Life has no meaning.

----------------------- The Meaning Of Life ----------------------- http://www.youtube.com... Given the definitions, namely life - that of an individual, one can word the resolution to be more accurately: Individual life has meaning. Though Con, he has surprisingly chosen Nietzsche for his champion of this idea, surprising because a more than cursory reading will show that Nietzsche was not at all opposed to life having meaning (just from a particular source). Nietzsche I will deal with last, since it is of lesser import than the meta theme of the debate itself; whether an individual life can have meaning. At its most basic, a secular view (no argument from me on that particular Nietzschian point), is that life is an end to itself. What this implies is that meaning does not come from any greater source than one's own life itself. No deification of the Mother/Father land is needed no greater service to humanity, society etc., simply, that meaning is derived from individual existence. By the simple decision to continue one's life (and hence even if only vaguely implicit in one's mind - it is a value) one is in a process of life. Yes it may seem a simple statement, but corollary to such and of import is that your life is of content, and the content is what gives your life meaning - meaning which is connected with those things we find intrinsically satisfying and not simply means to an end. Those things that make your life worth living to you, purposeful, give it meaning. Since we are talking about individual lives here, it really is as simple a concept as that. Nietzsche correctly condemned notions of the afterlife as sole prerequisites for giving life meaning (life as a process towards 'something else after'), preferring the existential notion of life as is when alive. Of course not all things give equal meaning, some have more value than others, there will exist a hierarchy within which 'things I value and give me satisfaction' shall be arrayed, a hierarchy of 'this provides benefit and happiness', none of which would be possible without first that recognition that life itself is a prerequisite. Indeed even though a secular notion, it does not deny the religious meaning in their pursuits in that regard. Though we may consider it immoral, or simply unnecessary, it does not preclude it from providing meaning itself. Nietzsche condemned traditional religious values as outdated and unnecessary yes, and it is it is a stance of a particular ethical nature. Condemnation of it however does not remove it as source of meaning (merely the meaning is constrained within the life of the person itself). Misguided yes, certainly arguable as immoral depending on your particular ethical position, however that does not equal making it *meaningless* to an *individual* who derives value and happiness from its pursuit. ------------ Nietzsche ------------ Quick overview and argument from your Nietzsche quotes. How any of them relate to the lack of meaning of life I'm not sure, since you don't create a coherent argument in that regards, simply 'religion is unnecessary' variety which is insufficient. Magic circle stuff I won't touch till you can source it coherently within either, Nietzsche's writings or in the context of this debate. It's certainly not something I've come across in his readings, and the only apparent reference to it I can find is from a blog about a WoW book. http://epicdolls.com... The idea that Nietzsche expects us to transform is a flawed interpretation, one aided by your use of quote mining out of context, or more correctly only in part from, The Gay Science. The full quote in context runs like this: "...human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who create themselves. To that end [of creating ourselves] we must become the best learners and discoverers of everything that is lawful and necessary in the world: we must become physicists in order to be creators in this sense while hitherto all valuations and ideals have been based on ignorance of physics . Therefore: long live physics!" Nietzsche was a Determinist; physics and science was his way to gain insight into correct action (by knowing the correct values and actions that hopefully science will provide answers for. Even if the specifics were unknown the patterns revealed through science were to be guides to action). The ï¿½bermensch follows from this. Zarathustra has no need for other worldly values (affirmation of the existential atheist stance of life is living on earth). Hence science, the practical nature of the modern, the living, and of Earth, was his key to action. Your notion of man to become art is again a flawed interpretation. It's a sample of his solution to a lawless morality (the need for a standard, cf. beyond good and evil) and again relates to his denial of the transcendent. For Nietzsche aesthetics provides the *standard* to judge one's actions, one does not literally become art, it provides the means to give meaning to one's actions and their source whether impulses, drives etc., and this aesthetic norm is the role of the acting ï¿½bermensch. [1][2][3][4] [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] Thus Spoke Zarathustra [4] The Gay Science