My entire second grade year was spent with my nose against the brick wall during recess. "She scores so well, but she can not finish her work. Her nose is always pressed against the window," my teacher said.

One of the great loves of my life said he could no longer ride in a car with me. "Your nose is always pressed against the glass," he said. "What could you looking at?" And she answered, "I'm not looking; I'm thinking." He asked, "About what," and she said, "it would be rude to bring you into a conversation that began in second grade and is not yet finished. Too much back story," she said.

Today I've been thinking about this monitor and my nose pressed against it, and the choice I made about the time #8 was born, to pry my nose off the glass. I would live lightly, I said. And so Miss Ive was born. And I do live lightly. So I am not able to comment here, in any 'real' way. Check back in 2024.

But I must say this, something I've been chewing on since the farming talk, I think nothing is sweeter than a well thought 'thing' that is chiseled into 'life' by action. You press your nose up against the glass, you chew, you digest, and then, with surgical urgency, you use a scalpel to lay it on the hard ground and see if it has legs. Often, it seems people do only one or the other.

In graduate school, my professors often said, "Marx has not been disproved. Lenin did not apply it successfully." And so I asked, "What does that say about the theory?"

And now I am off for a snack and some levity. Look forward to hearing from those of you who can dig deeper than this.

We are free to choose from the options presented to us.

Sometimes the options are limited by our experience, our genetics.....but choose we must.  We are free to be who we want to be and do what we want to do.  The consequences are the consequences and we must take responsibility for our choices and the consequences.

Life may well be meaningless and without any purpose (except some blind evolutionary purpose). Life may be absurd.  There is an anxiety and dread at the ultimate end of life. We have to give a meaning and a pupose to our own lives. We must have freedom to choose and responsibility for the consequences of those choices.  That is my view of existentialism.

We have free will within the context of the choices we have.  The more experience, the more knowledge, the more choices we have.  (And I'm not talking about the choices at the supermarket but the choices to be individuals and to be authentic.)

I would probably identify myself as an Existentialist, philosophically. However, in the face of the absurdity and apparent meaninglessness of life, I have chosen to find my own meaning, my own purpose. If I don't then someone else will choose my meaning and purpose for me.  Then I would not have free will.  Would I be responsible for my actions if someone else chooses for me?  Good question.  Without free will, would I even be a person?

Whether you're religious or secular you have the freedom to choose. You also have the right to change your mind when the circumstances present new choices.

I am what I would call a late bloomer in the discovery of how pleasant it can be to allow myself to merely focus on being in, experiencing, and often enjoying; "the now". Having said that, I am more than content to simply follow the thread of our Sunday virtual town hall meeting and conclude that the meaning of life is ........ drum roll .......... tah-dah!.... Baseball, without the designated hitter rule of course.

Other than that, I would again defer to "Deep Thought", the computer from Douglas Adam's "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" which was charged with answering this most important question of all questions, the ULTIMATE QUESTION of "Life, the Universe and Everything?" After seven and a half million years of calculating and thinking about this question, the answer is of course, 42.

Well, now that this has been solved, ...... well at least to my satisfaction it has been solved; I need to take this heady discussion down a tick and point out that I believe the actual Popeye quote is "I yam what I yam" (and can it be merely a coincidence that just a couple of days ago we were discussing Popeye's true love, Olive Oyl. It is all connected.)

I do hope you all have had some serious caffeine before reading this.

To: PeterLake, 

I'm sipping on my first cup of caffeine, I do believe that today, I will need two....

It's only Monday. Setting the bar a little high, are we not ? i don't even know where I last left my existential hat, much less if it still fits me. Nevertheless I shall seek it out. Return i shall.

I agree that this subject requires mutiple shots of caffeine this early in the morning!  However, my two cent addition is very simple.  Our philisophical attitudes throughout our lives are based on our experiences and the choices we make. Our decisions are not without consequence or stress. Some call it free will...others call it existentialism.  I make it much simpler...it's called living!  Face it we are all responsible for our own beliefs,choices, and actions.  What is so philosophical about that?  With this said, I am going back to Starbucks for a second venti skinny vanillla latte!

This morning, bolstered by caffeine and tobacco, I'd like to add that the notion that I am me feels like a pebble in my shoe.

I for one think there should be "Existential" Monday. We might have started it already. A national holiday free from the constraints of toil. Since Mondays are essentially useless anyway. What better use of it than to spend a few moments asking what it all means.

The cocktail hour would have to be moved up a few hours naturally.

I like what John Gay, who wrote the "Beggar's Opera," had on his tombstone: Life is a jest, and all things show it, I thought so once, and now I know it. 

