The "Meaning" Of Life: It's A Trap!

 

Let's start slow... real slow; as one builds pleasure through procrastination. I'm gonna talk about nihilism, sound's oxymoronic I know, but from my prospective we are all respective nihilists; much as the New Atheist movement correctly points out 'we're all atheists, we just go one god further than those who don't' an apt thing to point out. There cannot be such a thing as intrinsic value! No, there cannot be. This in no way destroys the concept of 'value' one can personally value a thing and project one's own feelings/desires upon said thing, but most certainly said thing is divest of such values should the valuer cease to ascribe said properties/traits to said thing.

Without an observer to project meaning, meaning does not exist. This is not controversial, I cannot see how it can be, as we participate in this act daily. Let us think of a basic scenario, one is walking down the street, passing people, one knows none of these people, they therefore have little 'value' on a personal level; what value do they have? They could be mothers, fathers, children, whatever they may be; yet we do not intrinsically ascribe, partially because we do not know, these traits to these strangers. Even 'human worth' is only a thing that can be ascribed to those who believe in such a concept, tigers do not believe in human worth, and so if an individual does not participate in the belief of 'human worth' one cannot argue such an thing is intrinsic.

I have oft come into conflict with individuals who argue that nihilism is inherently destructive, even Fredrick Nietzsche feared the 'potential' of what the realization of nihilism; and so I shall argue. Nihilism can be destructive in the sense that people of lesser intellectual leanings, often Christian apologists who ask "what's to stop me from raping or killing, if there is no absolute moral law" types, can than take the idea of no "intrinsic value" and just run with it to their own selfish ends. However, they will come quickly to realize that not everyone shares their opinion and probably won't do well, just because one is a nihilist doesn't mean that one doesn't create one's values. Nietzsche himself called for a transvaluation of all values, in other words a seeking throughout all of man's human constructed values and seeing which would be worthy in the post Christian society that he foresaw and feared; precisely because he feared those who could not take the truth that no intrinsic meaning existed, we had to make our own meaning and had been doing it all along; now we'd just be conscious of it.

I cannot see why understanding that nothing has any "intrinsic meaning" is destructive, the meaning we as individuals give it should be enough, sure that meaning may mean nothing in the end but by than I'll be dead and won't know that my opinion on the subject is void. As an example, marriage has changes many definitions and thereby meanings over the years/century's and yet it's meaning of one hundred years ago is now different than it is today. Is the definition meaningless now? Or has our culture just changed, for convenience, the properties of marriage to suit our new society; the answer is obvious. However, it would basically make the term 'marriage' in an absolute sense of the word, meaningless. Morality is no exception, what once was 'moral' is now abominable, it was once moral to take slaves, not so any longer. Morality has changed and shifted with humanity as humanity has changed and shifted, this is exactly what Nietzsche wanted people to do, create their own morals, the Ubermench was a person who did this and transcended the old ways of religious dogmatism and inflexible/irrational moral absolutes. Gay's aren't to be stoned, they're to be loved; an exact contradiction in accordance to pious teachings of morality.

Nihilism goes farther though, it applies to our philosophy as well, and forces us to make changes throughout in order shape the future that is to come by being flexible. We will change again, precisely because no 'intrinsic meaning' exists. This does not apply to things like science which are cold calculations in mathematical terms, science describes reality, it gives it no meaning beyond the meaning we give it. Nihilism has destroyed all morals, in the sense that it has shown us that we are morality's maker and enforcer, thereby morality is not 'intrinsic' to the universe, the universe is cruel and unjust unless we bring justice to it; and justice itself only has meaning to those who believe in justice. Over all I would say that humanity's struggle is to understand that all we create has no 'intrinsic' meaning. We can pragmatically 'go along to get along' but in doing so we are accepting the inevitable 'value' changes that take place, so yes, pragmatism can fully remain functional in nihilism.

I still do not understand how nihilism is intrinsically destructive; as nihilism itself argues against intrinsic value judgments in and of themselves. Would this not make nihilism benign, unless of course one values it as destructive. I view myself as a passive nihilist, I in no way work to destroy meaning, lest of course said thing is destructive in it's own right; aka religions/political irrationality. But I cannot see why changing meanings is destructive, unless one argues that the previous meaning was destroyed and thereby said thing 'in idea space' was obliterated. To change does not intrinsically mean to destroy, though one can do such a thing, and yes, destruction is not inherently bad; many things are not worth defending or preserving. Yes, I would agree that all persons struggle with meaning, both collectively and individually, but this is inevitable and part of the very frame of nihilistic thinking, the perpetual flux of definition exemplifies the very argument that nothing has meaning beyond what we ascribe to it.

