/lit/ - Literature

>>13739126
To demonstrate my case in point:
>>13738162
Claims life has no inherent meaning. In other words this anon believe that X observed experiences/facts about this reality has led him to conclude that life only has relative meaning. I would now like to ask, describe a conceptual negation to your premise. Describe a reality that did have inherent meaning and explain to me how that reality differs from this one?
If we were immortal, would our lives have meaning suddenly? We could always ask ourselves what is the point of living eternally.
If there was visible, definitive proof of a benevolent god promising us an eternity in paradise in exchange for us to obey certain laws, would that make life meaningful? We could always ask why does god wish to reward us, is there more to life than just obedience in exchange for paradise?
It's almost as if the concept of 'inherent meaning' is in itself an entirely subjective standard you apply to reality that you yourself have no way to actually grasp, that you have created a metric perpetually out of reach because it is paradoxical and antithetically to sentience and subjectivity. The ability to be subjective necessitates that ability to question, the ability to question means that anything and everything can be questioned ergo you will never have an answer to your question. Could it be that the real issue is attempting to filter the infinite potentialities of existence and thought through a framework designed to solve finite problems (what is the purpose of this gear within this engine) is an impossible operation. Could it be that the answer isn't that life has no meaning but instead that meaning itself is to specific and narrow a concept that to attempt to transpose it to life is like trying to divide a number by zero. That because consciousness is a product of existence it is illogical to attempt to process the sum of existence through the perception of consciousness? Could it be you're just bitter at life?