Is Meaning Objective? or Subjective? Intersubjective?

KazeCraven

KazeCraven

Graduated from Typology : May 2011
Donor
MBTI
IEI
Enneagram
6w5 sp/sx
So then, where do you think meaning comes from?

Does it matter whether people agree that something is meaningful or not? i.e. Is a collective subjective agreement on meaning necessary or does it have to have a basis in objective reality? Conversely, are things meaningful independent of perception by a subject (e.g. no one is around to perceive something that would otherwise be meaningful; is it still meaningful?).

Are we actually even referring to anything when discussing whether something is meaningful? Does meaning really refer to anything specifically? Does it make sense to talk about something being 'more meaningful'? If so, is it because it can be meaningful from multiple perspectives or is it actually because it possesses a larger value of meaning?

Any and all discussions about the nature of meaning also appreciated.

Examples of specific situations include:
-a piece of music
-the act of helping starving children
-the life of a kitten (possibly tragic due to an early death)
 
Meaning comes from a sense of accomplishment

I believe meaning is purely subjective. I think it comes from emotions that arise as a result of accomplishing a task that will bring benefit to the subject or others.

Does it matter whether people agree that something is meaningful or not?
Yes. If people agree that remembering a certain date is meaningful, it becomes a holiday. If people didn't agree that helping the needy is meaningful, we wouldn't have charities.

Is a collective subjective agreement on meaning necessary or does it have to have a basis in objective reality?
It is a collective subjective agreement. Things aren't meaningful in themselves, we give them meaning based on their importance to our survival.

Are things meaningful independent of perception by a subject
I think reality is created due to subject/object interactions. Meaning is like beauty, it is a subjective attribute we give to objects. A flower is not beautiful objectively, a baby is not cute objectively. There is no meaning independent of a subject.

No one is around to perceive something that would otherwise be meaningful; is it still meaningful?

If a tree falls in a forest but no hears it, has it fallen?

Are we actually even referring to anything when discussing whether something is meaningful?
We are referring to the emotion that results from a "meaningful action". When we are asking if something is meaningful, we are really asking if it can provide a sense of accomplishment, progress, etc...

Is it because it can be meaningful from multiple perspectives or is it actually because it possesses a larger value of meaning?
Even that question is subjective. Let us assume a person dies and we ask if his life/death had any meaning. If you are religious and believe in God's will, every action is part of God's plan, therefore it has absolute meaning. If you are a pessimist who believes existence is torture, you will find this person's death meaningful because it prevented many potential births.

Meaning is usually aimed at a goal/ideal. Sustaining life, personal development, justice, ...

A piece of music is meaningful if you find it pleasurable, because you find meaning in pleasure.

Helping starving children is meaningful because it reduces suffering/death and the compassionate nature of the act makes you feel good.

The life of a kitten that dies prematurely. What meaning has it? The question should be what does it mean to someone. What does it mean to the owner of the cat, does it help the cat's owner realize the reality of mortality? Will it depress the person? What about the trees that will benefit from the nitrogen created by the cat's decaying corpse. Was it meaningful to them?
 
certain interpretive approaches neglect glaring contradictions in their approach to explaining or processing information. some meanings are definitely more meaningful than others.
 
i think meaning is a human way of cohesively understanding the relationships between apparently disparate elements.
 
[MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]. Question: which philosopher is known for having the most popular or well known theory of meaning? Is it Wittgenstein? And there's a German word or phrase associated with meaning that i've been trying to remember, and it may be wrong, but it sounds like "Auschwell . . . " thx
 
Anita said:
@Dragon. Question: which philosopher is known for having the most popular or well known theory of meaning? Is it Wittgenstein? And there's a German word or phrase associated with meaning that i've been trying to remember, and it may be wrong, but it sounds like "Auschwell . . . " thx
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wont really know for another year. I have too much on my plate right now to deal with Wittgenstein. I know he is famous for philosophy of language issues, so linguistic meaning perhaps. I know he breaks things down into the smallest meaningful units, but I don't know what he considers to be meaningful.
 
Anita said:
[MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]. Question: which philosopher is known for having the most popular or well known theory of meaning? Is it Wittgenstein? And there's a German word or phrase associated with meaning that i've been trying to remember, and it may be wrong, but it sounds like "Auschwell . . . " thx
Click to expand...

I don't know about most popular, but I can tell you that Wittgenstein's theory of meaning is a "use-theory." He talks a great deal about people using language games, or language as activity. In other words, different words mean different things in different contexts, and you can know how to use words in one context but not really understand their use in another.

He's also well known for his theory of family resemblances, which basically states that things are unified not by having a particular trait in common, but rather by their similarities. Kinda like how we know when a dog is a dog, despite not all dogs having fur or having four legs (maimed dog), etc.
 
The idea of something having meaning is a reflection of what it means to an individual, or a collection of individuals. Though the collection of thoughts may differ, the simple acknowledgment of the "something" gives it meaning.

ex. my brother in laws cat passed away and he was devastated. When discussed among the family, we all had different emotional responses to the event.

Given that the event warranted a conversation, the events and direct and indirect consequences became meaningful. Though the meaning differed amongst individuals.

As for whether something is meaningful independent of being perceived. I would have to say yes. Even if a specific moment is not perceives, the rippling effects at some point will be notices and whether or not traced back to the original source. The source is given meaning through its consequences.

The value of meaning seems to depend on the individual. If more people see it as meaningful, I dont believe it gives it MORE meaning, just more people contemplate its meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top