[emrah]

The meaning of life, the universe, and everything is 42. This is a well-known fact.

Don't panic.

[zibber]

ps.

The term "objective" only has meaning subjectively.

Meaning is necessarily subjective.

Put that in your fuckin' pipe and smoke it.

[Hiro]

True objectivity doesn't exist, only subjectivity. Therefore, life can not have objective meaning. You can optimize subjective objectivity within a subjective frame, but you can never reach true objectivity. Nor is there any reason to think objective reality exists. It's just a helpful assumption.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Hiro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can optimize subjective objectivity within a subjective frame

Dear me
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Polymath20]

Saying something like "Life has meaning" is like saying "apples are calculators".

[Aphoria]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	ps. The term "objective" only has meaning subjectively. Meaning is necessarily subjective. Put that in your fuckin' pipe and smoke it.

Aye, I agree that objective has only meaning subjectively in certain context. I don’t think meaning can exist objectively unless we postulate God, who supervises meaning and grants an access to it for all of us. Other than that best we can do is to discuss intersubjective meaning and subjective meaning.

But i also think we have to be careful with term "subjective" here as well. If we assume that meaning is brought us by language or created in the use of language (which seems to be the case,see for instance: Wittgenstein, Philosophical investigations) then we are not able to create language games where meaning would be solely meaning for me (and as such, completely subjective). We need others (and other words established in other context by others etc...) in order to have weight (the meaning so to speak) for the words and concepts, for the so called "subjective meanings"( I guess there is still room of “selection of meanings”). Anyhow, subjective (in a strickt sense) meaning seems to be impossible.
That being said, there is neither objective nor subjective meaning for life, but intersubjective meanings.

[emrah]

	Originally Posted by Aphoria
	I don’t think meaning can exist objectively unless we postulate God, who supervises meaning and grants an access to it for all of us.

Even if you postulate god, that doesn't make meaning objective. You just get a dictator who imposes his subjective meaning onto others.

Originally Posted by Aphoria

But i also think we have to be careful with term "subjective" here as well. If we assume that meaning is brought us by language or created in the use of language (which seems to be the case,see for instance: Wittgenstein, Philosophical investigations) then we are not able to create language games where meaning would be solely meaning for me (and as such, completely subjective). We need others (and other words established in other context by others etc...) in order to have weight (the meaning so to speak) for the words and concepts, for the so called "subjective meanings"( I guess there is still room of “selection of meanings”). Anyhow, subjective (in a strickt sense) meaning seems to be impossible. That being said, there is neither objective nor subjective meaning for life, but intersubjective meanings.

As you said, there is a correlation between subjective meaning of words in different subjects. That correlation makes the language game possible, and any other communication between subjects. I wonder how this translates to meaning of life?

[Aphoria]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't grasp the distinction you try to make with 'intersubjective'. Does this term equate to 'shared' ?

It does I think. But shared by being restricted to group of individuals who use the same vocabolary under same conditions. For instance there is a term in Finnish, "vahingonilo", which refers to the feeling one gets when he is happy about someone elses misfortune. This term also exist in Dutch, but does not exist in English. This Vahingonilo then has intersubjective meaning to Finns for instance (note: this meaning is most likely not the same the Dutch assign to their "corresponding" term). In this sense it is not shared with everyone ( as I think translation leaves something always out or can even be misleading, so when I described the term here in English its still is not quite the same).

So even if we would agree that the shared, objective meaning of life is "vahingonilo", it still would not be objective meaning of life (here we would need the God to "fix" the concepts and ideas, as he does according to Malebranche and Descartes). On the other hand, "vahingonilo" as a meaning of life would not be compleatly subjective neither, as it would have similar meaning for certain restricted group of people (and it could have a bit less similar and less defined meaning for a larger group of people and so on, like a spiral which keeps expanding and loosening).

I chose the word intersubjective because I think it brings out better the dependancy relation between the words or concepts and the subjects than shared does. This is to say that every word, concept, and meaning is alive. It changes with subjects, almots in organic manner (there can brought more connotation and references in, some share those some not). Thus the intersubjectivity refers to the contribution every subject brings in to this "game", and to the way subject is entangled with the game.

And maybe most importantly, the idea is that there is no meaning outside this game. Thus there is nothing to "share", unless there is subjects participating to the language game. Thus, while share seems to refer to something which is shared, intersubjectivity seeks to stress the fact that without subjects there is nothing to share.

