Skip to main content

Hope and The Meaning of Life

What is the meaning of life?  I can't interpret this question.  I understand that it's abstract.  Its answer, if it has one, is probably abstract, too.  But I don't think it's posed well enough to encourage good thinking about a genuine answer.  It seems to presuppose that there is something that life means.  Furthermore, there is feeling tied up in this question.  That there may be no meaning to life seems to some hopeless.  Is it implicit in the question that any answer must pertain to hope?  I don't myself see the connection between hope and the meaning of life.

Where does hope come from?  Honestly I'm not sure what hope definitely is.  I know what it's like to hope for something.  Sometimes I will act to increase my chances of getting what I hope for. But I can act independently of hope. Even when it's not realistic to hope for a particular thing I can hope for something else.  And I can hope for something without considering what the meaning of life might be.  

So what's actually happening here?  People are speaking metaphorically.  They can't really think that trying is futile if life is meaningless.  That's non sequitur.  I don't know for sure but I suspect that in implying a connection between unhappiness and the meaning of life entire they are simply trying to describe some big sorrow.  

I have been deeply sad before.  I've seen the space in which one might declare that the meaninglessness of life is related to the vanity of all ambition and the inevitability of ultimate failure.  But I emerged from that place having seen something different: that on a long enough timeline everything is futile and that whether I judge that good, bad, or otherwise has no bearing on its truth or how I proceed from it.  And that I may as well persist without hope because there truly is none if I don't. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Man Is Not Great: The Evolution of Anthropocentrism

Why do humans care whether their species is special? Why are they so invested in their specialness that they're uncomfortable with the idea that they aren't? Why is it a bitter pill to swallow that humans aren't uniquely important in the universe, that they aren't the intended end of evolution, and that their wondrous and diverse subjective experiences emerge from the same physical processes observable in "lower" animals? I think that the maladaptive human tendency to insist upon their specialness in the universe is an extension of an adaptive tendency to self-advocate in their tribes. Consider fear. The predisposition to turn around when you feel like something might be behind you is likely to save you when there really is something there. Most of the time, when you can't help but turn around on the dark basement steps, there's no threat. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s better to turn unnecessarily than to do nothing in a moment of danger. That...
Post a Comment
Read more

Threat and Opportunity

Humans see everything as either a threat or an opportunity. These are the only classifications they have. A threat could be a corporal threat, like a violent person, or it could be a threat to their attention, like a boring person or a waste of time.   You're not in control of whether something looks like a threat or an opportunity. You can certainly apply control to turn one into the other, but your first impressions of anything are unconscious. I'm a waste of time. There's nothing to be gained from socializing with me because I'm profoundly socially impaired. I have no status and no way to earn status, so I'm a threat to attention. People who choose to pay attention to me find the endeavor prohibitively expensive of their energy. Attending to me is necessarily a struggle against the Darwinian impulse to conserve energy.  We can call this a rejection response.   I've said that humans naturally have a psychological allergy to me, but that's not a good...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Save the World

The following isn't related to autism.  It's an edited transcript of my side of a conversation with an AI.  I'm including it here because I think it's important. It should be pretty easy to arrive at the notion that, if we want to minimize our environmental impact, we should look back at a time when we were making a minimal impact and return to that. But that is not a suggestion anyone is making, and I don't think it's a suggestion anyone is likely to make, wherever these conversations are being had.  The conversation about conservation always begins with the tacit question, "How can we continue breeding unchecked forever, and how can we continue to deplete natural resources indefinitely?"  If you start from the idea that what we are doing now must not be impacted by whatever solution we come up with, then you're not going to come up with a good solution. This issue seems complex.  I don't think it's actually complex at all, however. I thin...
Post a Comment
Read more