Why does life have to have meaning? It's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights nor any other document that trys to set out a path along which we can proceed.

I see people that pursue the answer to the meaning a life having to turn to religion to try to find the solution.

But that doesn't mean the various religions man has created have an answer either. Almost blind faith is needed and requried to be followed to dangle the carrot that after death, the meaning of life will be discovered.

It takes courage to live life and find our own meaning of life as we go through it and have it based on our own awareness and those around us.

Terry Gilliam. I think this guy has titled his book to try & con people who don't pay attention into thinking he's one of the old Pythons writing a comedy book.

Boy, will they be surprised.

It seems fairly evident that essentialism offers dignitary protections not offered by the idea of the infinite manipulability of identities. Since no one really fails to believe in some sort of base line for reality, postmodernism permits the trivialization of identities that often form the basis of a claim to dignity. The power of postmodernism to disrupt, while perhaps useful to challenge oppressive ideologies that assume fixed base lines in race and gender dominance, or in religion, and which impede humanitarian progression, also implies a power to disrespect. Hence, an illusory freedom of all to construct and discard identities becomes a useful mask for business as usual. Re-definitions are progressive when they are discoveries of authenticity, not when they are an expression of inconsequential play or of the power to fool around with meaning, either with a straight face or a leer. Along these lines, Bush discovers no deeper meanings but merely alters and disrupts stable meanings as convenient to his current project or mood. Meantime, basic predominating identities--white, male, rich--remain intact as the real deal.

It's lovely to see a review of Eagleton on Salon (especially after another Paglia essay [sic]). But I second the reader who warned that Eagleton's account of postmodernism is a pomo strawman. I see lots of problems with certain strains of postmodern thought. But it's willfully wrong to argue that pomo thinkers are telling us that things mean whatever you want them to mean. The starting point for almost all postmodern theory is a recognition that language exceeds what you (an individual speaker or writer) means. It's more accurate to say that postmodern thought holds that things *can't ever* mean what you want them to mean (although that distorts a bit, too).

Thanks, Laura Miller, for an interesting discussion of the book.

Let me get this straight - the meaning of life is in intentional codependence? Good. Eagleton can buy my drunk uncle his next bottle.

But it is the old Confucian versus Taoist misunderstanding, in which I'm a fan of the way, and Eagleton seems to place his bets on the inert: You don't get to meaning and purpose by following rules to do good so everyone will do good to you and give you, in your self-hate and ulterior motives, a meaning-and-purpose buzz. No. Instead you, if you want, let go to the way, and in experiencing the fullness of life - there's your meaning and purpose, and the unthinkability of torture - find yourself doing the next right thing, which may or may not redound to you.

The debating society, the college bullshit session path to the meaning of life - old, tired, depressing. Meaningless. Take a walk. Maybe take a hike, but take a walk. Fritz Perls: "Go out of your mind and come to your senses." Want to think better? Stop thinking. Breathe. Et cetera.

Best,

Monty

(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

Straight up this is naked emperor nonsense.

"Oh hats! People aren't wearing enough of them!"

" ... a fact of which I am sure some of my reviewers will point out in any case."

Philosopher = one who seeks the truth, a lover of wisdom. Nuff said.

This is a really good example of why philosophy is the least valuable subject one could immerse oneself. I applaud Eagleton for explaining that mean can have different contexts. My mother, who has a 7th grade education knows that when she enters the kitchen, her dog thinks its going to get some food. The meaning of her entering the kitchen to the dog is food. However, that is not what it means to her. She understands the implications for herself and humanity and hasn't cracked a book since 1979.

To a great extent, semantics is navel gazing. I once spoke to a philosophy professor who tried to explain to me over and over that the word "is" had no inherent meaning. He could not believe that I already understood this, that it required no review of other people's thinking and I replied "so what, language is all we have. All we have is is." He replied 'you don't get it'.

Yes. I probably don't. However, all of the semantical study of the last century cannot tell us why Bush won an election twice in this country, or why we seem to be about to bomb Iran when seemingly even the most evil beings in the universe think its a bad idea. How about focusing some of that genius outside the navel for awhile?

is spiritual transcendence, including the act of seeking same. This is not a cultural construct because so many people seemingly in all places at all times have, in a variety of different ways, engaged in the practice. Neither is it individualistic. Seeking spiritual transcendence can ultimately only be done alone, but the consequences of the practice and the hoped for result redound to the benefit of both the individual and the collective. The person who humbly "and with a contrite heart" seeks transcendence is necessarily the best and most responsible citizen, although not necessarily the most obedient. The individualist is the person who refuses to engage in the discipline of seeking spiritual transcendence (while often and hypocritically proclaiming that there is no meaning to life). Religion is neither necessary nor perhaps even beneficial in this process.