The Battle for Meaning

Actual meaning is only the meaning your mind assigns. Any alleged gift or obligation of meaning given to you by someone else is actually their agenda, an agenda that is orthogonal to the actual meaning you assign to elements of your life.

Can true meaning be passed from a superior’s agenda to a subordinate?

A Parable on the Notion of Meaning

In the orderly kingdom of Veridion, King Theo ruled with absolute authority. He saw himself not merely as a ruler but as the architect of purpose and meaning for his subjects. To him, a well-functioning society was one in which every subject understood their designated role, and he believed it was his duty to assign the corresponding “meaning” to each of their lives.

One day, he summoned a man named Ethan to his court. Ethan was a master glassmaker, known across the kingdom for crafting delicate stained-glass windows that adorned Veridion’s grand halls and temples. He felt immense meaning in his craft. Ethan did not consider his work to be mere decoration; it was a rewarding way of bringing form to human experience.

King Theo, however, had a different purpose in mind for him.

“Ethan,” the king began, his voice steady and authoritative, “I have reflected upon your abilities and have determined your true purpose. From this day forward, you shall be the High Priest of Veridion, guiding the people in devotion and service.”

Ethan stood and stared intently at the king.

“Your Majesty, I appreciate the honor, but I do not believe myself suited for such a role.”

King Theo’s brow furrowed. “That is irrelevant. Meaning is not something you create; it is something given to you. As your sovereign, I determine your purpose. You need only accept it.”

Ethan inhaled slowly. “If meaning can be given in this way, Your Majesty, then tell me: upon your command, do I now feel reverence where I had none before? Have I, in this moment, become devoted to the gods?

The king’s fingers drummed against the arm of his chair. “Purpose does not require your personal acceptance. It exists because I have declared it so.”

Ethan glanced at the tall stained-glass windows behind him—his own work. The interplay of light and shadow, the way the glass transformed the sun’s raw brilliance into something deeply meaningful to him.

He gestured toward them. “Your Majesty, when I craft glass, I shape it, refine it, and arrange it until its colors and forms can tell a story to the viewer. If I were to simply declare a pile of broken shards to be a masterpiece, would that make it so?”

The king’s expression remained firm. “A stained-glass window is not a person. You are not inert glass; you are a subject of my kingdom.”

“That is true,” Ethan said, “but just as glass must be shaped to reflect its purpose, so must a mind. A command alone does not create meaning. I could obey you, Your Majesty—I could stand before the people and repeat the words expected of a High Priest—but unless I, myself, internalize that role, it will be empty ritual. It will not be purpose. It will not be meaning.”

He took a step forward, voice steady but resolute. “Your Majesty, I already have purpose. When I shape glass, I shape it into something I find personally meaningful. That meaning is real because it is mine. It is not something you gave me—it is something I found.”

King Theo was silent. He had believed that by declaring purpose, he had the power to place it directly into the hearts of his subjects. But now he saw the flaw in that assumption: a role could be assigned, but purpose had to be realized. No decree, no matter how absolute, could forge meaning within another’s mind. True meaning was generated by the subject, not the overlord.

The light from the stained-glass windows shifted as the sun moved. Fragments of color crossed the king’s robes. Ethan bowed and awaited his response.

Without another word, King Theo dismissed him, and for the first time in his reign, he was left to wonder whether purpose was something that could be given at all.

Can Meaning be Assigned?

One truth is often pushed aside by theists: meaning and purpose are inextricably bound to the individual mind that conceives them. No external entity—be it a parent, employer, or deity—can directly implant its purpose into the fabric of another’s consciousness. While an external agent may propose, desire, or command a specific intention, the act of accepting and internalizing that purpose is a uniquely personal endeavor, shaped by the individual’s own cognitive and emotional landscape.

Therefore, the claim that a deity can directly bestow meaning and purpose collapses under logical scrutiny. Even if a deity harbors intentions for humanity, the translation of those intentions into actionable meaning must occur within the mind of each individual, who must subjectively create meaning and purpose within their own mental framework.