But I have to admit, as english is not my first language, I might be wrong while assigning certain criteria and connotations to "shared" and to "intersubjective". (should it be spelled inter-subjective by the way?)

---------- Post added 12-28-2011 at 01:27 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by emrah To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even if you postulate god, that doesn't make meaning objective. You just get a dictator who imposes his subjective meaning onto others.

Well if we assume that God is God who created it all, then you also get objective meaning of life, because the idea of meaning and the idea of objectivity is as it is set by God, and cannot be any other way... So I guess this depends on the concept of God one has.

	As you said, there is a correlation between subjective meaning of words in different subjects. That correlation makes the language game possible, and any other communication between subjects. I wonder how this translates to meaning of life

It translates in the way I decsribed in the above post with the vahingonilo.

The meaning cannot be objective, as we never will know what is the objective referance behind that which we name to be the meaning.

Moreover, meaning, and meaning of life, is intersubjective in this sense as it is dependent of web of meanings. I could say meaning of my life is "jhhjbbp", but it would make no sense to me unless I would translate it to some language I know (and that language has been learned from others, thus is not compleatly subjective).

I was making more of an analytical point about the notorious nature of the concept "meaning", and I am somewhat willing to go beyond this and discuss meaning of life in a more existential sense. I just needed to lie down my premises before doing that.

And yes, I do think language dictates us quite a lot.

[Disillusioned]

Originally Posted by Aphoria To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Aye, I agree that objective has only meaning subjectively in certain context. I don’t think meaning can exist objectively unless we postulate God, who supervises meaning and grants an access to it for all of us. Other than that best we can do is to discuss intersubjective meaning and subjective meaning. But i also think we have to be careful with term "subjective" here as well. If we assume that meaning is brought us by language or created in the use of language (which seems to be the case,see for instance: Wittgenstein, Philosophical investigations) then we are not able to create language games where meaning would be solely meaning for me (and as such, completely subjective). We need others (and other words established in other context by others etc...) in order to have weight (the meaning so to speak) for the words and concepts, for the so called "subjective meanings"( I guess there is still room of “selection of meanings”). Anyhow, subjective (in a strickt sense) meaning seems to be impossible. That being said, there is neither objective nor subjective meaning for life, but intersubjective meanings.

I see where Aphoria is going with this and I half agree with you. In the existential nihilism thread another member had an incorrect grasp of what nihilism was (and made up their own definition) so then I presented the actual definition.

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm getting my definitions from Wikipedia and the works of the actual philosophers themselves (being Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus). Where are you getting your definitions from?

He responded

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you have to ask. --My meanings are subjective. now i'm going back to bed.

Definitions in this way can't be subjective because words have an established meaning. So the definition of nihilism, to use your terminology, would be intersubjective. We both have to be talking about the same thing in order to carry on a 'meaningful' discussion. It goes to this idea that if someone is on trial for murder they can't say "well, my definition of murder isn't 'intentionally killing an innocent person' but rather it is a kind of fish native to the north Atlantic. So you see judge, I couldn't have 'committed murder' because murder isn't even a verb."

That would not fly because murder, in fact, has an established definition and thus has a specific meaning that is commonly recognized by society. So in that sense language is necessarily intersubjective or else it would not be language. Though I disagree with your claim that there can't be purely subjective meaning. There is purely subjective meaning anywhere where the commonly held definition leaves room for interpretation.

