MORE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE
MORE ON THE MEANING OF LIFE
A particularly interesting idea has once again dawned on me. (Now, the idea might not be very interesting to you, but come on—this is MY blog.) Always, I find it a struggle to articulate my insights into the question of “What is the meaning of life?”. The first thing that seems to wrench my seeking psyche is the question “What is the meaning of “meaning”?”. It seems quite impossible to operationally define (that is, “to provide “meaning” for) the word “meaning”. Inevitably, one simply ends up substituting one word for another and begging the question. Thus, the investigator gets nowhere and finds himself in the snares of vexation. This being the case, it might prove instructive to propose a model in which “meaning” is the foundation from which all concepts ripple forth. That is to say, one must first assume the existence of meaning as a fundamental principle and equate it to life itself. There is no need to claim that life has meaning. Life does not have anything. Rather, life is. This statement is much more than an assumption that can be cleverly undermined, for it is inconceivable to claim that life is not. Does it not require life to utter such a statement? To conceive such a notion? Hence, life is—irrefutably so. Life does not possess meaning. It is meaning, and from meaning (life) evolves all concepts—some remain relative “abstractions”, others manifest themselves as “matter”. In essence, ALL that occurs and that can be perceived and/or reflected upon is derived from meaning itself. This includes (but is not limited to) the phenomenon of language itself.
A particularly interesting idea has once again dawned on me. (Now, the idea might not be very interesting to you, but come on—this is MY blog.) Always, I find it a struggle to articulate my insights into the question of “What is the meaning of life?”. The first thing that seems to wrench my seeking psyche is the question “What is the meaning of “meaning”?”. It seems quite impossible to operationally define (that is, “to provide “meaning” for) the word “meaning”. Inevitably, one simply ends up substituting one word for another and begging the question. Thus, the investigator gets nowhere and finds himself in the snares of vexation. This being the case, it might prove instructive to propose a model in which “meaning” is the foundation from which all concepts ripple forth. That is to say, one must first assume the existence of meaning as a fundamental principle and equate it to life itself. There is no need to claim that life has meaning. Life does not have anything. Rather, life is. This statement is much more than an assumption that can be cleverly undermined, for it is inconceivable to claim that life is not. Does it not require life to utter such a statement? To conceive such a notion? Hence, life is—irrefutably so. Life does not possess meaning. It is meaning, and from meaning (life) evolves all concepts—some remain relative “abstractions”, others manifest themselves as “matter”. In essence, ALL that occurs and that can be perceived and/or reflected upon is derived from meaning itself. This includes (but is not limited to) the phenomenon of language itself.
posted by Todd Reinhard at 7:59 AM
1 Comments:
Hey! I haven't read Thomas Aquinas in a long time, so my knowledge of his writing is really rusty. However, didn't he talk about the "philosophy of being"? If I remember correctly, it's quite simple and sublime. The world simply is. Do we need anything more? I don't think so. Indeed, while knowing that the world, indeed the whole universe, simply is can offer us some comfort and perhaps even some wisdon, we don't even need to know that much!
Post a Comment
<< Home