In this article, we will explore whether meaning and purpose can move beyond the individual, or are strictly confined to the individual mind. It unfolds in three parts—natural language, syllogistic reasoning, and symbolic logic—and concludes with a corollary that the claim “meaning and purpose come directly from a deity (or any external entity)” is logically incoherent. Along the way, we draw a clear denotative distinction between:

Subjective meaning and purpose: Internally generated senses of significance or goals within a single individual.
Intentions of entity A for entity B: Goals or purposes that entity A would like entity B to adopt or fulfill, which B may or may not accept.

I. Natural Language Argument

Defining Key Terms
- Subjective Meaning and Purpose: A cognitive-affective valuation or forward-oriented intention emerging from one’s unique emotional and conceptual framework.
- External Intentions (A → B): When entity A desires that entity B hold or pursue a certain goal. These desires are located in A’s mind until (and unless) B internalizes them.
Origins in Unique Emotional-Mental Contexts
Every individual has an irreducibly unique cognitive landscape—think of it like a fingerprint for the mind. No two people share precisely the same mix of experiences, emotions, and interpretive lenses. Consequently, each individual’s subjective meaning or purpose arises from this personal “mental fingerprint.”
- Analogy: Imagine two painters each given the same set of colors. One creates a sunset, the other a forest scene—because the internal vision of each painter is distinct. Likewise, two people might use the same words (colors), but their internal meanings differ.
Addressing “Shared Meaning” Objection
Even in large communities—such as a congregation chanting the same creed—each participant’s interpretation diverges according to personal emotional states, upbringing, or cultural background.
- Thought Experiment: Suppose everyone in a room says “I love chocolate ice cream.” Outwardly, it appears they share a meaning. Yet each person might imagine a different flavor nuance, memory, or association. Internally, no two mind-states are identical.
Addressing “Collective Purpose” Objection
A collective mission—like a church’s statement or a company’s vision—is essentially an umbrella phrase for overlapping but still individual commitments.
- Rhetorical Element: The phrase “We are all in this together” may galvanize a crowd, but each individual subjectively interprets what “this” and “together” entail, drawing on private hopes, fears, and motivations.
Distinguishing Between B’s Subjective Purpose and A’s Intention for B
- B’s Subjective Purpose: Internally generated from B’s personal worldview, experiences, and emotional inclinations.
- A’s Intention for B: Resides in A’s mind, representing how A wishes B would think or act. For B to adopt that intention, B must integrate it into their own mental framework.
- Analogy: You can present someone with a meal, but unless they consume it, those nutrients won’t become part of their body. Similarly, no matter how fervently A offers an intention, it becomes B’s intention only when B internalizes it.
Influence vs. Internalization
Suppose A tries to persuade or manipulate B. The result is a new mental property in B’s mind—B’s own creation, albeit triggered by A’s words or actions. The impetus might be external, but the generation of meaning or purpose is internal.
- Rhetorical Example: A motivational speaker does not transfer their drive to the audience. Instead, each listener interprets and generates personal motivation (or not) based on their individual mental frameworks.
Corollary: The Theistic Case
- Divine Meaning: According to many theistic traditions, a deity’s will or command is said to provide meaning and purpose for humanity.
- Logical Incoherence: If meaning and purpose are intrinsically mental properties, they cannot be transplanted directly from a deity’s mind into a human mind. Even if a deity wishes (intends) that humans adopt a given purpose, humans must form that purpose individually within their own mental contexts.
- Thought Experiment: Imagine that an omnipotent deity places a “blueprint” for virtue in the cosmos. Until a person reads or internalizes that blueprint, it does not become that person’s blueprint—just as a blueprint on a shelf cannot literally jump into your brain.
Concluding Principle
Because meaning and purpose are properties of individual minds, they cannot be literally downloaded from any external source—whether a fellow human or a deity. One mind may strongly hope, desire, or command that another mind adopt a particular purpose; yet the other mind’s acceptance (or rejection) remains a personal, internal endeavor.

