Re: meaning of life (was Re: virus: RE: Why have children?)

David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Thu, 07 Nov 1996 17:52:04 -0700


At 02:21 PM 07/11/96 +0000, Martin Traynor wrote:
>How convenient ;). I would take meaning to be importance or
>significance.
Maybe our definitions are not so different. Consider:

"This X means a lot to me" == "This X is important to me" ==
"This X affects me deeply"

"This is a significant change" == "This change has many effects"

> This would imply that a life can have meaning without
>reference to anything external to itself.

It could using my definition as well. A life can have meaning
by having an effect on itself (which is in fact unavoidable).

>By your definition of meaning, yes. By mine, no.

I didn't say meaningless, I said relatively meaningless. Wouldn't
you agree that the life would be more meaningful if it touched
many other lives? Even assuming your definition of meaning is
different than mine?

--
David McFadzean                 david@lucifer.com
Memetic Engineer                http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
Church of Virus                 http://www.lucifer.com/virus/