Existential Pie, Subjectivism, and Meaning · 7:55pm Nov 11th, 2013
As a few of you may have guessed, given that only a few of you read it, the most recent story I uploaded, Existential Pie, was a thinly-veiled argument for subjective existentialism. In it, Pinkie Pie asserts that life is not meaningless, but that it is as meaningful as you make it. When a stallion questions his purpose in life, Pinkie tells him that he needs to “listen to his heart”, or in other words, life is what you make of it. His purpose, as he found out, was to love and be with Charm, the mare who shows up at the end. And while that’s a good purpose to have, as I think love for others is a generally good purpose, it may not be right for everyone, which is why Pinkie didn’t tell him what his purpose was so much as lead him in the right direction. She argued that only he could really understand what was best for himself.
BEHOLD, THE FACE OF SUBJECTIVISM!
Now, if it wasn’t clear already, Pinkie Pie is basically me, at least as far as she’s using my argument, and the stallion, Star, is you guys, the audience. This is my argument to you in favor of subjectivism, an argument that my friend, Kierkegaard (not the philosopher, just a guy using his name), ironically, was not satisfied by. After exchanging a few PMs, he eventually told me this:
Here's the thing though, [subjectivism]’s just not satisfying at all.
Followed by a long explanation of why that is, from which I will pull quotes occasionally. But the point is that he finds subjectivism to be unsatisfying. Before I go any further, I should probably give a brief explanation of what subjectivism is in case you don’t know or aren’t clear. Subjectivism, in a nutshell, is the idea that our own mental activity is the only fact of our experience, or in other words, everything’s up to you to decide upon. Your life, your purpose, your friends, your enemies, the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the people you meet, even the type of socks you wear are all up to you to decide upon. You want your purpose, or goal, in life to be to stand on the Moon? Sure, you’re free to do that. You want your purpose to be being a great father? Absolutely, go for it. Subjectivism doesn’t so much say that there is no meaning to life as it says there are limitless meanings you can apply to your life.
Think of it this way. Remember when Apple Bloom was all depressed because she didn’t have her cutie mark yet? Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon rub it in her face that she’s a “blank flank”, and that’s when Sweetie Belle and Scootaloo appear. They tell Apple Bloom not having a cutie mark is a good thing because it means she can be whatever she wants, that she’s not tied down to something. THAT’S subjective existentialism. Apple Bloom may not have a cutie mark right now, but that doesn’t mean that her life is meaningless. Rather, it’s the exact opposite. It means that there’s a literal world of possibilities open to her. She can be anything she wants to be, just as you can be anything you want to be.
Theirs are the butts of freedom.
Kierkegaard, later in the PM, argued basically what I just argued in the above paragraphs, though in a different way.
Subjectivism says that life is a game where you get to make up all the rules yourself as you go. But how could anyone ever be satisfied by a game like that?
The problem with this argument is that it simplifies subjectivism to such an extent that it loses meaning. Subjectivism does not say life is a game, nor have I ever said that myself. Life is not a game, and even if it were, regardless of the existence of subjectivism, rules can, have, and always will be subject to change. But that’s beside the point. The point, in fact, is that life is not so simple that it can be labeled as a “game”, just as religion is not so simple that it can be labeled “fairy tales”. To go back to my own story, Pinkie tells Star that, while the process as a whole may be complicated (in this case the process being baking), the actual elements of that process in and of themselves are not. So it is with life. Life is many things, beautiful, complex, mysterious, subtle, but it is not simple. However, I would argue that our purpose, being one element of life, in it is.
Anyway, let’s look at another quote:
It could well be that meaninglessness really is the state of man's life in the universe, and that self-generated meaning is the best palliative available. But if so, that fucking sucks. It is not even close to as good as things would be if man's life had an objective, intelligible meaning. It is not deep or poignant. It is saying that we are hopeless and so we might as well drug ourselves with whatever stupid ideas we want to because we're all going to die anyway. That's where subjectivism leads.