II. Syllogistic Formulation

Premise 1: All subjective meaning and purpose are mental properties, arising from an individual’s unique emotional-mental states.
Premise 2: No two minds share precisely the same emotional-cognitive context (akin to a “mental fingerprint”).
Premise 3: A mental property—“meaning” or “purpose”—is individuated by the mind in which it arises (i.e., it cannot be numerically identical in another mind).
Conclusion: Meaning and purpose cannot be literally transferred or shared between separate minds; each mind’s meaning or purpose remains uniquely its own.

Distinction of Intentions (A → B)

A’s intention for B remains in A’s mind. B only truly “owns” it if B generates a corresponding purpose in B’s mind.

Theistic Corollary

If a deity’s mind $D$ is distinct from a human mind $x$ , the deity’s meaning or purpose cannot automatically become $x$ ’s. At best, $x$ may adopt a new purpose upon exposure to $D$ ’s intention, but this new property belongs to $x$ alone.

III. Symbolic Logic Representation

Let $x, y, z$ represent minds (or persons). Let $p$ represent a mental property (i.e., a particular meaning or purpose). We also define a predicate for intentions:

$M(x)$ : “ $x$ is a mind.”
$G(p, x)$ : “ $p$ (a mental property) is generated or instantiated by mind $x$ .”
$U(x)$ : “ $x$ has a unique emotional-mental context.”
$I(A, p, B)$ : “Entity $A$ ’s intention is for entity $B$ to adopt purpose $p$ .” (This remains in $A$ ’s mind unless $B$ internalizes it.)

1. Axioms / Assumptions

Uniqueness of Emotional-Mental Context
$\forall x \bigl(M(x) \rightarrow U(x)\bigr)$
Every mind $x$ has its own irreducibly unique mental context.
Meaning/Purpose Resides in Some Mind
$\forall x \forall p \Bigl(G(p, x) \rightarrow M(x)\Bigr)$
If a mental property $p$ is instantiated, it is instantiated by some mind $x$ .
Numerical Identity Constraint
$\forall x \forall y \forall p \Bigl((G(p, x) \wedge G(p, y)) \rightarrow x = y\Bigr)$
If the same property $p$ appears in two minds $x$ and $y$ , then $x = y$ . (No single mental property can reside in two distinct minds.)

2. Intentions (A → B) vs. B’s Internal Acceptance

$I(A, p, B) ;\not\Rightarrow; G(p, B)$

Just because $A$ wants $B$ to adopt purpose $p$ doesn’t mean $B$ actually generates it. B must integrate it into B’s own mental context.

3. Theistic Corollary

Let $D$ represent a divine mind. If $G(p, D)$ and $G(p, x)$ both hold for some property $p$ , then $D = x$ . This shows that a single mental property cannot literally exist in both the divine mind and a distinct human mind.

IV. Illustrative Analogies & Thought Experiments

Shared Song, Unique Experience
A congregation sings the same hymn. Although everyone recites the same lyrics, each person’s emotional resonance is shaped by private memories, personal tastes, or spiritual inclinations—like multiple cameras filming the same event but each capturing a slightly different angle or quality of light.
Blueprint and Actual Construction
A deity’s intention might be likened to a blueprint for a building. Merely handing someone the blueprint (divine will) does not guarantee that the building (the person’s mental state) will actually be constructed. The recipient must decide to build, adapt, or even reject the plan.
Cafe Menu Metaphor
A cafe menu states, “The house special is cappuccino.” This is a suggestion or offering (analogous to someone else’s intention). The patron’s decision to order the cappuccino is the moment they generate the purpose internally. Merely seeing the menu does not force them to adopt that beverage choice.

