[Kelsoe937]

What all these people have in common is that through undergoing intense suffering, they “woke up.” They stopped taking life, the world, and other people for granted. They gained a massive sense of appreciation for everything — a sense of the preciousness of life, their own bodies, the other people in their lives, and the beauty and wonder of nature. They felt a new sense of connection to other people, to the human race, to the natural world, and even to the universe as a whole. They became less materialistic and more altruistic. Trivial things (like material possessions and career advancement) became more trivial, while important things (like love, creativity, altruism) became much more important. They felt intensely alive, and also that the world itself had become intensely alive. more

[pyrrhos]

However, I take the rather unfashionable view that there is meaning to life. I don’t think we are just ghost-like entities living inside our machine-like bodies with an indifferent machine-like world out there. I don’t think that human life is just a meaningless space between birth and death, for us to spend trying to enjoy ourselves and forgetting the futility of everything. I think that human life and the world mean much more than that. And this is not because I am religious — In fact, I consider myself an atheist.

[jiffy]

It’s important to point out that none of these people were (or became) religious. This wasn't the kind of “born-again” experience that some Christians talk about, although many people did feel as if they had a new kind of identity, even to the point of feeling like they were, as one person put it, a different person living in the same body. It’s also important to point out that the change wasn’t just temporary. In most cases, it remained stable over many years. here

[jorgen]

What is the meaning of life? The question has become a slightly ridiculous cliché, so it’s difficult to answer seriously. In fact, I would guess that many intellectuals and academics would argue that life has no real meaning. According to the conventional scientific view, we human beings are just chemical machines (or “throwaway survival machines,” in the phrase of arch materialist Richard Dawkins) whose only purpose is to survive and reproduce our genes. Otherwise, there isn’t really much of consequence in our lives. We may attempt to create other kinds of meaning — for example, by following a religion, trying to become rich or famous, or trying to make the world a better place — but all we’re really doing is following our genetic and neurological programming. Even our consciousness, the feeling of having experience inside our own heads, may not really exist, or may exist only as a kind of shadow of our brain activity.

[Nefario]

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

[draglin33]

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

[baitzor]

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that doing so requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021). more

[anon8373]

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

[emj]

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

[jhoki]

One part of philosophy of life’s meaning consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people have in mind when they think about the topic or what they mean by talk of “life’s meaning.” For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

[ByteCoin]

11. BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs was created in 1942. There are 42 guests per year. more

[firstgrip]

24. The type 42 vacuum tube was one of the most popular audio output amplifiers of the 1930s. here

[sizewraps]

28. The wonder horse Nijinsky was 42 months old in 1970 when he became the last horse to win the English Triple Crown: the Derby; the 2000 Guineas and the St Leger. [links]

[regina2020]

18. A single Big Mac contains 42 per cent of the recommended daily intake of salt. more

[eche|on]

Your body is a wonder, that flower is a wonder, the planet Earth is a wonder and the stars are wonders. It is possible for you to be fully present in order to be in touch with all the wonders of life. That has the capacity to nourish you, to heal you. By doing so you may deepen your understanding of the mystery of life. But if you live in such a way that brings so much craving, and anger and despair, you will lose yourself.

[alentjack87]

What’s the meaning of life universe and everything? Can you say it one more time? What’s the meaning of life and the universe and everything? When people look at the cosmos look at the planets, look at life in different forms, they ask the question – What is the meaning? Everyone is trying to find the meaning of life. The meaning of life is not something objective or verified but that is our way, to look and to find meaning.

[deadalus]

You will miss the chance in order to be in here, and now in order to be in touch with the wonders of life. To meditate is not only to find a meaning of life but to heal and nourish yourself. Because all of us need nourishment and healing. In the process of nourishing and healing ourselves our understanding of life will deepen. And we can share that with each other. The Buddha did just that. He had a lot to share with us. And his disciples did very much the same.