meaning IN life, for you personally.

A the end of the day, we look for the meaning of/in life to ultimately be
happy, or at least content. For that, we need a "purpose", and the philosopher
Daniel Dennentt has some good advice here:

 _“Find something more important than you are, and dedicate your life to it.”_

So, how do you find your purpose - something that is "more important than you
are"? For many people, the answer is based in religious belief. Others may
find value in a letter penned by 20 year old Hunter S. Thompson:

[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/04/hunter-
s-t...](http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/04/hunter-s-thompson-
letters-of-note-advice/)

Key quote:

 _" In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature
of certain abilities and desires—including a deeply ingrained need to function
in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he
has to matter.

As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a
path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the
gratification of his DESIRES."_

I would add that the DESIRES need to be aligned with, and perhaps subservient
to, that thing which is "more important than you are", otherwise ==> hedonism.

------
learc83
I can't understand how any comment that posits the existence of God or
objective morality has been downvoted to oblivion, yet comments that suggests
that the only meaning (and thus morality) lies in increasing one's own
pleasure are rising to the top.

I'd also like to add that michaelsbradley's comment way down at the bottom of
the page sums up my Christian belief on the meaning of life pretty nicely even
though I'm not Catholic. (and I suspect I have a different interpretation of
"the Church" when I read that statement)

~~~
majani
Surely you cannot expect a religious argument to do well in a scientific
forum.

~~~
michaelsbradley
Reason and faith, science and religion, are not enemies or necessarily in
tension with one another.

Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J.[1] does a fine job of exploring evidence for God's
existence from modern science[2]. Many notable scientists were/are persons of
faith[3].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28priest%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28priest%29)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-
Contributions...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-
Contributions/dp/0802863833)

[&]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5k)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists)

------
marcus_holmes
Nice to be reminded of this. I'm researching Stoic philosophy, and a core
question is "what is your life about?". Nice to be reminded that any meaning
in my life is what _I_ choose to place on it, not what it intrinsically has.

Similar: the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Intrinsic
value is a mirage.

------
cliveowen
It's just a subjective take on the age-old question that doesn't add anything
to what you already know from philosophy classes.

~~~
sp332
True, unless you didn't take philosophy classes, or if you just memorized what
a bunch of other people said without really thinking about applying it to your
own life.

------
dctoedt
Riffing off of Robert Wright's book _Non-Zero_ [1]:

* Consider the apparent self-assembling of the universe over the last 13.8 billion years.

* Consider the seeming overall long-term trend (certainly not a monotonic one) of "improvement" in life. Adapting Gregg Easterbrook's thought experiment [2]: Would you _permanently_ trade places with a _random_ person who lived 1,000 years ago? How about 10,000 years ago? Would _anyone_ , at any time, do so?

It's a defensible proposition that, as theologian Philip Hefner put it, we are
created co-creators [3]. To what end? Who knows. But if past performance is
_any_ indication, it'll be pretty neat.

From this perspective, conducting one's life in accordance with (a weak
version of) Pascal's Wager [4] seems like a reasonable course of action.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Nonzero-The-Logic-Human-
Destiny/dp/067...](http://www.amazon.com/Nonzero-The-Logic-Human-
Destiny/dp/0679758941) (not an affiliate link)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Beside-Still-Waters-Searching-
Meaning/...](http://www.amazon.com/Beside-Still-Waters-Searching-
Meaning/dp/0688160654) (ditto)

[3]
[http://currentsjournal.org/new_currents_ed_06_01.html](http://currentsjournal.org/new_currents_ed_06_01.html)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

~~~
baddox
I don't see the significance of the trading places question. Would you trade
places with a random person 1,000 years in the future either? Or a random
person on Earth today? Or even a random person among the top 1,000 most
successful (by your own definition) on Earth today? Or even a person you
specifically choose? It seems like most relatively happy or even comfortable
people would say no to all these opportunities.

------
jqm
I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I
see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way
around.

But I guess it would be hard to get speaking engagements saying "you are born,
then you die, and what you do in between is a waste of time"....