Conclusion

Throughout these analogies and formal arguments, the theme remains consistent: meaning and purpose are inseparable from the individual mind that generates them. No external agent—whether a parent, employer, or deity—can directly implant a purpose into another’s mind. The external entity may propose, desire, or command, but the actual acceptance and instantiation of that purpose belongs to the individual’s internal cognitive and emotional process.

Hence, the assertion that a deity directly bestows meaning and purpose is logically incoherent under this framework. Even if a deity has intentions for humanity, each person must subjectively create meaning and purpose within their own mental context.

Applications:

Claim:

Psalm 57:2 says, “I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me.” This is key in understanding God’s purpose for your life. God has numbered your days and will fulfill every purpose He has for you.
^{https://www.cornerstone.edu/blog-post/what-is-gods-purpose-for-your-life-and-how-to-find-it/}

Response:

The claim that God directly fulfills a divine purpose in an individual’s life, as interpreted from Psalm 57:2, contains logical inconsistencies when analyzed through the framework of subjective meaning and purpose presented in the article. Below is a rigorous formulation of the argument.

Natural Language Argument

Defining the Theistic Assertion
The theistic claim suggests that:
- God has a specific purpose for each individual.
- This purpose originates in God’s mind.
- God actively fulfills this purpose in the individual’s life, implying a direct transference of divine intention into the individual’s reality.
Subjective Meaning and Purpose Are Intrinsically Individual
As established, meaning and purpose are properties of individual minds. They emerge from an individual’s unique emotional and cognitive framework. For a purpose to exist in someone’s life, it must be internalized and instantiated by their own mental processes.
The Logical Gap Between God’s Intentions and Individual Purpose
God’s intention for an individual exists as a mental property within God’s mind. Unless the individual independently adopts or internalizes a corresponding purpose, God’s intention remains external and distinct. A purpose cannot “belong” to an individual until it is personally generated within their own cognitive-emotional framework.
Fulfillment Requires Internal Agency
To claim that God “fulfills His purpose” for an individual bypasses the individual’s agency. This implies a transfer or imposition of purpose, which contradicts the inherent nature of meaning and purpose as subjective constructs. Even if one assumes divine omnipotence, God cannot directly instantiate a mental property in an individual without undermining the autonomy required for that property to genuinely belong to the individual.
Incoherence of “God’s Purpose Fulfilled for You”
The phrase “God fulfills His purpose for you” conflates two separate phenomena:
- God’s intention for the individual, which resides in God’s mind.
- The individual’s purpose, which must emerge from their own mind.
  This conflation leads to incoherence, as it ignores the need for the individual to independently adopt and instantiate purpose for it to have any genuine presence in their life.

Syllogistic Formulation

Premise 1: Meaning and purpose are mental properties that arise only within an individual’s unique cognitive and emotional framework.
Premise 2: A mental property in one mind (e.g., God’s intention) cannot be numerically identical to a mental property in another mind.
Premise 3: For an individual to hold a purpose, that purpose must be generated and instantiated within their own mind.
Premise 4: God’s purpose for an individual exists solely as an intention within God’s mind unless the individual internalizes it.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, God’s purpose for an individual cannot be directly fulfilled by God without the individual actively adopting and internalizing it.
Conclusion 2: The claim that “God fulfills His purpose for you” is incoherent, as it presupposes that God’s intention can bypass the individual’s subjective process of generating meaning and purpose.

Symbolic Logic Representation

Let:

$G(x, p)$ : “ $x$ generates purpose $p$ .”
$I(x, p, y)$ : “ $x$ intends for $y$ to adopt purpose $p$ .”
$F(x, p)$ : “ $x$ fulfills purpose $p$ .”

1. Core Axioms

$\forall x \forall p \Bigl(G(x, p) \rightarrow M(x)\Bigr)$ : Purpose $p$ must be generated by a mind $x$ to exist as a mental property.
$\forall x \forall y \forall p \Bigl((I(x, p, y) \land \neg G(y, p)) \rightarrow \neg F(y, p)\Bigr)$ : If $y$ does not generate $p$ , then $p$ cannot be fulfilled for $y$ .

