If you develop a dependency for drugs, does that mean that drugs have profound "meaning"? The idea of "meaning" seems to operate at a much deeper level than these superficial behaviors: more at the level of what feels "good" and "bad." I say this because we look at addictive behaviors such drug use as being a problem. The abuser is compelled to engage in their addictive behaviors no matter how bad those behaviors feel, but since they feel bad, we consider them bad and disorders which operate in a very perfunctory way. Being compelled to survive can also be viewed as an addictive behavior; whether or not it ultimately makes you feel better will determine its meaningfulness to you. The despair of existence in a person with suicidal tendencies will override their typical drives and cause them to come to the conclusion that survival is worthless. What I'm really trying to say is that happiness and sadness more consistently describe meaning than behaviors that are merely addictive, but not necessarily "good." When you try to define "meaning" in terms of these behaviors, you run the risk of committing the naturalistic fallacy. If you rely on basic emotions of happiness and sadness, then you don't as these basic emotions are the true arbiters of "meaning."
Yep, but our decisions of what to make of it are primarily determined by our basic feelings of good and bad.
That's only presuming that in all potential contingencies, survival trumps everything else in its profundity. I'd say that's circular reasoning.
Meaningfulness disappears when one dies, not when they give up on survival. A lack of a drive to survive will often times lead to a person's premature death, but death isn't an epiphenomenon of a lack of a drive to survive. A person could be kept alive against their will. In that case, there would be a drive to die altogether and, consequently, a valuing of death. The prospect of death would trump the prospect of survival in its profundity.Eh, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying.
Without survival, there's no happiness or sadness. Without survival, there's no meaning whatsoever. Ultimately, no matter what, survival DOES trump everything else in its profundity - for without survival, nothing else exists.
Yes, but.Eh, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying.
Without survival, there's no happiness or sadness. Without survival, there's no meaning whatsoever. Ultimately, no matter what, survival DOES trump everything else in its profundity - for without survival, nothing else exists.
Well, there are two problems I see with this. First, just because there is a biological drive to something doesn't mean that's meaningful in a philosophical sense. Of course, I don't know that anything is meaningful, and I agree with your statement that we each create our own meaning.
I'm going to change the parameters a little since I can't answer the question. Instead, I'm going to list what I think are the most significant questions within philosophy, in no particular order.