Even if this were the case in reality. (Which I'm not saying it is).

~~~
benjoffe
> I see little point in trying to ascertain the "meaning" of life. From what I
> see, life itself gives birth to the concept of meaning not the other way
> around.

Did you actually listen to the talk? He comes to the same conclusion.

~~~
jqm
I read the transcript.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. We don't come to the same
conclusions. I'm saying the concept of "meaning".... not the "meaning of life"
is something derived from the property of life itself. Therefore using this
concept to ask a question in a larger context probably isn't valid.

~~~
benjoffe
From the article:

> Nothing has inherent meaning. Everything is only what it is and that's it.

I think you come to the same conclusion but perhaps express it a little deeper
than the author does.

------
ChristianMarks
Then again there are Nietzsche's three terrible truths:

1\. Existential: death and suffering are inevitable.*

2\. Moral: life is amoral.

3\. Epistemic: most of what we think we know about the world is illusory.

*I include being downvoted on HN, especially under the new voting regime, under the category of suffering.

Edit: a reference, with additional clarification and justification for those
who dispute the abbreviated claims.

Leiter, Brian, The Truth is Terrible (February 22, 2014). Daniel Came (ed.),
Nietzsche on Morality and the Affirmation of Life (Oxford University Press,
Forthcoming). Available at SSRN:
[http://ssrn.com/abstract=2099162](http://ssrn.com/abstract=2099162) or
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2099162](http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2099162)

~~~
javert
Well, 2 and 3 are not true and 1 is leaving out a big part of the picture,
which is that life and pleasure are quite attainable.

~~~
namenotrequired
I don't think they're just "not true", but they are very generalised and
ambiguous, and a lot can be said both for and against them.

Edit for clarity

------
nnx
"People at the end of their life who claimed to be the happiest with their
life were the ones who had spent the most time in this state of flow."

I can certainly believe this.

If you are not familiar with the concept of "flow state" (Samadhi in Hindu
cultures [1]), I'd recommend reading the wonderful "Free Play: Improvisation
in Life and Art" by Stephen Nachmanovitch [2] over the more famous "Flow" by
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

[1]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi)

[2]
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0874776317](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0874776317)

~~~
baddox
Is the goal to maximize how happy you report your life as having been when
you're at its end? I could conceive of other plausible goals.

------
h1karu
I thought life is all about launching a minimal viable product, tweaking it to
narrow in on product/market fit, and then scaling up. You mean there's more to
life AFTER that ?! oh brother. I'll worry about that once I get there

------
DanielBMarkham
tl;dr: We choose to give life meaning. It is our choice of assignment of
meaning (or not), that is the only thing to be discussed here. (Yay
existentialism!)

When you think about the incredible number of galaxies, each with hundreds of
billions of stars, having untold habitable planets, existing for tens of
billions of years? Then we think about our one planet Earth, and how each of
us lives only 50-100 years and then we're gone?

We have the question backwards. In the grand scheme of things, we're much less
than a speck on a mote somewhere, a fruit fly. We're completely
inconsequential. It's not for us to ask what life is about. We have the
question backwards. Instead life -- that thing that has existed for eons
before we were ever a possibility and that will exist eons after our memory is
gone -- is asking us "What is the meaning of you?"

Life sets us up with initial conditions and gives us various challenges as we
go through our minuscule little part of it. It is during these experiences
that Life is asking us what our meaning is. Our choices provide the reply.

Being alive is answering the question: what is my meaning? We could no more
judge the meaning of life itself than we could begin to count the habitable
planets in the sky. To phrase the question in this way is just to provide
busywork instead of dealing with the reality in front of us.

------
negamax
Very good video and ideas.

"You must have worked really hard at it"

Just want to correct the line 'Life is Suffering' when you brought up
Buddhism. That sounds sadistic. Buddhist's idea is suffering exists. Which is
presented as a fact that can be seen with a rational mind. And life is to be
lived in pursuit of eliminating suffering for yourself and others. Just
thought, I point this out.

~~~
dominotw
Its not sadistic. Life was full of suffering for vedic nomads who finally
settled down in cities. Instead of turing outwards philosophers of that time
lie buddha and mahavira turned inwards for comfort.

