the point isn't that none of these activities have objective meaning - nothing does. the point is that NPV didn't choose to find meaning in benching vs. ballet dancing or whatever. he merely discovered his proclivities.NPV wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amIt has been quite easy for me to find / create meaning in solving problems, making satisfying choices, figuring out cool insights, envisioning and willing into existence projects, meaningful relationships, increasing my bench press etc. Even though I also fully understand none of these activities, or anything else in the universe, has any objective meaning. Perhaps something around wiring creates some individual preferences / interests in different domains (or lack thereof) hence some people might have more domains they are excited about and others less.
in fact it seems paradoxical to argue that one has chosen one's wants - according to which preferences were they chosen, then? and who chose those? these types of infinite redirect/first mover questions tell brute that he's not looking for an answer, but for a question.
brute would argue that eudaemonia is a euphemism for "bigger time sink" here. the only sense in which philosophy and coding and dogs and children and family are superior distractions to coffee and opium is that they require more time.NPV wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amYou did however mention at least two more eudaemonic things you found enjoyable - coding and figuring out interesting philosophical insights, and maybe some interesting stories told through books, movies or songs. This is probably what most people would define as meaningful experiences for you - although not in the sense of some objective universal meaning of existence of which there is no evidence.
in fact, pretty much all things that humans typically associate with "meaning" require huge amounts of time. dogs require 5-15 years or so of constant care. children 15-20 at least.
brute's argument therefore isn't that brute is unique in his biological configuration, or immune to meaning - just that he seems aware of the process more than the average human, probably because of his configuration.
brute also doesn't argue that he's somehow superior by not falling into the trap of these distractions. he does, all the time. distractions are fun.
but at the same time, ability to get distracted does not reduce how arbitrary or meaningless anything is, just that the human in question might perceive less meaninglessness than others.
and just like brute doesn't claim moral superiority or desire to "fix" humans with "meaning", he doesn't think that ability to easily get distracted for long periods of time is morally superior or a desirable quality to be instilled into all others. there is no problem, and brute doesn't need to be fixed.
this is definitely true. brute did a personality test once and scored strongly in the class of "enjoys gaining knowledge for its own sake", and he's certainly a contrarian.