2. Argument Structure

$I(God, p, human)$ : God intends for a human to adopt purpose $p$ .
$\neg G(human, p)$ : The human does not generate purpose $p$ .
$\neg F(human, p)$ : Therefore, purpose $p$ cannot be fulfilled for the human.

3. Corollary

The claim that “God fulfills His purpose for you” collapses unless:

The human independently generates purpose $p$ .
In such a case, the purpose becomes the human’s, not God’s, thus rendering the claim logically redundant.

Analogies and Thought Experiments

Blueprint and Builder Analogy
Imagine an architect (God) designs a detailed blueprint (divine purpose) for a house. Unless the builder (the individual) chooses to construct the house, the blueprint remains unrealized. The builder may alter or reject the blueprint entirely, and until the builder acts, the house does not exist. Similarly, God’s purpose requires individual internalization to manifest.
Meal Offering Thought Experiment
A host (God) offers a meal to a guest (individual) with the intention that they eat it. However, the guest’s consumption depends entirely on their own choice. The meal cannot nourish the guest unless they actively decide to eat it. The fulfillment of the host’s intention is contingent on the guest’s independent action.
Song Conductor Metaphor
A conductor (God) may direct a symphony and intend for the musicians to play harmoniously. Each musician (individual) must still independently interpret and play their part. The conductor’s intentions alone do not produce the music unless the musicians actively participate.

Conclusion

The claim that “God fulfills His purpose for you,” as derived from Psalm 57:2, is logically incoherent under a rigorous analysis. Meaning and purpose are subjective constructs, inseparable from the mind that generates them. God’s intention for an individual resides in God’s mind and cannot automatically become the individual’s purpose without the individual’s active adoption. Thus, the fulfillment of divine purpose requires the individual’s participation, making the claim both misleading and redundant.

Beware of ideologies that prey on you by claiming their God will provide you with meaning and purpose. These doctrines exploit uncertainty, offering the illusion of preordained significance while stripping you of your autonomy to construct your own purpose. No external force—whether a ruler, a scripture, or a deity—can implant genuine meaning into your life; it must be forged through personal engagement and reflection. To accept meaning as something “bestowed” is to surrender the very process by which purpose is authentically realized. Those who promise divine purpose do not offer liberation—they offer subjugation to an imposed narrative, one that thrives on deference rather than discovery.

Actual meaning is only the meaning your mind assigns. Any alleged gift or obligation of meaning given to you by someone else is actually their agenda, an agenda that is orthogonal to the actual meaning you assign to elements of your life.

Formal Argument Against Cosmic or Transcendent Meaning

Premise 1: Meaning and purpose are necessarily mental constructs.

Meaning does not exist in a vacuum but is created and experienced within a mind.
To have meaning is to interpret or assign significance to something.

Premise 2: Meaning can only be experienced by an individual consciousness.

If meaning exists, it must be instantiated within a mind capable of understanding it.
An entity lacking individual mental states cannot experience or possess meaning in any subjective sense.

Premise 3: A “cosmic” or “transcendent” meaning, by definition, is external to individual minds.

Proponents of cosmic meaning claim that meaning exists independent of personal consciousness, dictated by a god or an objective cosmic order.
This assumes meaning can exist outside the domain of minds, contradicting Premises 1 and 2.

Premise 4: If meaning is external to individual minds, then it cannot be meaning in any recognizable sense.

A supposed “objective” or “cosmic” meaning that exists without any individual to conceive or experience it is functionally indistinguishable from nonexistence.
Just as “color” cannot exist without a perceiving eye, “meaning” cannot exist without a conscious interpreter.

Conclusion: The concept of a “cosmic” or “transcendent” meaning is incoherent.