A dispute like this arose in a thread a while back about virginity. The OP asked if you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal a virgin? People had different opinions on it, some thought yes and some thought no. And both are technically subjectively right because the definition of virginity does not speculate. But then people started saying things like, 'I believe kissing constitutes loss of virginity, or having impure thoughts about someone' well, you can think that but you are wrong because that's NOT what it actually is. A virgin is someone who hasn't had sex, now how you define sex is subjective within the commonly understood framework. So this is what constitutes how two people can have different subjective opinions of what constitutes sex and neither one be wrong.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by zeroz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. In my opinion, technically anything sexual besides a simple kiss on the cheek or the lips is losing your "virginity" (yes, I "feel" that even French kissing is sexual). Now hugging, I am not so sure (e.g two individuals rubbing and caressing each other in "sexual" ways). It really is a complicated word to define and I can see how it can be defined in less or more restrictive ways. What's with all this 'kissing means losing your virginity' talk? Virgin = Someone who has not yet had sex Yes, there is dispute over what technically counts as sex (i.e. whether oral sex is actually an act of sex which qualifies as losing ones virginity etc.) but kissing, hugging, snuggling, spooning, holding hands, making eye contact etc. are not acts of sex at all so despite what your own opinion might be these are all actions outside of what qualifies as losing ones virginity. There are people with extremely conservative views of what virginity entails and people with extremely lax views but they still need to be within the confines of what virginity actually represents - a denotation of someone's experience with sex or rather lack there of; it is a term meant to represent sexual innocence. No offense to you and your opinion but I don't think anyone would buy your argument that you're not a virgin anymore because you french kissed a girl. If french kissing is the same thing as sex then I've had sex with a lot more girls than I thought. ---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 04:22 PM ----------   Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Losing virginity involves the penetration, no matter how transitory, of one aperture, no matter how transitory. When hugging involves the clasping of one's two hands behind the back of the other, virginity is lost because the other's body is now penetrating the opening formed by the closed circle of chest, arms, and hands. Sexual rubbing is called frottage and rarely involves penetration, which is why it can be performed and completed in the absence of certitude of the frottee that she actually was frotted. Hahaha... that made me laugh To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So take a word like "perfection". The commonly held definition leaves a lot to the subjective opinion of the individual. It's the case of 'some people say "nobody's perfect" other people say "Everyone is perfect"'. Which person is right? They both are because the meaning of perfect is subjective to some degree. Some people look at perfect in an abstract sense meaning something with no flaws. But I think something with no flaws would be boring and thus have a flaw. So I might think someone is perfect because of their flaws. I like those particular flaws and think they add to that persons character in a way that being absent of said flaws would cease to do. That person is "perfect" to me. This would not be incorrect.

People say things all the time like "this is a perfect horse". Does that mean it is objectively a perfect horse, no. Does it mean that it is intersubjectively a perfect horse, no. Other people might not agree that it is a perfect horse. But it may be perfect, given that individuals specifications of what they are looking for.

You see where the distinction is between what meaning is intersubjective and what meaning is subjective? Now take 'the meaning of life' there is no set definition for this, which makes it subjectively up to the individual to decide what meaning to give it and thus this meaning is correct. The idea is that some concepts leave room for subjective interpretation. Our purpose is one of them.

---------- Post added 12-27-2011 at 03:49 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by emrah To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even if you postulate god, that doesn't make meaning objective. You just get a dictator who imposes his subjective meaning onto others.

Well, the way it is understood in existentialism is 'objective between all humans' since existentialism is concerned with the human condition. So in this sense it would be possible to have objective meaning. If some God being created all of us with a single purpose then, even though it may have been subjective to him, it would be objective to humans because it would be the same for all of us. Though existentialists disagree with this concept and hold that existence precedes essence.

[Aphoria]

Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

IPeople say things all the time like "this is a perfect horse". Does that mean it is objectively a perfect horse, no. Does it mean that it is intersubjectively a perfect horse, no. Other people might not agree that it is a perfect horse. But it may be perfect, given that individuals specifications of what they are looking for. You see where the distinction is between what meaning is intersubjective and what meaning is subjective? Now take 'the meaning of life' there is no set definition for this, which makes it subjectively up to the individual to decide what meaning to give it and thus this meaning is correct. The idea is that some concepts leave room for subjective interpretation. Our purpose is one of them.

Yes, I agree that there is certain amount of room in concepts (even if our social surrondings tend to correct us if we use them in non agreed manner).
But I am still not convinded if this leads to subjectivity free from intersubjectivity. Lets say that you define your own perfect horse. You might argue that perfect horse for you means a horse with excellent jumping skills and say, big eyes, while someone else thinks perfect horse is a horse with small eyes and what not. The point is, you still construct your (subjective) definition of the perfect horse with concepts which are intersubjective -jumping skills, big eyes. And these concepts in their turns are intersubjective, refering to other concepts.

What you have is infinite regression of concepts with no "subjective" meaning. Or to be more precise, no meaning at all, because one can never quite grasp the meaning underneath, just the infinite regression.

I am now thinking about this, I have to ask, if meaning can be subjectice in a manner you frase it, can this meaning ever be communicated, or does it loose its spell with the attempt?

