Without becoming subjective, can one say that self-preservation is more meaningful then self-destruction?

All things being equal? No. There are times when the greatest good can come from self-destruction – see The Wrath of Khan. Self-preservation generally wins, though.

Welcome to Fluther.

I don’t know how to answer your question without being subjective. There’s no way that I can comment on my life’s ‘meaning’ in other than a subjective way. My life has no objective ‘meaning’.

But that brings me to the primary problem with this question, and that is simple comprehension: It’s ironic, but the word ‘meaningful’ is more or less meaningless in this context. What is ‘meaningful-ness’ in terms of a life?

@Nullo wrote, “All things being equal? No. There are times when the greatest good can come from self-destruction – see The Wrath of Khan. Self-preservation generally wins, though.”

That’s still subjective.

@CyanoticWasp wrote, “I don’t know how to answer your question without being subjective. There’s no way that I can comment on my life’s ‘meaning’ in other than a subjective way. My life has no objective ‘meaning’. But that brings me to the primary problem with this question, and that is simple comprehension: It’s ironic, but the word ‘meaningful’ is more or less meaningless in this context.”

You’re only correct if, and only if, no one can answer the question without becoming subjective. If, however, one does answer the question without becoming subjective, you’re incorrect.

@CyanoticWasp wrote, “What is ‘meaningful-ness’ in terms of a life?”

To anything, it doesn’t matter. Take suicide as an example, if that makes it any easier for you.

In strictly objective terms, I think they are equally meaningless. They have only the meaning with which someone invests them, and that is necessarily subjective.

@grasp Have you seen Wrath of Khan? There’s nothing subjective about the idea that good came from sacrifice. It was entirely logical, which is why Spock did it. “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.”

@incendiary_dan wrote, “Have you seen Wrath of Khan? There’s nothing subjective about the idea that good came from sacrifice. It was entirely logical, which is why Spock did it. “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.”

In the Wrath of Khan, you’re defining what you think is good and bad, but good and bad is subjective. You’re emphasizing meaningfulness of good over bad but you’re doing so, subjectively. I can say killing is good, can you tell me I’m wrong without being subjective?

@grasp If you are interested in wordplay then continue your dalliance with @CyanoticWasp (though I don’t think he’s listening anymore). If not, I believe @Jeruba has answered your question as best it can be answered.

How can a question about meaningfullness, the meaningfullness of individual acts be answered without resorting to subjectivity?

BTW, welcome to fluther.

@lillycoyote wrote “If you are interested in wordplay then continue your dalliance with @CyanoticWasp. If not, I believe @Jeruba has answered your question as best it can be answered.”

Define what you mean by “word play”. @Jeruba repeated what the other fluthers said, (which is no, you can’t give meaning to one over another without becoming subjective) accept that she just clarified a point that both actions are meaningless until one gives it meaning. I didn’t put this point in the description because I assumed it was a given.

I’m looking for an answer that can allow one to say that self-preservation is more meaningful then self-destruction without becoming subjective while doing so. The answers I got so far, were no.

You don’t need to rewrite when it’s right there! Welcome to Fluther.

@grasp It is my contention that there is an objective standard of Good and Evil by which our actions may be judged.

If it is objectivity that you want, I shall try to oblige.
Objectively, it takes more energy to be than not to be. Therefore, self-preservation has more to it than self-destruction. Placed within a context, there is more meaning to life – you must actively support a life if it is to keep on living – than there is in a death, which requires nothing to achieve.

Placing the comma where you did shifts the attention from subjectivity/objectivity to self-preservation/self-destruction. Perhaps “Can one say that self-preservation is more meaningful then self-destruction without being subjective?” would have worked better.

You are asking for a value judgment (“Which is more meaningful”) right after telling us that you want us to be objective. I believe that this is what they call ‘self-contradiction.’

@grasp, your question was “Without becoming subjective, can one say that self-preservation is more meaningful then self-destruction?”

and you responded to me:

”@Jeruba repeated what the other fluthers said, (which is no, you can’t give meaning to one over another without becoming subjective)”

So, since you asked a yes or no question, to clarify, I am solidly in the “no” camp; no, you cannot, without becoming subjective, say that self-preservation is more meaningful than self-destruction.”

So, again, to clarify, my answer to the question you actually asked is a resounding no.

@Nullo wrote, “You are asking for a value judgment (“Which is more meaningful”) right after telling us that you want us to be objective. I believe that this is what they call ‘self-contradiction.’”

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that life becomes more meaningful because of the amount of energy it takes to sustain it? This is a subjective answer. I would say that the fact that you need to put in effort is brutal and depressing and thus, death would be more meaningful since you’re relieving yourself from effort in exchange for effortlessness. Now, my answer was subjective.You find meaning in effort, I find meaning in effortlessness, both answers are subjective. The question is not contradictory and here is why. The only way you can answer this question without becoming subjective, is by providing an universal justice that justifies self-preservation over self-destruction, and as far as I know, this universal justice may, or may not exist. Therefore, as it is of right now, all meanings of life are subjective. In fact, I would go even further, and say that all subjective meanings are equally meaningless, since this ultimate justice is not currently present. Well, that’s basically what my question is trying to find.

It’s too late at night for this question for my brain.

Well… This is a load of horse shit.

@Arbornaut wrote, “Well… This is a load of horse shit.”

A simple yes or no would of sufficed, but thank you for your inebriating in-depth analysis.

@grasp No worries, its my pleasure.

@Arbornaut I found your in-depth analysis intoxicating as well. :-)

@grasp Aside from the persistent, nearly Zen contradiction, if we were going to assign meaning to something (one of the apparent objectives of your exercise) then there would have to be a something there in which we might find meaning. Self-preservation is active – there is a something. Self-destruction is, in and of itself, passive – there is nothing there that we could say has meaning.
That is, if we strip the conditions of all context. If you ask me, that is no way to treat a nice scenario.

