Vanity means both that one admires there own achievements and them-self above all, but another definition is of being worthless or futile. It is an interesting word that connects these two concepts together.

Taking the first definition... well, that is the point of the thread to discuss whether or not we are worthless

The second definition, when you asked if anyone could name a human behavior that couldn't trace back to vanity, you must address human's primitive side: instinct. although some could argue against it being a true behavior it is the core in all humans. Secondly, lust or envy are behaviors (in a more traditional sense) that are due to a LACK of self admiration. They trace back to anti-vanity if any such thing were to exist

I believe that everything you see in this world is part of a cycle. I guess life rotates around too but you must realize that life is just elements, enzymes and some electric particles all combined, stuff made by nature. (If you are religious than that's okay but I don't want this turning into a god-existence argument so please don't reply specifically to me)

secondly 'meaning' can only be used within ideas or concepts, writings or movies. past that into basic existence everything comes back to 'what is the meaning of life?'

Well, fear is about the only thing that isn't vanity. It's the purely animal side, which is outside the scope of the meaning that we discuss here. As for lust or vanity betraying a lack of self-admiration...

Lust: "She looks valuable [for whatever reason], so I want to own her, since everything valuable should naturally belong to me, the greatest guy in the universe."

Envy: "That person has something I consider valuable. But it should belong to me, since I'm better than he is."

See?

Okay i understand but self confidence can account for them too:

she is beautiful but would never look at someone like me

that guy has something i want so much i might WRATHKILLRAPE him because he is more successful and rich than me

I do see what you mean though... guess could argue the humble people in the world, the monks and such

but fear? that will hurt me and ruin my body, hurt my reputation, etc. I think fear can be traced to vanity

@JamesYanik, you're right too, of course. Once we start analyzing fear and vanity, it's a vicious circle. There's fear behind vanity and vanity behind fear, and so on... What I don't see, however, is what could possibly be even deeper than them. I don't see anything.

Anyway, you said above that "meaning" can't be applied to life. I don't understand that.

i mean that it is a fallacy, there IS purpose in something,
1: a shovel's purpose is to dig but what is a shovel's meaning?
2: a tool that is used to dig,
1:but why?
2:to dig
1:why dig
2.i killed a man and need to put his body somewhere
1.why?
2.envy
1.why?
2.vanity actually
1.why?
2.Because he wouldn't stop saying 'why'
1.oh.... but wh(CLUNK) *shovel smacks into face*
2. I have a new purpose for the shovel

so that was fun but you can always keep asking why and it never gets you anywhere

the meaning of the stone in the story was symbolic of the man's resolution to... blah blah blah

When you take it out into our infinite universe it becomes impossible to dumb down

The point in Ecclesiastes is that nothing in the world itself is the source of meaning. If you come up with something, it is meaningless. Riches? Vanity. Fame? Vanity. All of it fades. Essentially he believes this because of mortality.

But of course, mortality too is vain and meaningless. The author arrives at the only sensible conclusion:

"So I recommend having fun, because there is nothing better for people in this world than to eat, drink, and enjoy life. That way they will experience some happiness along with all the hard work God gives them under the sun."

Of course this too is "vanity" but what you see in this conclusion, and in the conclusion of the book, is that if everything is meaningless, then it's also true that nothing is. It never says this explicitly I grant you, but it is the only basis for what recommendations the author does make: to simply enjoy life while it lasts, and in the book's words "honor your creator," which means to appreciate the miracle of your own being.

Because, yes, everything is meaningless, yet, everything *is*. And it is all the same as well. Under the premise that "everything is meaningless," we are free to construe meaning, which the author himself does. The most meaning you can construct is simply along the lines of "honor your creator" or put more basically, "appreciate life." You don't have to, but the point is, it doesn't make any sense not to. And so by showing that no single thing inside the universe is the source of meaning, the author then shows that meaning is only to found everywhere, or nowhere.

If you go back and read the depressing parts at the beginning about mortality with the advice in mind to appreciate that you exist at all, no matter for how long, you see that "generations come and generations go, but the earth never changes" is not so much "wearisome" but is actually a comfort. The earth never changes, and never has, yes. this is something to be in awe of, not something to lament. Why? We are a part of the earth. Generations come and generations go. That's us, our role in it. So, I recommend having fun.

I love the book so much because it is a succinct jaunt through the existential angst that our modern materialist society is going through. The received wisdom is that there is no meaning and if there is it's from within. Most people think "meaning from within" doesn't count as *real* meaning and are disappointed by that response. But Ecclesiastes shows how meaning from within is actually an all-encompassing objective meaning that goes all the way from this generation back to the Creator

Cheerful nihilism is never a bad way to go.

You say there is no objectivity, Thucy, but why? Everything humans experience will be subjective - that is the nature of experience - but there is no reason to be this homocentric. There are almost certainly objective rules for the universe. That is an objectivity humans will never attain. The universe is massive and humans are tiny - but to humans, humans are what there is, and what is important. Since we're humans, we should let humans be important to us. There is no reason to attempt to attain an objectivity we can't have, but to say that humans are objectively important in the universe seems vain.

Ah, see, when I see philosophy about the experience of modern materialist man and the society he lives in, I sort of tune out, so bye.

yay he's gone

The meaning of life is to continue life

Orka, that sounds like a tautology... or should I say brute Darwinism?

It isn't anthropocentric that's the point. Objective reality exists - it goes by "reality."

I think I see the source of your confusion: you think that above I said the only reality is subjective reality. This has confused you. The only reality is Reality, and subjective reality is identical with Reality, which you may also call objective reality. The mind and matter are one, and are of one substance, with one source. Some monists say the whole world is mind, others say it is all matter. They are not really monists. The world is both mind and matter, it contains both. There is just the one universe. I believe Wikipedia calls this neutral monism.