A final thought on mattering: relation to "the absurd"

All this talk about the analytics of meaning and mattering aside, the fact is that most of us want meaning. 

Most of us are looking for something. We want our actions and lives to matter absolutely. We want certainty and finality. 

But as my previous posts have shown, we can't have it. It's just not possible. 

Existence depends on non-existence. Certainty implies that there is also non-certainty. 

As much as we want it, we can't have it both ways. We can't live and have absolute meaning; the two are incompatible. 

This is what I think Albert Camus refers to when he writes about the "absurd." The experience of desperately wanting meaning in a world where it can't exist. 

But I would tend to agree with Camus that we still ought to try and find meaning in whatever ways feel right to us, while still facing the fact that it's ultimately a futile endeavor. Or is it? And so on... 

Mattering: Why say that nothing matters?

Typically, when I hear someone say "nothing matters," I am curious about why they say that. 

Many people would say that, at some level, nothing matters because we're all going to die, the sun will explode, and eventually everything we've ever known will be obliterated and turn into space dust. 

But...wait...

What if we weren't going to die and become space dust? What if we were going to live forever? Would anything matter? 

If we really never died, wouldn't everything matter even less? Wouldn't there be no reason to do anything today versus tomorrow, because we have forever? 

Plus, how would/could we ever know that anything we did in our infinite lives had any meaning? 

So, is there any hypothetical scenario in which things "matter" in this sense? I'm not sure. 

It doesn't even matter... or does it?

On a walk around the neighborhood, I was thinking about the mechanics of my step and whether I should try to change the way that my foot rolls forward -- trying to see if there is a more ergonomic way that I could be walking... 

And then that pesky thought came in: "Does it even matter?" 

And I thought about the vastness of the universe, and how one could argue that nothing we do matters.

But then I considered it analytically. And it all depends on what "matters" means. 

If I am asking whether or not my step mechanics mean anything, then the answer is an unequivocal yes! 

My steps are related to and affect so many other things -- the longevity of the shoes; the health of my legs and body; the impact on the earth they trod; the distance I cover and the places I see and interact with; etc. etc. 

So, in many senses of the word, they "matter." Of course, I could still come to the conclusion that I personally don't care. And that I don't value any of those things. But this would be in bad faith. 

It's obviously up to any person to decide whether or not to try to care about things. But it's not logical to base not caring on the idea that nothing matters. Because in at least some sense, everything matters. 

The infinite meanings of life

If one accepts the existentialist position that there is no a priori meaning to life -- that existence precedes essence -- this of course does not mean that there can be no meaning to life. 

Rather, many would argue that this means that we create meaning. In other words, the lack of an "objective" meaning doesn't preclude a "subjective" meaning. 

I want to add to this idea, and say that one could actually create infinitely many reasons to live; there are infinite possible meanings of life. 

Because there is no set limit on the meaning of life, I can come up with as many purposes or meanings as I want. 

This is a theme reflected in many Buddhist and Taoist teachings. That every moment is magical and perfect and has infinite potential when we live in a creative state. 

Each infinitely tiny moment could create infinitely many meanings. 

To do, or not to do

Isn't that really the question? 

To do, or not to do? 

I was thinking about Camus and how he said that the only serious question is whether or not to commit suicide. 

But, in a world where there is no meaning and where anything is permissible, isn't killing yourself just as arbitrary as any other action? 

Wouldn't it be just as serious of a question to ask whether or not to put jelly on your toast, or whether or not to kill someone else, or whether or not to wear underwear today? 

That said, I could see how, if this question arose in the context of the immense suffering and anguish that can be a result of the realization of the absurdity of human existence, then the question of whether to kill oneself would certainly feel like the most serious question. 

But it seems that if the assumptions that led to this question are taken to their logical conclusions, then deciding whether or not to do any thing is just as serious of a question. 

To do, or not to do...

The Meaning of the Meaning of Life? Dynamic Meaning/No Meaning

Here are a few questions from a Tuesday morning that came to me while looking out my window at the sun rising over the snowy Chugach mountains: 

What do people mean when they ask "what is the meaning of life?"? 

Typically, people I talk to are referring to whether there is a goal, a purpose, a point, or some larger picture in which life fits. 

If someone says "life has no meaning " -- do they mean that there is no pre-established purpose or goal? Or does it mean that there's no relation to anything outside of life; that what we know is all that is, and thus it doesn't exist within a larger context which would give it meaning? 

Let's take the latter case: the assumption that life is what we experience and know, and that meaning is a relation to some more expansive and inclusive concept. 

A couple of thoughts arise from this: 

Even if there were some larger scheme -- if we were aware of its existence, then it would become part of our lives. Thus, we would inevitably ask: what is the meaning of our life which now includes this larger framework? 

For example, even if God came to me and said "X is the meaning of life," I might ask: "What is the meaning of X?" or "Who made you God? What is the meaning of your existence?" 

If we are working with the assumption that life is defined as what we experience/know (and I am unsure how useful or consistent that definition even is), how could we know if there is anything outside of life? Wouldn't it be impossible to know anything outside of our lives without making it part of our lives? Wouldn't it, therefore, be impossible for there to be a context outside of life that would give meaning to life? 

I guess my point is that, if we accept these arguments -- and these simplistic conceptions of "meaning" and "life" -- there could be no static meaning to life. Because every time we found "meaning," it would be subsumed into "life." 

Of course, there are many other ways in which to conceptualize "meaning" and "life" which could lead to very different implications. Curious if people have thoughts on this. 

(Note: This was just a quick thought I wanted to get down. Later, I went back and did some internet research and found this more comprehensive article about the meaning of the meaning of life.)