A simple yes or no, which you ask of @Arbornaut, is impossible. Your primary condition is that we remain objective. Then you ask us to compare abstract concepts so that we may judge one as being more meaningful than the other. An abstract concept only has meaning when left in a context – an inherently subjective matrix.
I think. It’s 3 in the morning and that technobabble made it to the screen waaaaay too easily.

@Nullo,

How can you tell me you know what death is without ever experiencing it? That’s a subjective answer. You’re making yourself a meaning of what death means to you. Perhaps death is more active then self-preservation. Who says the mind doesn’t live on? Perhaps truth is in death? See? Your answers still have subjective justifications. This is why I said that the only way to answer this question, is with a universal justice that justifies one over another. Only with an ultimate purpose could you avoid becoming subjective. Without this ultimate, all meanings are subjective, and all subjective meanings are meaningless. If all is meaningless, then so is truth. My subjectivity vs yours.

@grasp I’m talking about effort. You need resources to self-preserve, you need food and water and air and a suitable climate to live in. Self-destruction requires only that you stop maintaining one or more of those essentials, and pop! That’s it.

I think that you need to ask yourself what it is that you are asking, and then think of another way that you could ask it.

@Nullo,

So, you’re saying that since self-destruction is effortless, it has no meaning, and since self-preservation has effort, it has meaning.

Answer this then; Is having a will to self-destruct, not a meaning?

“Without this ultimate, all meanings are subjective,...”

There is no ultimate, in my opinion. All meanings are subjective

”...and all subjective meanings are meaningless.”

Why? Subjective meanings, by definition, have meaning to ther subject formulating the meaning

self-preservation = self-destruction (via nietzsche)

If self preservation trumped subconscious death wishes people would not drink, smoke and eat Whoppers, engage in destructive relationships, speed, use drugs or ignore their bodies.

Sure, ones natural self preservation instincts will kick in if being chased by a bear, but otherwise, just look around for that answer. lol

@meiosis wrote, “There is no ultimate, in my opinion. All meanings are subjective.”

There is no way of saying that ultimate exists or not because there simply isn’t any justification to go by. Although, there are proposals. See here. Ray Kurzweil or Information Theory etc…

@meiosis wrote, _Why? Subjective meanings, by definition, have meaning to ther subject formulating the meaning.”

Right, all subjective meanings still have a meaning, but rationally thinking, if all subjective meanings are subjective, and there is a lack of an ultimate truth at the moment, then the opposite of truth is what? Falsehood. Thus, although all subjective meanings are subjectively meaningful, they’re on a rational level, all equally meaningless (false).

@grasp You need to decide whether or not you want context.

@Nullo,

Give me two examples. One with context, and one without. Do so without becoming subjective in either.

So, you’re saying that since self-destruction is effortless, it has no meaning, and since self-preservation has effort, it has meaning.

In a wholly abstract setting, yes. Read up on Aristotle. I don’t know that he addresses this particular issue, but he will get you in the mood to think of just how much nothing nothing actually is when dealing with abstract concepts. Or am I thinking of Plato? Eh, they’re both good.

You cannot have context and objectivity, not when you’re dealing with abstracts. The context is undefined, so purple cow if you want to have it, you’re going to have to generate it. Generation – even observation in the day to day – is going to insert subjectivity.

In context, however, we might have the scenario from my very first post:self-destruction to ensure the preservation of others. In Spock’s case, not entering the heavily irradiated room would have resulted in everybody on the ship – including himself – dying. Had he done nothing, his death would, from the audience’s POV, have been meaningless, a mere trick by the wacky arts crowd to make the viewers feel hollow. But instead, his death meant the lives of hundreds of other people, and a satisfied (though saddened) audience.

@Nullo, wrote, “I’m talking about effort. You need resources to self-preserve, you need food and water and air and a suitable climate to live in. Self-destruction requires only that you stop maintaining one or more of those essentials, and pop! That’s it.”

In order to stop maintaining one or more of those essentials, does it not require effort also? Ever try starving yourself? In fact, trying to stop a biological mechanism requires more effort then self-preservation, especially when resources are available. So, self-preservation, and self-destruction, in a wholly abstract setting, are both meaningful(both active).

@grasp No, not really. Say you lock someone in a room without food or water for a month. Zero effort on the victim’s part, since there is no food, and no water to be had. Self-preservation will cause the body to turn on itself, to be sure, but once it has exhausted its reserves, the end is the same.

Your setting is not wholly abstract, because you are suggesting that a person is pitting his will to self-destruct against his body’s drive to keep the wheels turning.

Again, I urge you to find different words to ask the same question, ones that will thoroughly convey your meaning. If you are referring to conflicting drives, and not abstract concepts, you’ll save yourself a lot of grief by saying so at the outset.

@Nullo,

Definition of Abstract: Consider a concept without thinking of a specific example; consider abstractly or theoretically

First of all, your example takes away choice. Secondly, your example isn’t wholly abstract either since it’s giving a specific example.

I would answer that both are meaningful. How? Elegance. This would be a wholly abstract answer.

Definition of Concept: an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances

This would be more in line with your specific example.

@Nullo,

What if I ask like this. Is there a universal objective truth that tells us self-preservation is the correct path to take rather then self-destruction(wrong path)?

@grasp My example was there to show you how effortless self-destruction can be, necessitating clarity on your part.

“Is there a universal objective truth that tells us self-preservation is the correct path to take rather then self-destruction (wrong path)?”
Thank you. No, there is not.