[misterjakelee]

Does anything matter?

[Rancid]

Ultimately, no.

However, I guess you can convince yourself that stuff does matter, because well.... what else would you do?

[Zionist Nationalist]

life as it is have no meanings
each person perceive the world differently and we attach meanings to events\things\people but eventually there is no instruction manual for life
only the religious folks think that way

[Pants-of-dog]

Fortunately, life has no meaning except that with which we endow it.

This gives us an amazing freedom. No destinies or prophecies to fulfill.

And it also allows us to choose what meaning we want to instill in our own lives.

[SolarCross]

Fortunately, life has no meaning except that with which we endow it.

This gives us an amazing freedom. No destinies or prophecies to fulfill.

And it also allows us to choose what meaning we want to instill in our own lives.

You have renounced the prog theory of history then?

[Pants-of-dog]

I have no idea what weird strawman you have in mind when you mention that theory.

I probably never believed in it.

[SolarCross]

I have no idea what weird strawman you have in mind when you mention that theory.

I probably never believed in it.

You have never heard of the progressive theory of history or marx's own version of it the "iron laws of history"? Really?

[Pants-of-dog]

You have never heard of the progressive theory of history or marx's own version of it the "iron laws of history"? Really?

I have heard of them. Whether or not I personally believe everything ever said by certains schools of historians is irrelevant.

Descriptions of history are not objective evidence for any inherent value in life. The first is an attempt to see history through the rigourous lens of fact and logic, while the second is a philosophical issue about the whether or not life has any objective meaning.

Do you see how they are different?

[SolarCross]

I have heard of them. Whether or not I personally believe everything ever said by certains schools of historians is irrelevant.

Descriptions of history are not objective evidence for any inherent value in life. The first is an attempt to see history through the rigourous lens of fact and logic, while the second is a philosophical issue about the whether or not life has any objective meaning.

Do you see how they are different?

It actually is relevant to your claim there were "No destinies or prophecies to fulfill" because the prog theories of history are actually not descriptions of history they are prophecies of the future which are only awkwardly justified by a warped and selective reading of pseudo-history. Do you appreaciate that the term "reactionary" is a meaningless term without a prog theory of history? If there is no special destiny then there could not be tardy people failing to "progress" fast enough. Anyone who unironically labels someone a "reactionary" is doing so on the assumption of a prog theory of history. Haven't you done that in the past?

[B0ycey]

The 'Edgy' answer is nothing. But really the correct answer is anything you personally give value to.

[RhetoricThug]

SEX

[Pants-of-dog]

It actually is relevant to your claim there were "No destinies or prophecies to fulfill" because the prog theories of history are actually not descriptions of history they are prophecies of the future which are only awkwardly justified by a warped and selective reading of pseudo-history.

I find this difficult to believe.

Do you think you could provide evidence for this?

Do you appreaciate that the term "reactionary" is a meaningless term without a prog theory of history?

In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favour a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which he or she believes possessed characteristics (economic prosperity, justice, individual ownership, discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.[1]

Political reactionaries are predominantly found on the right-wing of a political spectrum, though left-wing reactionaries exist as well.[2] Reactionary ideologies can also be radical, in the sense of political extremism, in service to re-establishing the status quo ante. In political discourse, being a reactionary is generally regarded as negative; the descriptor "political reactionary" has been adopted by the likes of the Austrian monarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,[3] the Scottish journalist Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie,[4] the Colombian political theologian Nicolás Gómez Dávila, and the American historian John Lukacs.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

This is the definition I use.

It does not require any particular theoretical paradigm in order to be useful or true.

All it needs is for the ideologue to want things to return to how things were before the current “normal”. So, my wish that Canada return all indigenous lands to their previous owners is actually a reactionary belief.

If there is no special destiny then there could not be tardy people failing to "progress" fast enough. Anyone who labels someone a "reactionary" unironically is doing so on the assumption of prog theory of history. Haven't you done that in the past?

Oh, I see the confusion.

You think that I believe that society is destined to become the way I want it, or that there is some sort of purely objective and inexorable path in that direction.

No. If studying history and being an activist and debating has taught me anything, it is that all progress towards my particular ideological goals is gained through hard work, sacrifice, collective action, and a host of other factors.

We are not destined to get there. But if certain conditions continue to hold, it is logical to assume that certain groups within society will react in their own self interest, and that this could cause social change which would be acceptable to Marxists and progressives.

This still has nothing to do with whether or not life has inherent objective meaning. It does not, except those values that we decide to give to life.

But even if life has no inherent objective meaning, people will continue to act in their own self interest and in the interest of their families. That is simple biology.

[Drlee]

Life IS meaning. The entire universe exists for the observation of one being. Even religious people ultimately have to concede this.

The reality of the universe is simply the individual experience of every being that has existed. It changed constantly for them and ended when they did.

How we live our lives and give meaning to that life is also individual but we can band together to agree with one another and fight others who do not agree with us.

As a religious person I put my faith that there is an ultimate meaning of life. I know I can change the lives of others at will. We all can. So what we will those changes to be gives longevity to our beliefs if not meaning.

Some day I will die. Evidence shows that I will not be back to tell you all about what I found out if my faith turns out to be right. So I will tell you now instead.

I see all of the "ultimately life has no meaning" comments here. That is so wrong. Life is ALL meaning. Every day, good bad or ugly, you are living meaning. To try and live otherwise takes meaning from your life not adds meaning to it. Today I am going to a street fair. I will buy something from someone and smile at a few others. All of that gives meaning to their lives. Life is not important. It is all important.

[Pants-of-dog]

I agree with @Drlee and I should clarify that I think lofe has no meaning beyond itself.

But that does not contradict what Drlee has said. Life itself has meaning, and life (we living beings) gives meaning to the universe.

[Rancid]

I see all of the "ultimately life has no meaning" comments here. That is so wrong.

I don't see how this is any more wrong or right than saying life is all meaning.

[Potemkin]

Conan knows what matters in life....

[SolarCross]

Genghis the Libertarian agrees with Conan.

[Potemkin]

Genghis the Libertarian agrees with Conan.

In every generation, and in every culture, there are always some who understand the Great Truth....

[Sivad]

Does anything matter?

Not to the lames. The lames are desperate to convince themselves that nothing ultimately matters because otherwise they'd have to reckon with the brutal reality of their own spiritual impotence. Those that are too weak and pathetic to transmute chaos into truth always have to pretend that there is no such thing as truth in order to avoid existential humiliation. Narcissistic mortification is what drives nihilism.

[RepubliConservative]

Pizza, blow jobs, and football.