[Selene]

Originally Posted by childofprodigy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When people talk about the so called "meaning" of their lives, if one believes it exists at all, they are always talking within a subjective framework....they talk about caring about family, make a difference in the world, worship god, etc etc etc....But these are all subjective...even the religious meanings are subjective (religion by itself is subjective)....the entire phrase "meaning of life" itself has a subjective connotation to it.... Objectively speaking of course, we all just happen to exist....period....there was no grand purpose, there was no master plan, we just happen to live just like any of the other animals......objectively speaking, life is therefore essentially meaningless and pointless....hence people come up with various sorts of "meanings of life" to justify their existence, to make sense of things, and to make themselves feel better while in reality their existence, in the grand scheme of things, is pointless, meaningless, and insignificant Do you agree to this? If not, then what actually is the meaning of life objectively speaking

Deliberator has made a good point on how meaning is in itself subjective. I think meaning is assigned by individuals, it's completely subjected to our perceived realities. I don't think I'll ever agree that life and existence has absolutely no meaning. As for the meaning of life, I'd like to think there are a couple more decades of wisdom required before I can answer it truly. The question is simply too hard to pin at this point.

[Disillusioned]

Originally Posted by Aphoria To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, I agree that there is certain amount of room in concepts (even if our social surrondings tend to correct us if we use them in non agreed manner). But I am still not convinded if this leads to subjectivity free from intersubjectivity. Lets say that you define your own perfect horse. You might argue that perfect horse for you means a horse with excellent jumping skills and say, big eyes, while someone else thinks perfect horse is a horse with small eyes and what not. The point is, you still construct your (subjective) definition of the perfect horse with concepts which are intersubjective -jumping skills, big eyes. And these concepts in their turns are intersubjective, refering to other concepts.

Yes, as I said, language is necessarily intersubjective.

	I am now thinking about this, I have to ask, if meaning can be subjectice in a manner you frase it, can this meaning ever be communicated, or does it loose its spell with the attempt?

Yes, through language.

I'm talking about the intersubjectivity of the individual definition of a word. This definition is expressed though other words with definitions expressed through other words and this makes up the web of intersubjectivity that is language. Concepts are necessarily expressed to others (and often to oneself, as well) through language. Now let's take a step back for a second and look at the intersubjectivity of a single word.

So bachelor for instance means

Bachelor - an unmarried man

The definition of this word is expressed using other words that you must also understand the meaning of but that is not important in the respect I'm referring to. What matters is that this individual word has the commonly understood meaning "an unmarried man". So the meaning of this word is also intersubjective.

Then take a word like purpose. We all know the basic meaning behind the word purpose but when you use the expression 'human purpose' the meaning becomes less clear. The expression 'human purpose' loses its intersubjectivity. The intersubjectivity of "human" and "purpose" are still intact but when used together someone becomes unclear of what you are referring to. Same with the word perfect.

Someone may say "This car is perfect" and another person might respond "How so?". This is because the meaning of the expression is unclear even given that you understand the individual words.

In contrast if you said "That guy is a bachelor" no one would respond "How so?". There is only one way in which a man can be a bachelor. There is more than one way in which something can be perfect or something can have purpose. The meaning of said word or expression is thus not intersubjective and dependent on an agreed upon shared meaning.

You can still of course define your subjective meaning by way of intersubjective language.

You can say 'My meaning and purpose in life is to help others" or "My meaning and purpose in life is to become a great basketball player" then other people will know what your subjective meaning behind the expression is. But they do not know what it is merely by way of an agreed upon definition. Only by way of the subjective definition you present them with. But this is still the true meaning of what you said. This is what I mean by some concepts leave room for subjective interpretation. Our purpose is one of them.

In other words, the subjective meaning we give to our life is the only meaning it has and in fact the actual meaning it has.

[glossophiliac]

I haven't met the 15 post requirement, so I can't vote in this poll yet. BUT...

My answer is an emphatic FALSE. Life has whatever meaning you choose to assign to it. And by that assertion, life has many, many meanings.

[nowt]

Strange. Theistic [xtian] Existentialism/Nihilism gets a pass [as submitted by you, via one of innumerable wiki articles], but any other x-type existentialism/nihilism is dismissed out of hand for being 'incorrectly grasped'--

How do you explain this seeming contradiction?

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the existential nihilism thread another member had an incorrect grasp of what nihilism was (and made up their own definition) so then I presented the actual definition.

[RainingLogic]

Most of you aren't operating at a high enough level to be concerned with such questions.

[JTG]

There is no such thing as "objectively speaking." Any speech comes from a singular person, and any singular person is only capable of speaking from their own (subjective) point of view.

