Life has no meaning.

"If you wish to view it as " life is an end to itself." I must re argue this. Life is a means to a 'supposed' means. If you go to religion it is a 'means' to an 'end' afterlife. If you look in the manner of Nietzsche you would see that life is a means to a means. Living to living to fullest." Yes life is it own end. What gives meaning from being alive is the content of that life, that things which are meaningful and purposeful. Life is a means to means makes no sense. A means to what? What higher value is meaningful to? Life of course, which is what I stated. Meaning by itself is insufficient, it must have meaning towards, for someone, otherwise it simply has no meaning. Should note that you concede the debate in those sentences too. Perhaps next time if you want to argue religion, phrase it as such. "Perhaps, however, simply because you love something and make it your life's work, I will use baseball, does not make your life have meaning. Allow me to explain, when a player plays from little league all the way to majors he believes that this is what he was meant to do. However when he retires and people begin to forget him with new stars in play how does he feel? He loses that meaning of life he once had. He is not meaningless he has done nothing true to be remembered. However he can overcome this with the Overman idea. He can keep on living enjoying everyday just because he is there." Simply because one individual loses a specific aspect of something that gives them meaning =/= individual life being meaningless. Firstly even if granted in that scenario, he does not deny his life itself has value, hence meaning (no suicide). Secondly a single individual is a poor attempt to garner a meta argument, I can just as easily construct a tale where one has meaning till death. Your resolution was that life (for the individual) has no meaning. Not only are you blatantly contradicting yourself here, you fail to argue away the simplicity of meaningful action, pursuit of value in an individuals life, is what gives that life meaning. "Allow me to give you what you ask about the magic circle..." Link 1: "In this context, Homo Ludens singles out Nietszche's emphasis on competition as a rediscovery of the playful aspects of philosophical competition. " - sole reference. Link 2: No mention of Nietzsche. You have failed to bring that set of paragraphs into any meaningful context either of the debate or Nietzsche. "I did not mean literal art. I meant an art work in life as one is when he dreams. To become that which you always want to be. How you want to look, how smart you are etc. You become this artwork of your imagination and push yourself to it." Life as one when dreaming? You simply list those things one may seek as value, that provide worth and hence possible*meaning*. While it's not Nietzschean in itself (using the word art in relation to action doesn't make it a Nietzsche claim necessarily) it does however go towards my arguments of individual action being able to provide meaning. "I agree with his idea of the Overman who is the ultimate being which transcends normal life and its life values." Again an iffy interpretation. The role of the ï¿½bermensch was not to transcend reality and life but precisely to live amongst it, treating it as the sole domain for values (the meaning of earth). It is in direct contrast to the need for otherworldly values, design, morality etc. The ï¿½bermensch was precisely the counterpoint to religion - life is on earth, living is on earth, value is on earth, meaning is from living. [1] [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... == It seems you are/were unclear about what was up for debate here. Nietzsche wasn't opposed to life having meaning (simply intrinsic transcendental meaning). Maybe next time frame your debates more carefully if anti religion is your purpose. Regards, Puck. :)