Why do I delve into this? Is there any value, pun intended, to understanding such a basic concept of the very framework of our societal structure? Of course there is, I wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't. Another example, one with meaning in our own world of value judgments, gender. Yes, the beloved Admiral Ackbar was indeed an apt harbinger for this topic. What about gender roles and descriptions is definitive?

Firstly, gender and sex are often utilized as interchangeable. Example, genitalia is used as a solid descriptor of gender, penis=masculine, vagina=feminine; man wear pants women wear dresses type of over simplified human relational behavior. Why do we do this? Simple, it is a form of social dimorphism, people need to easily identify where the vaginas and penises are hiding; ya know, so they can reproduce. This is a very primitive form of society, it still ascribes 'value' braised solely on what you're packing between your thighs; you're not worth being engaged emotionally or sexually because of the simple fact that you may possess the wrong bits of flesh down below.

Secondly, virginity is still prized for females and seen as a social failure of males; curious as the men must be fucking something in order to lose their virginity and females are seen as strictly off limits, must be fucking other guys, except that too is seen as 'less manly' so probably not. This is a colossal error of societal misguidedness. Again, a primitive hold over from our ancient past, women were valued as property to be traded between males for advantages and business/family endeavors. We place these values and descriptors on our fellows based only on the fact that one has one piece and the other has the opposite; completely arbitrary.

These things have changed, yes of course we have hold overs who wish to reimplement the ways of old, but such persons are viewed as they should be; regressive malcontents. I am certainly not saying that the transgendered movement has been fully embraced, they most certainly face a level of arbitrary discrimination that boggles my mind, but we hopefully shall overcome such non-reasoned behavior as 'It's a trap!' to immediately disregard/sneer at acts of male femininity or the immediate 'butch bull dyke' for a masculine woman. We must recognize, 'value' is arbitrary because it is not intrinsic, we create 'value' and 'meaning' through our own minds; individual, where it starts, and collective, where it ends. Thus, 'being' a woman is no more connected to bearing children as 'being' a man is connected to one's inability to do said act. One can embrace a woman who's womb cannot bear children and call her a woman in as much as he can embrace a woman whose womb can bear children in as much as he can embrace a woman who has, or never had, a womb at all. The act of 'being' a woman often entails more than said individual procreative task.

Now I do understand that I cannot in any way 'intrinsically' ascribe what it is to be a woman or a man, as I have just argued that no intrinsic value can be ascribed to such things. But that is the exact point that I mean to make. If one means to argue that the narrow gender definitions of male and female are the complete totality of what it is to be male or female one would most certainly be hard pressed to defend the changes that have taken place over the countless generations of the human species. Things change ever so, marriage, from polygamy to monogamy; both for different societal reasons, as in the past polygamy allowed for fast breeding that allowed tribes to overtake one another by sheer numbers, and monogamy allowing people to focus on the sharp change from physical survival to economic survival. Of course these things can and have changed, homosexual paring is now protected under the law, and I certainly would not be surprised if polygamy returned; as it was just as arbitrarily banned as gay marriage had been.

The point is, no intrinsic meaning exists and this in no way is some dreaded horror, matter of fact, it actually is a boon to us as a species. Should we recognize that such things are arbitrarily imposed upon us as a society and as individuals, we could be able to shrug off the once ever so 'earth shattering' events of societal change. The reality is that we redefine terms at will throughout our world, I cannot see why this is either 'terrifying' or 'destructive' it is but an aspect of our life, and in reality it is the very basis of pragmatism; for if things were intrinsically valued as a certain thing, one could not pragmatically change anything, as things would be set in stone. Some persons may indeed find this difficult, they may wish for 'absolute meaning' but the truth of the matter is that without a person to give meaning no meaning exists at all; thusly the extinction of humanity would render all human achievements worthless, as no one could give any of them value. I feel that we must accept this variant of nihilism if we are to grow as a species, the statement "there is no intrinsic value" should in no way cause dismay or displeasure; it should just be seen as a descriptor of life itself, as science is. We must move beyond this childish reliance on 'absolute meaning' and grow toward an understanding of life in a much more mature fashion. We are children no more.