That takes care of life... next?

OK ... . . let's talk baseball again. As ExPat has said, and I agree; we must have a level of free will to truly exist (let's narrow this down to sentient beings because I think flora and fauna operate under their own set of rules), to make choices and to be accountable for those choices. Depending on those consequences, our free will may or may not recalibrate itself to that same situation so that our choices provide us with better consequences. That's baseball in a peanut shell.

I think that this applies to every action, non-action, and reaction. The only wild card in the deck I think, is karma, and in some ways, basic instinct (see animals). I previously said (see above), that I desire to live more "in the now", "in the moment". That's all well and good, but it doesn't give me a "get out of jail free" card if those pesky consequences are not suitable.

As far as "what's next", "the great unknown" after we pass on from this life; I prefer to think that it must be pretty spectacular and therefore kept as a secret from us ‘cos if we knew how great it was, we'd all be in a hurry to get there which would pretty much render "being in the now", impossible.

I believe that I will now choose to put my brain in idle, drink espresso, feed the birds, and check in often to enjoy and learn from what all you fine folks have to say on this subject.

or in the words of the greatest philosopher of all time, Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry".

The problem with DesCartes' quote that forms the title of today's discussion is that it fails to acknowledge the duty of thought.  We owe it to ourselves to think and to do so clearly.  DesCarte before De Horse:  I am, therefore I will think!

Whenever an existentialist asks if life has any meaning, my first reaction is to ask, "Whose life?"  My life has tremendous meaning.  So, I hope, does yours.  Kierkegaard contends that man does not exist as an individual.  If he were to ask me, "Do I truly exist?" I might answer "Who wants to know?"

But the stickiest of this deeply illogical and offensive bunch of pseudo-philosophers who would seek to reduce me to an irrelevant member of a species is Sartre.  He contends that I am only relevant if I do something relevant.  At the outset, that sounds reasonable.  Until we start to perform the moral duty we owe ourselves and think about the statement.  Relevant to what?  Relevant to whom?  And who are you, Messieur Sartre, to decide what and who is relevant and what is not?

These issues have been on my mind a lot lately as I have just recently finished reading Camus' "The Stranger" for the first time.  In it, his hero often uses the phrase "it doesn't matter anyway".  And, clearly, Camus intends us to share this vision.  He misses the deep hypocrisy of a man who spent a huge amount of time and sweat writing a book, and prompted many readers to spend enormous amounts of money covering all that ink, paper, binding material, and publishing costs, all for something that "doesn't matter anyway".  If he truly believed his own philosophy, he would never have gone to so much trouble.

And that is where I am led on the subject.  You cannot be both an Objectivist and an Existentialist.  And I find Objectivism far more palatable and infinitely more probable.  Objectivism, which upholds the inherent value of the individual and begins with the phrase "existence exists", holds true to certain non-contradictory fundamentals that Existentialism seeks to violate and refute.  The proof of a theory or a statement is built, not on the number of people who believe it, but rather on the inability to avoid embracing it even in one's attempts to refute it.

If I were to contend that the universe was designed by green gremlins, you would not need to acknowledge (or even mention) green gremlins in order to disprove the hypothesis.  However, if I were to claim there was no such thing as the Law of Identity, the statement would be self-contradictory because I have already embraced the Law of Identity simply by making the statement.  After all, I have meant the statement to be what it is and mean what it means and not the exact opposite thereof.

When an Existentialist claims that life is meaningless and without purpose, they reveal their own insicerity.  If they truly believed the statement, they would never have wasted the effort of making it.

Existentialism, like life itself, goes through phases. For the young it is a way of questioning adulthood and making sense of its potential monotony. As one ages death takes center stage and the need to validate a life mostly already lived. Wow, heavy. 

And I run toward Rilke--

"Die Rose, mit ohne Warum,

Sie bluhet weil sie bluhet."

("The rose without reason blooms because she blooms . . .")

I never said life was meaningless or didn't have purpose, I said it might not have meaning or purpose. Therefore, I'm free to choose how I will live.   I choose to live a life based on being rational. Individuality, free enterprise, democracy, and reason appear to be valid choices.  Anything less is, quite frankly just that, less.

There is a dark side to what we choose when we become so sure of our beliefs that we impose them on others.  Religious fanatics, cult followers and government lackeys come to mind.

Now, since we're talking coffee and Starbuck's:  I am, therefore I will drink coffee (especially a tall decaf coffee of the day!)

