Talk:Meaning of life/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" does not belong here

Just a reminder that "What is the meaning of life" is NOT "The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything", (to which the answer is "42"). The whole joke - and a critical plot element - is that the question is entirely unknown. Nowhere in the five books does it ever come close to saying what the actual question is. The mice simply make stuff up after Arthur escape, and once Arthur and Ford manage to actually get a read-out of the Earth computer program from Arthur's brain, the question is garbage because of the unexpected arrival the Golgafrinchams.

In my experience, the only people who ever say that "42" is the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life" is people who never actually read the book, watched the film, heard the radio theatre or in any other way partook of the forms that THHGTTG was ever published in.

So please... do not re-add The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy on this page because it is - simply - not relevant.

J-Star (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The key to your statement is when you say "In my experience..." Sourced content has been restored, the removal of which is your original research Scr★pIron^IV 14:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the "key to my statement", that was a comment. The key to my statement is that the "The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything" is not "What is the meaning of life". The source of this is the root material itself (the books, radio play, TV series, and movie), which were referenced in the section. So you can say "it's sourced" as much as you want but the sources to which you are referring do not support this section being in the article "Meaning of life".

In short: WP:REL. Don't say "it's sourced" when you haven't actually read the sources and thus failed to verify that the sources contain information relevant to the article.

J-Star (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody, anywhere, said the "question" itself is verbatim, "What is the meaning of life?"

The association between them is clear, however, and the sourcing is adequate. You have your own special interpretation, but it was put here for a reason (and not by me) - so its removal of your personal beliefs and personal "experience" is clearly against consensus. Start an RfC, or something - but cease removal of sourced information. In the meantime, per WP:BRD it stays at the status quo until you find a new consensus. Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"The association between them is clear, however". If this is your argument then it is up to you to show that such is the case and that the sources support that statement. The books clearly do not support it, which means that the one that is pulling a WP:SYNTH is you in that you think you see this association. You cannot say that I am the one doing a SYNTH for pointing out that that question is not "what is the meaning of life" in the HHGTTG trilogy.

The closest we get to that is that the "Cheerleader" in the radio theatre assumes this is the question that will be answered.

Transcript: http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio4.htm

O people who wait in the shadow of Deep Thought… Honoured descendents of Vroomfondel and Majikthise, the greatest and most truly interesting pundits the universe has ever known… the time of waiting is over!

Seven-and-a-half million years our race has waited for this great and hopefully enlightening day. The day of The Answer!

Never… never again will we wake up in the morning and think, "Who am I?". "What is my purpose in life?". "Does it really, cosmically speaking, matter if I don’t get up and go to work?"

For today we will finally learn, once and for all, the plain and simple answer to all these nagging little problems of Life, the Universe, and Everything!

From today, we can enjoy a game of Brockian Ultra Cricket in the firm and comfortable knowledge that the meaning of life is now well and truly sorted out!

The joke is - of course - that this is exactly what not happens. That question is not the one that gets sorted out because the answer is "Fourty-two" and so they need to build another computer - the Earth - to figure out what the actual question is. If the question had been "What is the meaning of life?" - or anything remotely close to it - then the whole plotline would have ended right there.

So if you want to avoid a WP:SYNTH when you claim that "Fourty Two" is in any way connected to "The Meaning of life", the onus is on you.

Good luck Sir...

