Log in

View Full Version : What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?



coberst
04-30-2010, 03:20 PM
What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?

A strange question in one sense but as fundamental a question as one needs to pursue in another sense.

I would say that meaning is an emotion that I recognize when the emotion engendered by an inducer are reflected back to me in the form of feelings.

I go to the theatre so that I can watch a movie while eating my pop-corn. A movie projector projects images on a screen for my entertainment.

When I empathesize with an object, human or otherwise, I am searching for the emotion of ‘meaning’. My effort at empathy may or may not be successful. I internally view an objectification of my emotion if that emotion is triggered, which comes to me as feeling, as those feelings are reflected to me by the object into which I empathesize.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

I would add meaning to this list of emotions.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained’ bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

dizzydoll
05-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Its very difficult to evaluate emotions with the mind, emotions can only be felt and observed but they are as different in all of us as our fingerprints are. Everyones view of emotions will be different so no one philosophy of them can be accepted as the norm.


This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

I would definitely say this sounds right. As I stated on another thread, babies first exposure to the world is emotion through its five senses [probably its 6th sense as well, which is lost when they learn a language]. When baby is born it will feel touch, hear sounds, tastes etc, it will associate feelings to each emotionally.

Baby also hears music when its in the womb and this inevitably produces excellent musicians, this has been proven. Babies feel a passionate emotion especially to classical music in the womb, research also shows that children who study music do better at maths.


This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

I disagree. We can observe feelings in others, for sure. I can see a mothers love for her baby. She will also kill to save her baby.

Emotions and feelings are a very difficult subject to study with the mind, emotions have to be felt and trusted before they can be held as true in each of us.

mike thomas
05-13-2010, 04:59 PM
Old Mean Ing was a tight little prat
he gave not a sausage to his wife's pet cat.

blazeofglory
05-14-2010, 04:31 AM
I in fact do not touch upon any philosophical treatise on this topic nor want to theorize it along any set principles. Meaning is a relative term and there is no meaning in anything other than their impressions or marks on our minds. What is the meaning of life? To realize oneself? Then what is realization? God is the realization we want to have in life and what is god? There emerges a chain of questions interminably, eternally and will be falling into a labyrinth of confusions. Our sages sought it, the meaning of meaning timelessly, and our scientists are uninterested in it. They do not care to answer why we are here and they try to answer how we are here and go anatomically and evolutionally. Scientists know half-truths, and spiritualists also know half-truths. Do they all together can know the complete truth? We cannot say. Then the whole idea of seeking the meaning of meaning is rubbish

Leland Gaunt
05-21-2010, 02:15 AM
I'm confused as to what comes first in your theory, the physical reaction or the emotion? I'd say that meaning isn't itself an emotion, but that we apply meaning to certain, more complex emotional reactions. Emotions are feelings, I don't really see the distinction.

They do not care to answer why we are here
Because that is for the individual to decide. You ascribe your own personal "why" to the world, there is no greater meaning or goal for everyone to try to achieve.

babies first exposure to the world is emotion through its five senses [probably its 6th sense as well, which is lost when they learn a language]. When baby is born it will feel touch, hear sounds, tastes etc, it will associate feelings to each emotionally.

Baby also hears music when its in the womb and this inevitably produces excellent musicians, this has been proven. Babies feel a passionate emotion especially to classical music in the womb, research also shows that children who study music do better at maths.
What study was that?

Dodo25
05-21-2010, 08:37 AM
I recommend the philosopher Daniel Dennett's paper 'The Intentional Stance' and his book 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' where he discusses the evolution of meaning.

Here's a short summary:
In the beginning, there was no meaning. There were physical laws, and matter and energy just behaved according to them. Nothing had a purpose, and nothing had intention.

Then came the birth of meaning: the origin of life. As soon as there were self-replicating structures, one can imagine them having 'interests'. One could define 'replicating quickly and successively' as 'good' and the opposite as 'bad'. Even though it's still only the laws of physics acting on matter, now we have complexes of molecules and atoms that 'belong together' and have 'shared interests'.

The more evolution progressed, the more useful it becomes to talk about life forms as having 'intentions'.

As the reader may notice here, I used a lot of quotation marks because the terms I use are not absolute or 'correct'. They are fiction, metaphores, nonetheless very useful ones, and that's Dennett's point. His view is that we (unconsciously) attribute an 'arrow' of intention to agents, or even objects. We do this because it is useful. It evolved because it saves computing power in the brain.

Some people even think of their computer as having intentions, or 'the rain' being for plants and life and so on.

BasDirks
06-08-2010, 05:26 AM
What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?
[/b]”

Dreyfus has some interesting notes on this in his lectures (see iTunes U) on Heidegger. Can't remember it well enough to have a go at describing it but maybe you find the material helpful.

S.E.Arnold
07-22-2010, 07:47 PM
Meaning is what we are doing when we consider ourselves to be doing something meaningful. That is to say, that humans are agents rather than spectators; we are (to paraphrase Sartre or Merleau–Ponty) “condemned to meaning.” This existential notion means to liberate the cognitivist flies from their reductive psycho-bottles. This is not to say that neuroscience, for example, is meaningless (pointless), but rather that its campaign promise of some day providing a material (chemical, electronic?) answer for why, for example, persons love each other, or not, is just that: a opportunistic piece of emptiness. One wonders at the appeal of this manifestation of materialism? What are folks hoping to find in the cognitive enterprise? And, why are folks willing, freely choosing, to surrender their humanity- their claims to the legitimacy of loving, thinking, remembering, and making moral and aesthetics judgments, etc.- to accept the notion that the “self” is “just” an unhappy indeed unfortunate disturbance of the neurological force.

Nothing grants us meaning, we make it with others for ourselves. Be grateful.

jackgoosey
08-12-2010, 03:57 AM
What is the meaning of ‘meaning’?


Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

blazeofglory
08-12-2010, 05:50 AM
This question is too tricky to answer since this is a philosophical proposition. To demystify it semantically demands of us a great amount of observation. A great Indian philosopher J Krishnamurti has famously said, the description is not the described. And when we say meaning this is a semantically mystifying idea. When we try to define a beautiful woman we do it with a metaphor and even with this we cannot lay bare the real meaning of it. We can be in part capable of describing the essence of it. No analogy, no correlation suffices to define it and all we do is find the near meaning not the exact meaning. I am not a student of philosophy and I am not delineating it using a set of theories or philosophical propositions. All I do is by reflecting it over as a layperson

poetlaureate
08-18-2010, 10:43 AM
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Agree. It could be a mere definition with no emotions attached. Or otherwise, the meaning couldn't be comprehended on surface, whereby, deeply felt by the persons.

litman
08-20-2010, 10:38 PM
"Looking for" meaning, like "truth", is predicated on the assumption that meaning really exists "outside us". The constructivists argue that meaning, like truth and reality and so on, is a mere construction... Discourse, according to Foucault, is what establishes the truth..and by extension meaning.

abdultsitsopoul
08-24-2010, 07:19 PM
meaning without definition? I don't think so.