~~~
xmonkee
Life is suffering regardless of your position in time and space if you haven't
attained nibanna. Its not specific to the vedic nomads otherwise there would
be no need to walk the eight fold path in the first world. Suffering is the
first noble truth.

~~~
dominotw
>Life is suffering regardless of your position in time and space Is it though?
I've lived several third world countries and a couple of first world
countries. I know from first hand experience that life in rich countries is
much much less suffering and is good 80% of the time whereas in third world
countries is 80% suffering.

What is the point of our developments in science and technology if everyone is
still suffering equally.

~~~
xmonkee
From a Buddhist perspective: In what country do you not have death of loved
ones, old age, sickness? In what country do you not have attachments, fear or
sadness? Technology can make us more comfortable, but not "solve" life for us.
Some people have more comfort in life than others, animals are even worse off
than poor people, and gods in heavens are more comfortable than Bill Gates,
yet all of them will face death and sickness in this life (including the gods
in buddhism). The only escape is Nirvana.

From a secular perspective: There are lots of ways to look at this. We could
see everyone as being on a spectrum. Your happiness levels depend on your
position on the spectrum relative to your peers. Poor people in the US have
cars, yet they are extremely unhappy and suffering. The same amount of wealth
in India would make you middle class and much happier. So clearly the
happiness is not a function only of money but also of perception. People were
in general just as happy or sad 3000 years ago as they are today, what has
technology achieved then? If technology was making the world more equal, I
would support the proposition that development is a net positive, as everyone
would have the chance to grow spiritually rather than spend a human birth just
surviving, but that's not the case. Technology divides more than it equalizes.
There is no "point" to technology, it will happen. There's no use fighting it,
there's no use supporting it over everything else. Technological progress is a
fact of life. There is a point to equality, it allows everyone to achieve
their potential and maybe reduce actual suffering on the planet.

------
zhaphod
My take is that there is no meaning of life. We impose our own meaning to get
by.

------
bsenftner
This is like a skin cell asking what is the meaning of life. The meaning of
life is larger than our individual selves, and is found in the totality of
life: we are either the recursive self creation of God, or the creation of
some super intelligence seeking answers to questions it can not. Either way,
our purpose is clear: create heaven, create time travel, teleport all living
entities at the moment of their death to heaven, and then provide comfort,
care, and understanding. Yeah, not my idea: read "The Light of Other Days",
Arthur C Clark's last novel.

------
DigitalJack
If you are seeking meaning, consider attending an alpha course. It is a forum
for atheist, agnostic, and Christian alike, on the topic of Christianity and
faith. [http://www.alpha.org/about](http://www.alpha.org/about)

From the site: Alpha really is for anyone who’s curious. The talks are
designed to encourage debate and explore the basics of the Christian faith in
a friendly, honest and informal environment.

~~~
DigitalJack
I really don't understand why someone would downvote this.

~~~
lsh
I do. I do ...

------
jqm
Some people postulate the meaning of life resides in God. So I wonder then,
what the meaning of God's life would be?

Simply adding recursive complexity doesn't solve the question, but now you
have two problems.

For the record, I think the real problem is the question. It supposes that
"meaning" can be something outside of what we experience and I don't believe
it can be.

~~~
NaNaN
Good point. I think the author (and many other people) was just blinded by
self-conceit and _jumped_ to a conclusion too quickly.

~~~
jodrellblank
Given that's the same conclusion the author came to, how was he "blinded by
self-conceit, answering too quickly"?

~~~
NaNaN
So you're asking where my ignorance came from? Well, I don't know. But I don't
think I have any real reason to believe the author. :( Am I self-abased?
Anyway, I like this joke: "Life is hard." (Sorry.)

~~~
NaNaN
Yeah, maybe I should not think others is what, but just think I think what. Oh
my, an infinite recursion. Anyone can help me?

------
dominotw
There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide -
Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus.

