"My friend and I were having this ridiculous discussion about how nothing matters, while laughing the entire time. We just talked about how nothing really matters. At the end of it, we were both just saying, "dude, I don't want to do anything," "yeah, there's no point." Then he said that he liked me because I know that I don't want to do anything. It's really depressing, but if you argue for it, nothing really matters."


"That's actually very interesting because I was talking with this kid the other day about how one's religious faith in political terms, in political theory, cannot really be resolved. You cannot prove your faith to be true to everyone because you can only prove things to others with rationality. It's not in the same realm. It's between natural reason and supernatural experience. The former cannot explain the latter because they aren't even in the same category. Thus the separation of church and state is one of the best methods of compromise for coexistence. We then also did talk about how amazingly William James 'proves' the real effect that the latter possess nonetheless.

But anyway, it's similar to what you guys discussed. (The naturally existing) Meaning of life is not accessible to rational inquiry. In a way, it makes sense because we are given reason as a result of life. It just came with our brain. So the meaning of life is a concept that includes and presumes the idea of life itself. So not unsurprisingly it is more or less impossible to be garnered through reason that is made accessible to us only after our lives start. Like the religion discussion, meaning of life cannot be deduced with logic."


"The question of 'what is the meaning of life' already presupposes the existence of 'meaning of life'. The right question should be, 'is there a meaning of life, and if so, what is it?' We cannot prove that there is a meaning of life out there, universal or tailored individually. So the discussion of 'what is the meaning of life?' necessarily is possible to be led to the answer that nothing in life matters, because we couldn't prove if it existed or not, even."


"Yes. We can construct the meaning of life with logic. 'Hey, we have these constructed unique human values, and we can uphold and follow them because it feels good when we do it. That should be the meaning of our lives.' But that doesn't have to be. It's a constructed possibility. We cannot deduce anything down to 'thus, the meaning of life is...', or 'the meaning of life exists.' Is that right? Deduce?"


Philosophy empowers as a consolation and as the provider of clarity. I will contend that this is an objective benefit that we get; while I did subjectively choose the answer that provides consolation for me, everyone can do so for themselves too. For discussions on religion, it gives contenders of this debate understand the structural issue, and hence be able to work more efficiently and cooperatively to envision a solution instead of criticizing each other with the old arguments from old issues while no problem is ever solved. The clarity provides understanding. For contemplations on the meaning of life, it safely keeps us from misleading ourselves with the wrong question, ending with an answer that we somehow find flawless yet uncomfortable. Arguing against our existence itself is detrimental.


"Yeah. Wait. No, it cannot be 'reduced' down to that, instead of 'deduced'. It's irreducible."


This knowledge is a consolation for our existence by itself. We might then find much easier to cherish what our existence has allowed us.



Mothagesso.