[dandelion_lover]

> Ask yourself just what it is you think "meaning" might mean, and why you're so interested in it. What is the actual problem that you're hoping "meaning" will solve?

The actual problem is finding the reason to overcome the life challenges and not giving up, helping other people and not choosing a more simple path by cashing on people. If the meaning is lacking, then the latter are probably the most reasonable behaviours in life, aren't they?

[jfengel]

You don't really need an external arbiter to enforce a "meaning" on living well with other people. Social connections are essential to happiness[1], at least for most people. The number and kind of connections vary, but the "abuse people and grow rich" model doesn't make most people happy.

That may be counterintuitive, but it's a mis-extrapolation from the fact that being poor really sucks. There are diminishing returns. More things are required, which for many people is some kind of connection.

Those connections are not sufficient, even if necessary. One may still want to give up, and there's no easy answer to the nihilist question. All I can offer is to note that you haven't given up already and therefore have some intution that there is some emotional state you might look for -- even though I assert that "meaning" isn't actually it.

[1] I'm actually using "happiness" as a shortcut for some generally positive emotional state, the kind where you don't feel morose and ask plaintively about "the meaningless of life". That state may not actually be "happy". "Satisfied" or "content" may be more accurate, but still incomplete, and "happy" conveys the notion better.

[dandelion_lover]

> That may be counterintuitive, but it's a mis-extrapolation from the fact that being poor really sucks.

I don't think it is so simple. Consider a totalitarian country. The people in the government have no skills which would help them achieve anything in a democratic country, but they are loyal to their leader and therefore are paid very well and do whatever they want. In a world without a meaning, such people chose the best path, because nothing else would make them (and their families) live so well. The oppressed people are suffering and revolting, but the police is also paid well and keeps them from changing the political situation.

In a world without a meaning, the best strategy here would be to join the oppressive government and get the profit, but some people still choose to revolt, even endangering their own lives. Are they stupid? (This is of course just one example of many similar ones).

> All I can offer is to note that you haven't given up already and therefore have some intution that there is some emotional state you might look for -- even though I assert that "meaning" isn't actually it.

Actually, I believe in the meaning of life, see my other post here. I cannot imagine why I would struggle through life otherwise...

[jfengel]

I'm glad you believe in a meaning of life, and it's certainly not my intention to dissuade you. I don't wish to call anybody stupid. I'm offering the OP an alternative approach, on the assumption that they're asking because they've tried and failed to find that meaning themselves.

Any approach that gets you up and out of bed in the morning is a good approach. I'd prefer that it be one that also helps other people get up and out of bed, and I think under most circumstances, those two goals coincide. There are circumstances where they don't, as you outline, and I'm not sure how to advise people in that state. I've found that their mental states are such that they end up asking completely different questions.

The one caution I'd give -- and I apologize that I'm probably reading incorrectly between your lines -- is that if your meaning of life incorporates requiring me to accept your meaning of life, then it may not be working as well for you as you believe. There are other ways to struggle through life and my only concern is to find one that works for each person.