The term “meaning” only makes sense in relation to a mind that conceives it.
A mind-independent meaning is a contradiction, much like a “colorless color” or a “square circle.”
Any claim that a god or the cosmos “bestows” meaning presumes meaning can exist without being perceived, violating the foundational nature of meaning itself.

Corollary: The claim that a god provides inherent purpose collapses under logical scrutiny.

Even if a deity has intentions, those intentions must be interpreted and internalized within a mind.
If an individual must accept and integrate meaning personally, then meaning is still subjective, not cosmic.
The supposed “transcendent meaning” is nothing more than an externally proposed narrative, which an individual may or may not adopt.

Thus, the very notion of an external, mind-independent meaning is incoherent—because meaning, by definition, must always be processed within a consciousness. Cosmic meaning is a linguistic illusion, mistaking externally asserted intentions for internally constructed purpose.

Corresponding Symbolic Logic

Definitions and Predicates

Let:

$M(x)$ = “x possesses meaning.”
$C(x)$ = “x is a conscious entity.”
$E(x)$ = “x exists externally to all conscious entities.”
$O(x)$ = “x is objective (mind-independent).”
$G$ = “God” (or any external entity proposed to bestow meaning).
$\forall$ = Universal quantifier (“for all”).
$\exists$ = Existential quantifier (“there exists”).

Formal Proof

Premise 1: Meaning is necessarily a mental construct.

$\forall x , (M(x) \rightarrow C(x))$

Meaning can only exist within something that is conscious.

Premise 2: A “cosmic meaning” is defined as meaning that exists outside of all individual minds.

$\exists y , (M(y) \wedge E(y))$

Proponents of cosmic meaning claim that meaning exists externally to consciousness.

Premise 3: Meaning cannot exist without a conscious entity to conceive or interpret it.

$\neg \exists x , (E(x) \wedge M(x))$

There is no meaning that exists independently of all minds.

Conclusion: The notion of “cosmic meaning” is a contradiction.

$\forall y , (E(y) \rightarrow \neg M(y))$

If something exists externally to all minds, then it cannot have meaning.

Since “cosmic meaning” is defined as meaning that exists independent of all minds, and we have established that meaning cannot exist without consciousness, it follows that “cosmic meaning” is logically incoherent.

Corollary: God Cannot Bestow Meaning

If a deity $G$ were to “bestow” meaning upon individuals, then meaning must still be internalized within a conscious being:

$\forall x , (G \rightarrow M(x) \rightarrow C(x))$

Even if God assigns meaning, it must be processed by a mind to exist as meaning.

Therefore, meaning is still subjective, not cosmic:

$\neg \exists y , (O(y) \wedge M(y))$

There is no objective, mind-independent meaning.

Thus, any claim that meaning exists “cosmically” or “transcendentally” is logically self-defeating, as it depends on a category error—mistaking externally asserted intentions for internally constructed significance.

A Topic-Adjacent Technical Paper:

The_Affective_Core_of_Meaning Download

Ryan, your response attempts to bridge the gap between ancient text and modern rationality, but it relies on several logical…

What I was attempting to show was that much of what “Christianity” [a vague term] teaches lacks critical thinking in…

[Biblical faith, as presented in the New Testament, is primarily concerned with conviction in divine authority, rather than rational belief…

Yes, I see that now. All is fine. I think it held the comment as “pending” since it had several…

Hi Phil: I wrote a series of two posts regarding Biblical scholarship and errors in response to the commentor from…

(Continued from Previous Post) As a final aside, I want to provide you with a list of resources and invite…

Ryan: I read your posts and tried to provide some responses above. I wanted to respectfully address your appeal to…

Ryan, your most recent reply basically tries to force a false choice: either I “presuppose the Bible” (and therefore must…

[If the question is whether a “personal God” is actually present, communicative, and relationship-seeking, you don’t get to begin by granting the…

Oh, okay, thanks. I remember many of the considerations pieces on the old Sufficient Reasons site but haven’t yet read…