The idea of objectivity is a misnomer; rather than saying "this is objectively true" on an issue, it would be more accurate to say "most people agree" (or "everyone agrees, as far as i'm aware") on it. On an issue such as the meaning of life, there is certainly not enough consensus to even claim widespread agreement, much less objective truth

[RainingLogic]

Ponder whether we even should find consensus or agreement on this. Maybe, in the end...people with an IQ of say under 100 should just be happy running on treadmills to charge up my car battery.

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by glossophiliac To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I haven't met the 15 post requirement, so I can't vote in this poll yet. BUT... My answer is an emphatic FALSE. Life has whatever meaning you choose to assign to it. And by that assertion, life has many, many meanings.

Then shouldn't you answer TRUE to the poll question. If life has whatever meaning you choose to assign it then that means life has subjective meaning, not objective meaning. So objectively speaking, life has no meaning.

TRUE, according to your statement.

[Grave]

If life can even possibly be given a meaning due to some science or philosophy it would then be objective, but accepting that life's only meaning can be only a subjective matter would be to disagree with any meaning given that is not a subjective response.

Does life have an objective meaning?
My response to this question is simply that we don't know or can't have any adequate answer on this subject. We have no knowledge of the origins or creation of life and can but only guess at its purpose (which seems to be the reason why it seems as if its meaning is purely subjective). To answer that life's only meaning is what is given to it seems to be an answer from not being entirely sure about its true purpose and furthermore if it even contains one . In supposing that life has only a subjective meaning would be to suppose that it is undetermined and is without a creator and surely even this is beyond our knowledge.

But I think again and suppose that without knowing it should be acceptable that we assume its only purpose is what we grant it.

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then shouldn't you answer TRUE to the poll question. If life has whatever meaning you choose to assign it then that means life has subjective meaning, not objective meaning. So objectively speaking, life has no meaning. TRUE, according to your statement.

Since no one can speak objectively, your statement "objectively speaking, life has no meaning." has no meaning. If we subtract the false part, life has no meaning.

Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is no such thing as "objectively speaking." Any speech comes from a singular person, and any singular person is only capable of speaking from their own (subjective) point of view. The idea of objectivity is a misnomer; rather than saying "this is objectively true" on an issue, it would be more accurate to say "most people agree" (or "everyone agrees, as far as i'm aware") on it. On an issue such as the meaning of life, there is certainly not enough consensus to even claim widespread agreement, much less objective truth

Just saw this. Exactly. Furthermore, on issues such as definition, debating pretentiously on matters of dated philosophy, has no meaning.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There is no actual truth being found, in this way of detached posturing and preaching and convolution. That's just my opinion, obviously? Minus "just". Minus "obviously". I hope. -Minus "That's my opinion"

To further digress, everyone "makes up" definitions, even mighty and popular philosophers. To imply that this is somehow less, is to imply that the thought given is inferior, and the person "making up" the definition is maligned. I'd rather you call me maligned, then say I "can't" "make up" definitions.

[ascii]

I don't really see why there is still an argument here, it seems everyone agrees that life has no objective meaning (and that meaning, in itself, is subjective), but anyone can give it whatever subjective meaning they want.

[Disillusioned]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Since no one can speak objectively, your statement "objectively speaking, life has no meaning." has no meaning.

Yes, I wouldn't have phrased the question that way if I had made the thread, but what I think the OP meant by "objectively speaking" was something like 'on the topic of objectivity' rather than literally "speaking objectively", which makes no sense.

He could have simply said "life has objective meaning. True or False?"

	If we subtract the false part, life has no meaning.

Is that your attempt at an argument for nihilism... cute.

	Just saw this. Exactly. Furthermore, on issues such as definition, debating pretentiously on matters of dated philosophy, has no meaning. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. There is no actual truth being found, in this way of detached posturing and preaching and convolution.

If you consider speculating about the meaning and purpose of life "preachy" and "convoluted", don't even think about going to the Religion sub-forum... talk about preaching.

	To further digress, everyone "makes up" definitions, even mighty and popular philosophers. To imply that this is somehow less, is to imply that the thought given is inferior, and the person "making up" the definition is maligned. I'd rather you call me maligned, then say I "can't" "make up" definitions.