Ah yes, the “meaningless” argument that I worked to dispel in previous paragraphs. Kierkegaard argues that subjectivism says that our lives are meaningless and so we must kid ourselves into believing that they have meaning so that we don’t feel depressed by how sad our lives are. While I’m tempted to say he’s completely full of shit, I do see where he’s coming from. See, according to Kierkegaard (again, the irony of guy using that as his username and arguing against subjectivism, is not lost on me) life is meaningless, insofar as subjectivism is concerned, but again, I’d argue that that is far from the truth. Kierkegaard, without going into his personal life, is devoutly Catholic, which is fine, but it means that he derives all meaning in his life from God. This is why I believe that he cannot believe that it’s possible to have meaning without objective truth. To him, being able to create your own meaning is akin to having no meaning since there was none to begin with, but to me, the lack of an objective meaning is nothing short of existential freedom. I have the power and the ability to be whatever I want to be and have whatever purpose I want. I’m not tied down to one thing, like serving God faithfully, I can literally choose whatever I want.
Now, Kierkegaard would, and did, argue that this means we are “hopeless” and that we are only lying to ourselves to make it feel like our lives have meaning when they really don’t. To that I say, are you not the one making it seem as though life is meaningless? You’re telling me that whatever meaning I’ve ascribed to my life is meaningless because it wasn’t an objective meaning, it was one that I came up with myself. But why is that my own self-generated purpose is any less meaningful than your religion-generated purpose? If I’m happy with the purpose I’ve chosen, and I feel it’s given my life meaning, have I not made my life meaningful, regardless of the lack of objectivity? See, I understand why you can’t accept subjectivism. You’ve been living your whole life seeking “objective truth”, but you’ve yet to find it. Is this because objective truth doesn’t exist? Perhaps, but more to the point, let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that objective truth does exist. Do you really want to live your life knowing it can only have one purpose? That you have to strive towards a singular goal? I think some people, perhaps you included, find that thought comforting, but to me, it’s the same thing as being chained to rock. I can’t escape my purpose, nor can I change it or alter it in anyway. I, along with everyone else, would be living my life for a sole purpose. It’s basically like living in an autocracy.
What I want is freedom. What I want is choice. What I want is subjective truth. I don’t want my purpose handed to me. I want to find that purpose for myself. I find that things are more meaningful when you discover them for yourself, not have them shoved down your throat. Anyway, this is getting long enough as it is.
Freedom like the freedom to choose whatever picture I want, even if it has no relation to the paragraph above it.
For the people that read this, other than Kierkegaard (because I know you’ll comment regardless), I hope that you will provide your own thoughts on the matter. I’m always curious to see what people think when it comes to philosophical thought.
Well, as a protestant, I can safely say that believing in God and devoting your life to serving him are two very different things. I can't say I approve of using a pony as your mouthpiece, in any context
The quote: "If you have a message, call western union." (attributed to Moss Hart.) comes to mind. I don't agree that stories should be devoid of meaning, but I don't like it when writers use characters to push their views. I prefer subtlety in my thematic composition, myself.
As to the concepts of subjectivism, I pretty much agree with you on the philosophy, so I can't really say anything besides nice job representing it on the subject. People should be allowed to make of life what they will.
You asked for my two pennies, and here they are. Knight.
1500393
It's true, using character's to push your opinions is not something I generally do, but for whatever reason, this just felt like the right story to do it in. I mean, the intent wasn't to trick people into reading about my thoughts on existentialism, rather provide them in the context of a story that allows them to come to their own conclusions.
1500418 I understand, but I don't like the idea regardless of intent. That said, a My Little Philosophy story is long overdo. Have you ever read Pinkie Pie Watches Paint Dry? It's quite a brilliant take on the same subject, and hilarious, to boot.
1500420
I have not, though I remember seeing it awhile back. I had no idea it was philosophical though. I'll check it out some time.
If I remember right, isn't our Kierke a religious fundamentalist? They tend to derive meaning from a so-called "higher power," and often ignore the step of asking why serving a higher power is inherently meaningful. If I created a race of robots, I certainly would be disappointed if they didn't question me.
One might argue that God is of infinite wisdom and therefore above the robot creator, but even if so, what difference does it make? My life has meaning decided by an arbitrary entity of arbitrarily vast power?
All arbitrary.
1500426
I'll make a fool out of myself, thanks. I don't need you to do it for me in advance.
This has no doubt been argued many times before by many people. I can't contribute much to philosophical discussions, but I do agree with this one straight-up truth:
1500418
What is this "meaning" you speak of?