To: missive,

Yesterday you asked whether 2 hours of sleep was enough.....actually that's way too much sleep.  Money never sleeps, therefore, I only take naps. Remember that old saying: "he who snoozes, looses".  (Enjoy your coffee)

Okay, remember when I said I had PROMISED myself I would not 'go here' today? Am very late for a three-martini lunch date. And who am I meeting? I just told you—three martinis.

Such great irony that I seemed to be arguing that theories are meaningless to me unless they can be PROVED by successful APPLICATION, and then I said I did not THINK it prudent to explore this topic and maintain my happily superficial existence, simultaneously, and now I'm back to PROVE that my theory has no legs.

Have the following argument with myself all morning:

The Port side of my brain is linearly and logically arguing that theories that can not be layed on the ground, or proved, mean nothing. I am very discerning, after all. I know so few philosophers. And the ones I do 'know' have very contradictory actions and words. One exception—Derrida. His words, his writings follow his theories about language in FORM as well as thought. He will use crazy, unintelligible sentences claiming that words strung together in just the right way can break through to people, and then he'll stop you dead on the page and say, Are you still with me? Stay with me. And I fall in love with him. He puts his money where is mouth is.

And then there's my Starboard half. And she is making me 'imagine' (because that is her weapon of choice) the doubting Thomas. And, who thinks he comes off looking good in that story? "You want me to follow you, show me the holes, Mister." In his best Cuba Gooding Jr. voice, he is jumping up and down like a petulant child and shouting, "SHOW ME THE HOLES."

I guess I like the argument. Who really wants the answer? My corpus collosum has just had a hell of a work out. Worked up a fine sweat. Off for martinis, all.

Best.

Absolutely lovely, JillyBean. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

"life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it."  - Neil Gaiman

About Kierkegaard ~ Just read an article a few weeks ago about Denmark being the happiest place to live. Begining to think he would beg to differ with that assesment.

I think the band Floggin Molly has it pretty well summed up in ther song Float also ~ See the Lyrics Here ~  http://www.metrolyrics.com/float-lyrics-flogging-molly.html 

Other than that I'm with JillyBean.  I completely agree that in this world "to do your best from moment to moment" Isn't it the truth that in no matter what circumstances your in it just really comes down to "all you can do to survive & be in the moment?" 

Geez!  You guys are so pessimistic!  I am not going to quote philosophers here and get myself into a durge of retorical ideas.  I consider myself an existentialist.  But I am thrilled by the prospect.  "I think therefore I am" is really exciting!  I get to choose who I am!  Along with this I definitely must take responsibility for my actions, but it also gives me the freedom to figure out just who "I am" is.. or something like that.  You get the idea.  And that doesn't have to be someone who leads or becomes well known for some great scientific breakthrough, it simply has to be something that is fulfilling to your own personal soul.  Something that will make us wholey content and satisfied with what we have become at the end of the journey.  You may call it simply trying to figure out just what to major in in college, or facing a mid-life crisis by completely changing direction, but the search should be invigorating, challenging...fun!  I was fortunate to find out what I wanted to do with my life at age 9, and our son at age 4 (!). Yes, four.  And he firmly believes that he was put on this earth to do what he is attempting to do.  And he is 38.  I made great inroads in my carreer and am now thoroughly enjoying a second, quite different endevor.  And have had so much fun doing both.  I feel that the time given me by whatever or whomever controlls that, and it is unimportant to me just what/who that is, has not been spent in vain.  I have worked hard not to waste it.  So.  Yes, I feel we are put upon this earth and left to figure out for ourselves just why.  But figureing that out is the exciting challenge we should all work hard to fulfill.  

No fancy philosophical retoric, just plane common sense.  Go for the gusto!  Figure out who YOU are and charge into the frey!  With optimism!  And a sense of responsibility for those decissions you make along the way.

My formerly homeless friend with a beautiful mind often discusses such matters online.
Love is life, or some such.
This quote of his seems somewhat relevant [if less "put together" than his usual rants].

"You make your own decisions and, despite the influences (who? (what? (why??))), you are responsible for your actions and their outcomes and repercussions. AND THAT IS SUCH A BEAUTIFUL THING! You're your own God, man. You even have control of your perception and can harness the ability to hone that into whatever you wish it to be. The complex binary algorithms (0101010101101110100111110000101) that, supposedly, make up every single atom of this universe can, if you choose, turn into whatever perceptive/perspective pattern (or lack thereof) that you will them to. Your eyes are your nose is a butterfly with an accordian.
Absurdism? Open your miiiiiiiind.
'Leave the true genius in his padded cell.'
OPINION+MAJORITY=FACT
I'm making my own heaven on this Earth. I don't know why you're all dying to get to yours.
Stressed, scatter-brained, and annoyed at your ignorance to the specificity of reality,
The Natural Tailor of My Natural Joy."