Yes, philosophers often make up definitions and even new words in the context of a paper or particular theory. Though when they do this they specify what they mean by that term as it is being used in that particular context. If you want to use your own definition of a word that differs from the commonly accepted one then you have to explicitly state what your usage of the word entails and that you are using it in a different way than it is normally used, otherwise you are committing the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

---------- Post added 12-28-2011 at 05:05 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by ascii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't really see why there is still an argument here, it seems everyone agrees that life has no objective meaning (and that meaning, in itself, is subjective), but anyone can give it whatever subjective meaning they want.

gecko disagrees with this

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	life has no meaning.

This is the difference between existentialism and nihilism, they both hold that there is no objective meaning to life but existentialists believe that we can give our lives subjective meaning (Life can have meaning, but it is subjective) while nihilists deny that there is even subjective meaning (Life has no meaning). But I agree most people hold the existentialist view.

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, I wouldn't have phrased the question that way if I had made the thread, but what I think the OP meant by "objectively speaking" was something like 'on the topic of objectivity' rather than literally "speaking objectively", which makes no sense.

Speaking objectively is often used to speak of an objective. In the case of this thread, the objective would be, whether or not life has meaning. Again, "on the topic of objectivity", is off-point in this case, as the OP clearly spoke of whether or not "meaning of life" can be called objective, repetitively. The topic of objectivity, would be truth vs falsity, or what is objectivity, or can one be objective, I see none of these being discussed. Not explicitly, though you're welcome to search the thread for implicit evidence.

Oh, and "speaking objectively", makes sense - it's what you try to do constantly. It can be said, "Speaking objectively, life has no meaning." "Objectively speaking, life has no meaning" is what doesn't make sense, because one can't speak objectively. In the first case the phrase can be accepted as turn-of-phrase, in the second, it's overcompensation.

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He could have simply said "life has objective meaning. True or False?"

Yet he didn't, and that fact, despite the added simplicity it would allow your argument, stands.

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is that your attempt at an argument for nihilism... cute.

Is this your attempt at -

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you consider speculating about the meaning and purpose of life "preachy" and "convoluted", don't even think about going to the Religion sub-forum... talk about preaching.

Yet again, you show your incompatibility to accept emotions or opinions as valid input. You refuse to consider that my opinion has any bearing on your convoluted musings that would-be theory. I'll think about going to the Religion sub-forum. You've been going on about subjectivity, yet.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, philosophers often make up definitions and even new words in the context of a paper or particular theory. Though when they do this they specify what they mean by that term as it is being used in that particular context. If you want to use your own definition of a word that differs from the commonly accepted one then you have to explicitly state what your usage of the word entails and that you are using it in a different way than it is normally used, otherwise you are committing the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

*yawn/sigh. My point was, clearly, as you've cross-posted it here, that subjectivity influences both philosophy and those who interpret it, and I see no acknowledged subjectivity from you. To claim that this is not so, by hiding behind definitions, you imagine you're talking about truth when you're not.

According to Wittgenstein philosophical problems arise when language is forced from its proper home into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are removed. He describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice: where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language—the language of the Tractatus—where all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, precisely because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no work at all. Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough ground" of ordinary language in use. Much of the Investigations consists of examples of how the first false steps can be avoided, so that philosophical problems are dissolved, rather than solved: "the clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.

	Originally Posted by Disillusioned To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	gecko disagrees with this This is the difference between existentialism and nihilism, they both hold that there is no objective meaning to life but existentialists believe that we can give our lives subjective meaning (Life can have meaning, but it is subjective) while nihilists deny that there is even subjective meaning (Life has no meaning). But I agree most people hold the existentialist view.

Since we're talking about meaning, all you have to do is say that you've a different meaning, which proves you--
--'ve a different meaning, subjectively. The meaning itself, has zero bearing on the argument; the fact that it is a different meaning, does.

You are now arguing that nihilism is objective for not having other meanings, which you've demonstrated as false.

If you do not yet understand that, perhaps argument's not your thing, for not having other [inter]subjective meanings.

[Bisclavret]

There is no objective answer to this question which can be deduced.

Besides, humans can't escape their own subjectivity, so how are we expected to view the universe objectively?

[thod]

	Though existentialists disagree with this concept and hold that existence precedes essence.

To prove this point, the great king decided to eliminate all circular objects. "Look", said the king, "There are no circular objects in existence, thus I have eliminated the circle". I contend that the concept of the circle exists regardless of the existence of any circular objects. If this were not so, how is it that new circular objects can be created.