Kierkegaard quote

[Brandon]

"Whatever can be the meaning of this life? If we divide mankind into two large classes, we can say that one works for a living, the other has no need to. But working for one's living can't be the meaning of life; to suppose that constantly procuring the conditions of life should be the answer to the question of the meaning of what they make possible is a contradiction. Usually the lives of the other class have no meaning either, beyond that of consuming the said conditions. To say that the meaning of life is to die seems again to be a contradiction."

-Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or

Thoughts?

[mburbank]

I think the very idea that life has a 'meaning' is an artificial construct to begin with. Just posing the question is inviting despair.

[El Blanco]

Max, don't you bitch and moan when OaO does this?

[Buggerman]

the meaning to life is to be happy and have lots of friends and money and beer.

[Perndog]

Kierkegaard was a pretty good Christian, wasn't he? For him, there would have to be meaning.

As for my own response to his statement: individuals create their own meaning, and you don't need to bring sociology or class distinctions to the topic. If a guy is obsessed with matchbooks and does nothing but collect them for his entire life and feels a little bit more fulfilled with each one he acquires, then his life is meaningful. Doesn't matter whether he had to work for them or was given them.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Max, don't you bitch and moan when OaO does this?

Fuck you, Blanco. I'm trying to stimulate discussion, not prove how smart I am to everyone.

Originally Posted by Perndog

Kierkegaard was a pretty good Christian, wasn't he? For him, there would have to be meaning.

Kierkegaard was almost certainly bipolar. I don't even think he knew what he believed at all times.

As for my own response to his statement: individuals create their own meaning, and you don't need to bring sociology or class distinctions to the topic. If a guy is obsessed with matchbooks and does nothing but collect them for his entire life and feels a little bit more fulfilled with each one he acquires, then his life is meaningful. Doesn't matter whether he had to work for them or was given them.

Agreed.

[mburbank]

I never 'bitch and moan'. I mock.

It's a question of lattitude. The first few times OAO posted a philisophical query for discussion I either let it go or joined in. I still do, sometimes.

It's when I sense (and it's a judgement call, I admit) that OAO is really much more interested in saying "Look, fellows, oh LOOK at all the smart, smart things I now about! Am I not WONDERFUL?!?" than actually discussing anything that I choose to Mock.

If Brandon decides to start posting tons of these types of questions and ranges all over the map with the only binding thread being the one which says "Smartypants' on it, rest assured, I'll mock him too.

But you know what they say. When the pressure starts cooking, it all boils down to the same fiber.

[The One and Only...]

I don't see the contradiction.

[Pee Wee Herman]

You're a contradiction.

[mburbank]

Smartypants.

[The One and Only...]

"But working for one's living can't be the meaning of life; to suppose that constantly procuring the conditions of life should be the answer to the question of the meaning of what they make possible is a contradiction."

Fallacy #1) This would imply that the lower class does nothing but work.

Fallacy #2) The maintainance of life can be the meaning of life without a contradiction. There is no evidence for a contradiction here.

[theapportioner]

I think what is meant by "contradiction" for Kierkegaard is a bit unclear at first. What is the meaning of this life -- a subjective, personal question -- cannot be answered in terms of an objective teleology. So, an argument can look like this:

P1: "What is the meaning of this life" is a subjective question.
P2: Subjective questions cannot be answered objectively.
Therefore, it is a contradiction to provide an "objective" answer.

I haven't read Either/Or but this would be my interpretation based on some of Kierkegaard's other shit that I've read.

[da blob]

The objective meaning of life is to perpetuate itself. Our questionning for a personnal, subjective meaning of our life is merely a flaw in the evolutionary process.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Fuck you, Blanco. I'm trying to stimulate discussion, not prove how smart I am to everyone.

Thats the same thing OaO says. If you really wanted to stimulate discussion, you would have given an opinion based on the quote.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Thats the same thing OaO says. If you really wanted to stimulate discussion, you would have given an opinion based on the quote.

Mmm-kay, asshole, I'll keep that in mind next time.

[Helm]

As da blob suggests, an objective meaning to life can only be traced in it's biological function and it is not extravagant. Personal, subjective reasons vary.

[theapportioner]

Of course Kierkegaard would reject all these "objective" meanings as absurd. Meaning for him, like faith, is irrational, personal, subjective.

[Helm]

Then he should stop talking in english and give us all a break.

[Brandon]

Do any of you think it's possible for man to be happy without a sense of purpose or meaning in his life?

[theapportioner]

With drugs and prostitutes, yes.

[Helm]

that works if you have a sense of purpose in life also now, doesn't it?