J-Star (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the person that objected to removing the section has provided no further argument as to why the section is not a blatant WP:SYNTH, I regard the matter as settled. J-Star (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the original Adams text, the disputed text was also sourced to Baggini's What's It All About?, Badke's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Meaning of Everything and Yeffeth's The Anthology at the End of the Universe: Leading Science Fiction Authors on Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which presumably put the whole thing in context. Poking around for sources, here is Baggini presumably saying the same thing as in his book, that "42" is a good joke about the difficulty of phrasing the meaning of life. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article specifically points out that "The Ultimate Question" is not "What is the meaning of life?". It makes the point that "What is the meaning of life?" is pointless question, and that "The Ultimate Question" must be something else.J-Star (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that if you ask people on the street about Douglas Adams and "the meaning of life", you'll invariably get the answer "42" ("I don't know"). As a result, it's clear and obvious that in popular culture, "42" is an (absurdest) answer to the meaning of life. It doesn't really matter if that's what the books/plays/etc actually say. Yes, we get it that you're all smart and stuff because you know it's not actually written in the books that way, but that's not really relevant in this case. In this case, we're dealing with popular culture and not a literary critique of Adams' work. Saying "Adams didn't mean this" so we can't put it in a section about what people believe simply doesn't fly. Now, if you'd like to help out with this article, perhaps you can shorten the Adams' paragraph and add a bit about this not being what Adams actually wrote. Rklawton (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Given that if you ask people on the street...". If that isn't WP:SYNTH I don't know what is. "Now, if you'd like to help out with this article, perhaps you can shorten the Adams' paragraph and add a bit about this not being what Adams actually wrote." Why would we want to have a section saying something to the effect of "Douglas Adams has in his book(s) something that is not related to 'The meaning of life', but people in general seem to believe he does"?J-Star (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"... people on the street..." Is not synth. It's not even close to synth. It's original research. But it illustrates the point. And the answer to your question is that it's commonly believed that this is what Adams wrote, and that's a fact validated by reliable sources. We also have a lot of religious stuff in here that one could argue also has no basis in reality - and yet it belongs here because we have reliable sources indicating that this is what some people believe. Rklawton (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Then show us these "reliable sources". A Google Search is not that. One essay in one anthology — an essay that discusses around "forty-two" and possible questions — is not a "reliable source" that says "it is commonly believed". And I must point out again that if this is your only way to link "forty-two" to "the meaning of life", then you need to bring that information in as well; that it is a commonly held misconception of Adams's work that "forty-two" is an answer to "what is the meaning of life".

"Forty-two" — in the context of The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy — has quite an extensive section on its own. Why do you think it so important to keep it in this article as well?J-Star (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, let's look at the sources then

Ok, since people that seemingly never read the books are insisting on putting this section back... let's review the sources then:

First up, the book itself. [1] Does that say that "The Ultimate Question to Life, The Universe and Everything" — to which the answer is "Forty-two" — is "What is the meaning of life?". No it does not. In fact, the only mention of "the meaning of life" has even been removed compared to the radio theatre.

Radio theatre transcript: [2]

The book: [3]

And as I mentioned above: the whole joke to begin — in the radio theatre — is that people are expecting to get an answer to "What is the meaning of life?"... only to be completely disappointed because that is not the question.

This means that the primary source itself flatly contradicts that "Fourty-Two" is an answer to "What is the meaning of life?". This then means that all secondary sources have their work cut out for them. So... what about them?

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Meaning of Everything" is referenced. [4] The book is a Christian apologia. And when we turn to the preface (can be done on Amazon) pages 7 and 8 this source clearly says that we have an answer — 42 — without a question. Hence this source does not support the section being here.

Next up: "What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life" [5]. This one I don't have quotes of directly. However, this article [6] — that is reviewing the book — states that the author argues that "What's the meaning of life?" is a nonsensical question. It states: "That's why Douglas Adams' gag about the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything being 42 is so insightful. You can't expect to get a sensible answer unless you ask a sensible question". So this secondary source also does not seem to argue in favour of this section being in this wiki-article.

Finally, the last source, a tertiary one this time: "The Anthology At The End Of The Universe: Leading Science Fiction Authors On Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy". [7] This is an essay collection. Here I do not have any quotes at all.

So anyone that wants to keep this section in the article, I challenge with getting hold of this book, finding the page/chapter/essay in this book that tells us how that essay writer means that there is a connection between "The Meaning of Life" and "Forty-Two". J-Star (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:OWN. You're violating it. Persist, and you'll be discussing your approach to editing on WP:ani. Rklawton (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Very well then... if there are no further comments in two weeks — especially comments that verify that the essay collection actually support the section being here — then that section is gone.

So what kind of argument do you have to this staunchly restore the section?J-Star (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Mine? That except for you the consensus is to keep it. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean because two people insist on putting the section back without any other argument than "there are sources" — one of which I have already discussed with and that exited the discussion without providing any further arguments in over two weeks — then the section must be kept?

I am sorry but I am very confused now. I just pointed out that the primary source do not support the section, and 2 or 3 of the secondary sources do not support it. The last one may possibly say something slightly different about it, but no-one has read that source and said "Yeah, it does". If this is not enough to remove a section that is most likely wrong from a Wikipedia page, what does it then take? J-Star (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It takes consensus, and you do not have it. Next, if you do not remove your threat to unilaterally remove the section, I'm going to bring up your behavior for comment on ANI. Your reliance on primary sources is entirely inappropriate. It doesn't matter what the book says. What matters is popular culture - the heading for this section. As a foreigner, you may not be familiar with popular culture in English speaking countries, but a quick Google query shows the prevalence of this idea. To wit: [8] Rklawton (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for being confused once again but I thought the key element of Wikipedia was sourcing, not a popular vote or threatening people to throw them to the administrators. Did I get that wrong? In any case I have removed the text which you asked for to be removed, but let it be noted that I think it is bad form to threaten with administrative action like that, and the condescending remarks about me being a "foreigner" does little to help the mood here. I will let you know if I have any problem of connecting to "popular culture in English speaking countries". Oh... and for the record: [9]

You say "What matters is popular culture", and then give me link to a Google Search. I am sorry but is a Google Search really a Wikipedia-credible source?! But in any case, I humour you and quickly find that some links even on the first page do not even contain the word "meaning". And some of them flatly contradict the statement, for instance: "Ahem. Strictly speaking, 42 is NOT the meaning of life. Rather, it is the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything".

