Detached9

First off, I've never taken a formal Philosophy class, I'm self-taught on it. I'm trying to think of a way to make the argument that there is no objective meaning to life as a whole. The argument goes something like this:

(1) There is no reason for something to exist rather than nothing to exist, whether it is God or the universe that was the first thing existing.

(2) If there is no reason for something to exist rather than nothing to exist, there is no reason for life to exist rather than not exist.

(3) If there is no reason for life to exist rather than not exist, then life has no objective meaning.

(4) Therefore, it is rational to conclude that there is no objective meaning to life as a whole.

I think my argument sounds like an argument from ignorance in (1), and the argument may be a non-sequitor, but I'm not sure. How can I better word this argument for sake of clarity?

[UPDATE]: A few posts down in this thread I have argued what I have been meaning to argue in an informal manner. Is my new argument flawed?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

MeBeMe

Well, just offhand real quick..

(1) I don't see, even if there was a reason for something existing (or everything existing), how you can go from (1) to your conclusion in (3). So, like you, I think it's a non-sequitor.

(2) How do you intend on actually defending (1)?

(3) You'll have to say what you mean by "objective meaning". That's a loaded term obviously which a lot of people won't understand right away, including me.

(4) Your argument is a modus ponens set up, and it seems to me the only thing you can conclude is the "then" statement of premise (2), since premise (1) affirms the "if" statement of (2), so your conclusion should be: therefore, there is no reason for life to exist rather than not exist. You could modify that and add something saying "if there is no reason for life to exist rather than not exist, then life has no objective meaning", but again, i don't see how that would follow either.

But, maybe i'm wrong...(plus, i'm really tired while i write this...)

Sorry, I just realized you wrote that you didn't take a philosophy class. Modus ponens is just the valid argument form:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore, Q

So, since you assert P as true in premise (1), and in two you set up the conditional that if P is true, then Q is as well, that would lead to your argument being what I have up top, not what you conclude in your conclusion, hence it's a non-sequitor.

I'll try to think of a way to help in the next day...
Have a good one.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: MeBeMe ]</p>

Detached9

How do you intend on actually defending (1)?

I think that (1) may be arguing from ignorance. Maybe if I change it to there is no current reason to believe that the first thing that existed has a reason to exist or not. If you propose that the universe was the first thing to exist, why does it exist? Even if you propose that God was the first thing to exist, why does it exist? Why does anything exist rather than nothing exist? That's what it bottles down to, and that question has never been satisfactorily answered to my current knowledge. I could be wrong though.

You'll have to say what you mean by "objective meaning".

By objective meaning I mean a meaning that is not subject to opinion. Perhaps I should remove the word objective from the argument, so that I am arguing for the absense of meaning to life as a whole, rather than the absense of an objective meaning to life as a whole.

Your argument is a modus ponens set up

I don't have a clue what you are referring to here by modus ponens. I know what a syllogism is, but I'm not sure what modus ponens is.

You could modify that and add something saying "if there is no reason for life to exist rather than not exist, then life has no objective meaning", but again, i don't see how that would follow either.

I think that is what made the argument seem like a non-sequitor. Thanks for the idea, and I see I'll have to argue this one further to arrive at my conclusion. I'll work on it.

Modus ponens is just the valid argument form:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore, Q

Ah, yes, I recall this now. I thought this was the law of detachment? I don't remember the formal logic I learned a few years ago too well.

Thanks for the help, nonetheless.

tronvillain

(1) There is no reason for something to exist rather than nothing to exist, whether it is God or the universe that was the first thing existing.

I don't think this premise can be defended, in that I'm not sure that nothing can be said to exist.

Detached9

I don't think this premise can be defended, in that I'm not sure that nothing can be said to exist.

I think I'm going to have to re-write this entire argument. I'll try again later.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

jpbrooks

First I think you and MeBeMe are correct in saying that it would help to define "meaninhg". But it may not be necessary to remove the term"objective". In fact, doing so would imply that no subjective meaning would be possible either, which could easily be shown to be false by giving life the meaning of your choice.

On the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, I agree with tronvillain, if I am understanding his point correctly. The answer to the "why" question seems to be that a state of absolute nonexistence is impossible because assuming the contrary would be contradictory.
"Absolute nonexistence" cannot be a possible state of affairs because it cannot be a "state of affairs" at all. It would be the absence of a "state of affairs".

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Detached9

I thought up a rather informal way of arguing what I am meaning to argue.

If there is a possible purpose given for life's existence, then what is the purpose of the purpose given? If you keep on asking what is the purpose of that to every answer given, it leads to an infinite regress, whereas the first thing existing serves no purpose; the first thing existing is purposeless. If the purpose of life's existence is given by something which itself doesn't serve a purpose, then life serves no purpose as a whole, for life is serving the purpose of something that is purposeless.

Now how the hell do I make that into a formal argument? Should I add the word objective in there for sake of clarity?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

WJ

I agree it is a fabulous question to try arguing. Perhaps the method of going about it, is the scary part. In other words, how do we logically define our purpose? Or, what is the essence of our purpose in life? Love? Togetherness? Is that logical? If there is some universal truth to that phenomena (the thing called love that drives a sense of purpose) then indeed conscious life is outside the formal domain of logic.

Maybe the conclusion is in fact one out of ingnorance/infinite regress which, as was said, cannot be answered because it's unknown. However, I think the first question could be asked differently, yet might yield the same results: Why do we think that we feel the need to have a purpose in life to begin with (ie, do all people feel the need to have a sense of purpose)?

Of course we don't really know that either Or do we?

Good post!

Walrus <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Detached9

how do we logically define our purpose?

I thought I just argued that there is no purpose to life as a whole, in other words, I can't answer this question, for I don't know.

Some people may argue that our purpose in life is to serve God, but as I argued, what is the purpose to God existing? Someone might argue that the purpose of God existing was to create life so he could watch, but that only begs the question, for it assumes that God already exists. For every purpose given to life as a whole, you can simply ask, "And what is the purpose to that?". You will never reach a conclusion, and you will have to accept that the first thing existing can not serve a purpose.

Let's say that God is the first thing existing. As I have previously argued, the first thing existing must be purposeless. God created the first existing life, and the purpose of life is to serve God by some means. What this means is that life is serving a purposeless being. Can you have a purpose in life by serving a purposeless being?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

snatchbalance

Detached9


Maybe your purpose in life is to define your purpose.

Can this be put into some sort formal logic structure? I don't know. But I would say that it is about as objective of an answer to your question as can be devised.