To:  Mr. Peterman,

I was jesting about sleep.  As I get older I've found I need more sleep but the sleep must be quality sleep. I try to fit the productivity into the hours I have rather than make the hours fit the productivity.

Believe it or not, I don't feel driven to the point that I must work every hour I'm awake. I always take the time for friends, art, music, a good book, or working on a tan. I just want my competitors to think I nap....keeps them guessing.

It's sort of existential:  "they are, therefore they guess".

Thanks so much for this site....having an intelligent conversation with intelligent people is refreshing.

Or is that "They guess, therefore they is"?

Spinner and ExPat,

You know (I hope) that I hold you both in the utmost respect so I am quite contrite if I have made my point so poorly as to bring about personal offense.  I did not mean to suggest that ExPat had declared life meaningless but, rather, that the founders of Existentialist philosophy had done so.  They would claim that ExPat is not capable of making the very choices he has made.  They would say, in so many words, that you cannot find meaning for your own life if there simply is no meaning to be found.  By the same token, Spinner -- states in her wonderfully life-affirming post -- that she considers herself an Existentialist.  I suspect that Sartre and Camus would seriously disagree.  Please don't misunderstand me.  The fact that you are both as different from Sartre and Camus as a person can be only heightens my admiration of you and my disregard for them.

ExPat is quite right when he voices his contempt for those who would impose their dogma upon others.  Yet, when Kierkegaard and his ilk claim that life has no meaning and that you only exist as an irrelevant cog in a wheel, there is virtually no freedom from this imposition.  This is precisely why the individual is so sacred.  Because only an individual can  "choose who I am" as Spinner so poetically put it.  But that idea (with which I thoroughly agree) is not remotely consistent with Existentialism.  If the founders of the philosophy could hear such uplifting consequential optimism coming from a self-avowed Existentialist, they would spin in their graves as they so richly deserve to do.

Anyway, I hope I have done a better job of presenting my case and haven't dug an even deeper hole than before.  The two of you are extremely valuable contributors to this forum, commentators of great consequence, meaning, and relevance.  So says this individual.

Hey!  If we choose to look for meaning in life and find it, cool.  To bad if others look around, give up, and don't seem to even try.  That's their problem.  And remember, they have to live with their choices.  I feel that I am an Existentialist because I do try to take seriously the ramifications of my actions and feel that I, and only I, can decide who I am.  There is no clock-work god or fate or karma that is deciding for me.  I am me.  I am on my own.  An awsome responsibility, but one that I take joy in plunging into.

So, I guess this means that ExPat and I now go skipping off into the sunset with the bluebirds whistling and the flowers bursting with blossoms.  And I love it!  I just hope LaDonna doesn't mind... I would have to face up to any ire she may feel.

Miss Ive is TIRED. Mr. Peterman has pushed my brain further than it was willing to go. And I am grateful. I have returned tonight to try and chew through some of these thoughtful posts, and perhaps become less jaded in the process, but my eyes are closing on this Eye. So Mr. Peterman and ExPat have proved the theory in favor of more than two hours per night. At least we can put one thing to rest. Make that two.

Goodnight, friends.

Post script. Is it too late to request the topic of 'pancakes' for morning?

I've just had the best time reading this post and all the responses. At risk of trivializing everything,  maybe we can hum a few bars of life is just a bowl of cherries, together. And then, if anyone knows what it means, please explain.

I would like to apologize in advance for taking this heady discussion from the high road you all have been traveling today, down at least two levels socially and morally to the alleys of the south-side of Chicago, most probably behind one of the bars on 79th Street, where I believe it was that I overheard my first quotable statement regarding the meaning of life on one of my "being out after the street lights were on" forays around the neighborhood.

Mind you now, this wasn't a discussion amongst the aforementioned "guys with the beards and the girls with short-cropped hair, who sat until the wee small hours in coffee shops, discussing the meaningless of life". It was an attempt at communication between two inebriated bar patrons who were probably looking for the restroom but ended up out in the alley, laughing until it had to hurt when one said to the other "life is a !*it sandwich, the more bread ($) you got, the less !*it you have to eat". Not the most appealing metaphor about choices and consequences, but it does contain some truth.

Gia,

Splendid idea, let's all hum it.  As far as the meaning of it, if it puts a smile on your face and makes you fell better; then it just doesn't matter.

I think, therefore I am. I think.

I think the more appropriate existentialist way of putting that 'I think therefore I am' saying would be more like 'I am, therefore I am.'

Or, 'I am, and there is nothing more than me, and besides, what is there that vindicates my reason to be? Ah, why? I am.'