So you have primary source — a piece of popular culture, i.e. the Hitch Hiker's Guide books (and films and radio theatre and more) — which explicitly state that "Forty-Two" is not an answer to "What is the meaning of life". And then you try to point me to popular culture about this piece of popular culture, with abysmal results. I am not in the least convinced by this.

So I would argue that — yes — "Forty-Two" as "the answer" is a famous piece of popular culture and deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. And so duly happens... on another Wikipedia page. But it does not belong here — on the page "Meaning of Life" — because the whole joke is that Meaning of Life does not get resolved by the Deep Thought computer. If you want to make some kind of mention that people — through word of mouth and misunderstanding Adams's work and sloppy references to Adams's work in other popular media — sometimes mistake "What is The Meaning of Life?" for "The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything", then good luck in formulating that section. J-Star (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

When Douglas Adams wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, he added a central joke which has become more famous over the years than the novel itself: "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is 42." [10]

His books are well known. The joke is even more famous - sourced. Now, do you have a source that says it's NOT well known? Pointing to the primary source and saying "that's not what he meant" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the popular perception - and the popular perception is quite clear. Please go find something else to do with your time and stop making threats and wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

He made a joke and it is well known, yes. If you want to make the point about the joke the joke being well known then there is a page for that. But it does not belong on the page Meaning of Life.

Also I made no threats... you did. I quote: "Persist, and you'll be discussing your approach to editing on WP:ani". J-Star (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You threatened to unilaterally remove the section in the article unless we didn't meet your demands. That's a threat. And, as I pointed out, it violates WP:OWN. To wit, you do not own this article, you do not get to dictate what does or does not go in it. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and you do not have that. Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I would not call it a threat to say that I will take a justified action but I see your point well enough. J-Star (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Badke's book does contain that sentence on page 6, yes. It then goes on — on page 6, 7 and 8 — to conclude that the question is unknown. So this source also does not "take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life"".

Baggini does have that particular sentence on page 3, yes, and then — on page 4 — says "Now they have the answer, they don't understand it because they don't know what it is an answer to. Asking the right questions is as important as giving the right answers". So this source also does not "take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life"".

Finally "The Anthology At The End Of The Universe". Adam Roberts uses the sentence "Meaning of life" a lot in the essay "42". Apart from that it gets one more mention, there the author says "...the Earth is actually a computer built to resolve help the meaning of life.". So not only do they not even mention "fourty-two", they even get it wrong.

So essentially you are saying that are left with is to try to argue that Adam Robert's essay "42" is enough to include this section. Does that hold? J-Star (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The argument I'm making (and it is my own) is that in popular culture, "the meaning of life" and "42" go together. Your point is that it shouldn't. However, your point is irrelevant. In popular culture these go together, therefore we should acknowledge it here. I even provided a source that quite clearly said that this little joke of Adams' is even more popular than his books. If you'd like to educate the English speaking public as to why this shouldn't be so, then please do so - but do it somewhere else. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Then show me the sources for that argument. The particular piece of popular culture we are talking about — i.e. Adams's work — do not say that. So you are talking about popular culture about another piece of popular culture that we know get it wrong. Badke does not say it. Baggini does not say it. And in the anthology there is one essay that discusses the subject. I would not call that as having such a massive impact on popular culture that it makes it warranted to keep a section in Wikipedia that claims a primary source says something that it clearly does not. J-Star (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: ...that it makes it warranted to keep a section on a particular Wikipedia page, that mentions a piece of popular culture that does not actually deal with the subject of the Wikipedia page at all.J-Star (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV, your argument below is: "The Meaning of Life and Adams' answer of 42 have become intertwined over the years". Source that then. Otherwise your own argument — "Removal of the section is unsourced WP:OR, based on some personal definition of "truth."" — can be turned against you, because exchange "Removing" for "Keeping" and the exact same sentence is an argument against what you just said... that your your "personal definition of "truth"" is that these things are "intertwined". Source or it is WP:OR. J-Star (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