Yes we can invent stupid justifications for life like 'life is about love',
'life is helping others' and a million other equally bizzare justifications
but in the end its just a pointless absurdity.

~~~
jodrellblank
There is no more value or correctness in calling life 'pointless' or 'absurd'.

Framing things that "life is about helping people" is bizarre and "in the end
life is absurd and pointless" is not right, it's still trying to put human
concepts on an inexplicable universe, but positioning oneself as superior to
everyone else while doing so.

------
michaelsbradley
Life is a gift of God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, who in a
plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in God's own
blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws
close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his
strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the
unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time
had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through
him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and
thus heirs of his blessed life.

Adapted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reflects my own belief
and answer to this question, and I am happy to be numbered among billions over
the centuries who would have answered Siver's question in the same way.

[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2.HTM)

~~~
jqm
I'm not hating on your answer here, you certainly are free to believe as you
wish and at least as right as anyone else, but appeal to popularity,
especially when that popularity was often forced at the point of a sword, is
not a very good argument.

~~~
michaelsbradley
I did not make an appeal to popularity. I believe what the Church teaches, and
I am perfectly happy being one sheep among billions in the sheepfold – that
was my point.

The reason I pointed that out is that, other controversies aside, in an age of
hyper-individualism, the fact that a set of beliefs is shared by so many is
itself often an unstated motive for doubt.

------
NanoWar
I also try to enable the dreams of others, but this ultimately makes me happy,
too.

[ Taken from
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo)
]

------
kafkaesque
I'm late to this, but I thought we had some philosophers on HN that pretty
actively participated in discussions.

Why wasn't there a discussion on how what Sivers is explaining is the concept
of NIHILISM?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism)

What Sivers said has an underlying message: there _is_ a meaning to life: it
is that there is no objective/inherent meaning. This is important to note
because of the huge ramifications this has and has had in philosophy since
Nietzsche.

Unfortunately, nihilism is circular and presupposes moral relativism.

------
GNUmaro
Beautiful video by the way, a must see: [http://youtu.be/7d16CpWp-
ok](http://youtu.be/7d16CpWp-ok)

------
wellboy
For me the meaning of life is: To reach one's full potential and to be
excellent to each other.

So basically self-actualization while being awesome. :)

------
joaorj
When the video showed the slide saying "Life is ____" I paused and thought
about it for a minute.

For me life is producing output when presented with some kind of input. If we
are alive and that's pretty much what we do, life must be it. (not only man,
but every animal I can think about)

Now, how are we alive and a computer problem isn't, I don't know. Maybe
because our input comes directly from the natural world?

What is the meaning of life? As others said here, it's a question that seems
illogical to be asked.

------
luke-stanley
Life is overcoming entropy.

~~~
jqm
So it seems.

But life itself is simply sunlight falling to earth if you think about it
biochemically.

In other words as far as we know, life is a channel for and manifestation of
entropy.

~~~
rehack
_> But life itself is simply sunlight falling to earth if you think about it
biochemically_

Don't you think, that by same extension, car is just Gas/Fuel coming in from a
Gas/Fuel station?

I am sorry, but I find most essays on the topic of 'meaning of life' escapist.
Or rather answering a different question on how best to _live_ life, with the
assumption that the real meaning is unknowable.

None of these essays satisfy my need to know, what _it_ is actually all about.

Talking about this essay, its excellent no doubt. But IMHO its misleading all
the same.

------
jimmaswell
Seems like it ended up at the same conclusion I'd drawn long ago, nice.

------
ambivalence
Derek Sivers is _so wrong_ in his video.

The Talking Heads were active until 1991!

------
nutanc
42

------
stefantalpalaru
The part about "old" and "new" brain in the instinct section is wrong. The
brain is not compartmentalized like that.

------
stefantalpalaru
> What does it mean that all of your previous attempts at something have
> failed?

> Nothing! Nothing at all.

Don't try skydiving.

~~~
joeguilmette
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
You don't start skydiving by jumping off a plane by yourself with a parachute
that you need to release at a certain altitude. There are intermediary steps
and if you don't learn from your own mistakes because "nothing has inherent
meaning" you're gonna have a bad time.

------
eternalban
[http://www.formakers.eu/media/1.857.1372411075.nature_3d_pri...](http://www.formakers.eu/media/1.857.1372411075.nature_3d_print_recity_11.jpg)

