-1

I am personally quite sure that there is no thing that gives meaning to our lives, there is no physical law that decides whether an action is good or bad and there is no purpose. Believing this seems rational to me, but why?

To start, what do "meaning" and "purpose" even mean? What is the meaning or absence of meaning? What are the arguments for and against any meaning or purpose in life?

Nihilism almost feels a bit like a religion to me. You just believe it or you don't, except that it is a bit more rational to believe. We can't prove that unicorns do not exist, but since there are no records of any, it is reasonable to believe that they don't.

The same applies to meaning. However, if some alien would claim that crocodiles exist (and let's assume crocodiles do not exist where the alien lives), then still the alien would be right, since they do exist here on earth. Maybe unicorns exist on another planet as well. In the set of all possible creatures some do exist.

So in the set of all possible meanings, some might exist as well. So how can Nihilists be so sure that there is no meaning? Not believing in a particular meaning does not imply that there is none. There must be some reason why we exist, not as humans but as matter.

Why do physical laws work in the way they do? There must be a reason. Not a magical one like a god, but a logical one. And this would defy nihilism.

Mark Andrews
  • 6,240
  • 5
  • 22
  • 40
timtam
  • 114
  • 7
  • See Meaning of life – Johannes Jan 11 '22 at 07:44
  • Why do you think that a "belief" must be "rational"? "Nihilism almost feels a bit like a religion to me..."; yes, and religions are not "rational". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 11 '22 at 07:59
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? The meaning of life – tkruse Jan 11 '22 at 10:52
  • You have too many questions, I think you should narrow it down to the main point you want to address. Also try to explain what you have already read and thought about the particular topic you chose to focus on and be explicit about the question, otherwise it can get very opinionated and therefore not fit for this SE. And there are already too many questions about the meaning of life around here... –  Feb 16 '23 at 16:00

2 Answers2

2

There must be some reason why we exist, not as humans but as matter. Why do physical laws work in the way they do? There must be a reason.

This is not a question nor a logical argument, it is known as the Argument from incredulity fallacy. So it's a well known logic mistake to make the claim that you made above.

tkruse
  • 3,787
  • 7
  • 21
  • Argumentative fallacies are usually not "logic mistakes" in the sense of formal fallacies where someone is clearly using an incorrect logical inference rule, rather they can usually be stated in terms of premises that others disagree with (for example, an implicit premise in an argument from authority could be 'if authority X says something is wrong, it very likely is'). Certainly there have been plenty of philosophers who endorse the premise of the "principle of sufficient reason" which is one way of interpreting the OP's quoted statement. – Hypnosifl Jan 11 '22 at 18:00
  • I believe the principle of sufficient reason is a "law of thought" that is not applicable to questions about the meaning of life or the origin of the universe, but rather limited to practical matters, where it is justified by things being known to have reasons. It's a remedy for superstition, believing that sin causes disease or ghosts haunting places. So even if that were to be taken as the OPs statements justification, I'd call that an argument from incredulity. – tkruse Jan 12 '22 at 01:09
  • 1
    See the SEP article on the principle of sufficient reason here, many philosophers such as Spinoza and Leibniz have treated it as having far more broad applicability than just practical matters, some considering it to apply to every truth about the universe whatsoever. Of course this is just a postulate or intuition, but the claim that this broad version of the PSR is false is equally just a postulate or intuition--if you confidently claim it's wrong I could accuse you of an argument from incredulity! – Hypnosifl Jan 12 '22 at 01:18
1

Most of your question hangs on treating meaning as an external thing that is backed by a transcendental status of correctness. Meaning is derived from the internal. It's a choice to pursue something that you deem as worthy of pursuit, emphasis on "pursuit" (meaning is found in striving towards, so by definition it has to target something that isn't immediately attainable). With this definition, you can dispense with the question of whether something is objectively good or bad, since this is a question that you only need to answer if you think that meaning is based on an objective good or bad.

Primordial_Hamster
  • 11
  • 1