So... User:J-Star would like to remove the section noting Douglas Adams' book for the reasons he has noted above. Those who support his recommendation should do so by signifying Support below. Those who do not should either Comment or Oppose as appropriate. Please briefly outline reasons as needed. Rklawton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - J-Star's arguments rely on the notion that Adams didn't mean what people think he meant. However, that is beside the point. The justification for inclusion in this article is that a great many people equate the number 42 with "the meaning of life" (and that information is sourced above). As a result, this article should include a brief paragraph explaining this phenomenon in the article's "Popular Culture" section. Rklawton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - The primary source and the secondary sources say that "The Ultimate Question Of Life, The Universe and Everything" — to which the answer is "Forty-Two" — is unknown, and thus is not defined as "What is the meaning of life" or anything near it. The only supportive argument so far has been "This is what people seem to think anyway". However... since any claim that is of the sort "That is what people think he meant" is either a WP:SYNTH or something that needs a source... and then with the explanation that they have actually got it wrong. And since none of the sources that have been given so far even comes close to saying something to the effect of "A great many people think that is what Adams meant", then the section needs to go. J-Star (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Badke's book describes Hitchhikers as a "romp through space in search of the meaning of life" and compares Deep Thought's time-wasting and nonsensical "42" to people's own searches for the meaning of life; Baggini writes about "a race of beings fed up with bickering over the meaning of life decide to build a supercomputer to provide them with the answer" as part of a book about the meaning of life; The Anthology at the End of the Universe is searchable on Google Books and mentions the meaning of life a lot in relation to 42. All three sources seem happy to take "Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything" as a simple synonym for "Question of the Meaning of Life". These sources seems enough to clarify that Adams was making a joke about the meaning of life. If we've got some counter-examples which suggest that he was actually making a joke about something else, by all means wheel them out. --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - The Meaning of Life and Adams' answer of 42 have become intertwined over the years; despite the "question" in the original works not being written precisely as "What is the meaning of life?" Removal of the section is unsourced WP:OR, based on some personal definition of "truth." Removal is unwarranted. Scr★pIron^IV 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

on adding "metaphysical" to the lead litany

One can argue that philosophy encompasses metaphysics, thereby making direct mention of metaphysics redundant. One can also argue that replacing the concrete with the abstract is the hallmark of poor writing. "Philosophy" is way too big to get your mind around on the brisk orientation tour. — MaxEnt 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

This edit request to Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following to Popular Views

Life is too exuberant that it does not need a meaning

Have you ever noticed that whenever you feel certain level of pleasantness within you, the need to have a meaning of life subsides.
This question becomes more significant when there is a certain level of unpleasantness within you.
If you were very blissful and ecstatic at this moment, would you think, “What is the purpose of life?” – No. Only when in some way, life has become burdensome, these questions arise: “To be or not to be?” “Is there a good enough purpose for me to exist?” (Sadhguru)

Ajinkyashukla29 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done; the "have you ever noticed" tone is inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry, and a blog is not a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

This edit request to Meaning of life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The course beings Someshsingh7 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done Not sure what you mean. GAB^Hello! 22:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Meaning of life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Meaning of life/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I assigned it to the stub class because while there is plenty of material here, it is a mess. Anarchia 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The True Meaning

The meaning of life is to give your life meaning doing that task already gives your life meaning. You were given meaning when you were born at that moment your meaning was to be born and the rest of your life was the meaning of your life from the very beginning.- A 12 year old said this! Nikoli .P (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected edit

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please append to the list in 7.4:

To improve character traits and achieve spiritual perfection.

(Vilna Gaon on Proverbs 4:13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinyominZeev (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Life is Bad - Popular Opinions

The final entry prior to today's edits in the "Popular Opinions" section heading "Life is Bad" was properly cited, and represents an actual, factual view on this topic. Deleting this item from the range of expressions about this topic negates an aspect that makes this page interesting and exciting to people. The book referenced is actually insightful and interesting, and provides a different perspective about existence that I have found fascinating. Please return that item to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Gadbois (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is in relation to This from Dinosaur Comics from June 22. The entry does seem like a valid take on "the meaning of life" so should be debated on its own merits. Since the reference is a book titled "Better never to have been : the harm of coming into existence", written by philosopher David Benatar and published by Oxford University Press, it appears to be well supported by a reliable source. I hope the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town are doing well; I worry sometimes. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Islam section could be rewritten according to Quran verses

Could you add This verses (about the meaning of the life, especially for human being perspective ) to the article.

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."