Teleonomy is the concept that living organisms appear to have goal-directed behaviour because of evolution, not because they were designed with conscious intent.
Psychologically, apparent purpose is sufficient, because all purpose is ultimately apparent. We experience purpose through our minds, so a psychologically real sense of purpose is all that is required for it to be meaningful.
If this is true, then much existential angst stems from demanding something that purpose has never needed to be objectively written into the fabric of the universe. By insisting on an external or cosmic purpose before accepting our own, we feed our angst rather than recognising that the evolved capacity to experience purpose is enough.
When it comes to meaning, I am reminded of a quote from Epicurus. A man who taught us overcome our self made fear and learn to enjoy simple and natural pleasures.
“Nothing is enough to the man for whom enough is too little.”
I don’t know about others, but my constant curiosity about possible cosmic purpose doesn’t produce any angst at all. Just the opposite. It’s how I entertain myself.
But I am grounded in the universe as I experience it. If I took seriously all my raw imaginings… yeah, that could be angst-inducing.
@Johnnywas I probably qualify as an existential nihilist. The idea that there is no intrinsic meaning doesn’t disturb me. I find it an oddly cheerful notion.
I like this. I tend to hold that most matters in philosophy are indeterminable (certainly by me). It may not just be smarts it may be time and disposition too. I have no expertise in quantum physics, Zen, Heidegger or neuroscience, so why would I hold a position on any of them? All I can really do is listen to the stories I can follow and withhold hasty judgment.
We can speak not of an external purpose, but of a universal direction that can be realized with our help. In this way, we see our own purpose as more lofty than the mundane tasks set for the implementation of our own life activities. This elevates us above those who lack the ability to think rationally.
In my case, it’s just a personal stance… not a claim about ultimate truth. I prefer to think there could be some direction. It helps me get up in the mornings.
Why is not sufficient to do what needs to be done to live a happy life and to share some of that happiness with your friends, family and community. Isn’t that what generations of people do and have done. Why do you need to dress it up?
Not to answer for Angel, but I think it’s like asking @Tom_Storm why he feels no need to dress it up.
People are different.
As a humanist/naturalist, I’ve often asked myself why I feel the need to speculate about meaning, but I’m still perplexed about it. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian (who lost Yahweh at about 10 years old.) Maybe Granny planted the God Bug when I was a helpless kid. Or maybe that wouldn’t have mattered. I dunno.
You can ask me rather than state this in third person.
I’m an existential nihilist not a metaphysical nihilist. All it means is I don’t believe in intrinsic or objective meaning outside of contingent human meaning. As I’ve said elsewhere, humans seem hardwired to build meaning.
I’m curious what this question means. What does dress it up refer to?
is’t the whole point of philosophy to examine axioms and values and question choices made by ourselves and generations past? When Socrates says “the unexamined life is not worth living “ I don’t think he was saying we should just accept convention and how things have always been done. Thoughts?
Depending upon how you might elaborate this, it fits with Rorty and less elevated philosophers like Hilary Lawson who reject the idea that philosophy can discover an ultimate reality. They argue that the value of our beliefs lies in how useful they are, not in how closely they mirror the world as it really is.
