On the one hand, you are arguably the best qualified of all people to judge that.
But on the other hand, nothing I have read so far of everything you've written, including and especially this article, suggests to me that you are not a philosopher.
(Is there an objective test by which we can determine whether someone is or isn't a philosopher?)
Agree with your general thesis - but the situation is far more problematic once you question what Theistic meaning is actually supposed to be, rather than the defensive justifying meaning making for the atheist.
Ask a theist what is meaningful in their life and much of what you will hear are the temporary high value salient features any atheist can value....their family, being loved, loving another, contributing to society, work that is fulfilling in that it Enhances skills & virtues, having children, ability to trust others in relationships.....just brain storm what most Theists find meaningful - most of these are embodied, contingent, worldly experiences.
What maybe meaningful to a Theist that isn't available to an atheist ? Prayer ?
Perhaps rituals performed as part of community ?
Perhaps there are secular type rituals that can be part of communities - at the end of the day its still worldly gathering of people sharing aligned values.
(Eg keys say waving Lulav, putting on tefillin, lighting shabbat candles)
However, I think the religious obsession with the other worldly & afterlife type theology CREATES nihillism - that nihillism is an invention created and formed by the ultra religious mindset.
This is the Nietzschean critique that Christianity itself created the requisite structures for nihillism to be possible.(Quite heavy on this in the Anti-Christ)
This is because theistic focus on the afterlife & otherworldly creates a vacuum and negation of this world, the very veridical real manifestation we actually live in as illusionary.
This is very specific to ascetic aspects of religion, very critical of Christianities notion of original Sin and this world as fallen but has plenty validity in Judaism with notions such as this world mearly a corridor waiting for the Palace.
Chapter 4 Mishna 17
Rabbi Yaakov would say: this world is like a corridor (hallway) before Olam Haba (the World-to-Come). Prepare yourself in the corridor (hallway) in order that you enter the Palace.
What if ask why is the Palace meaningful ?
What is meaningful about "Olam Habah" as some perpetual reward ?
Why is perpetual reward meaningful and doesn't collapse into Nihillism ?
Rewards are outcomes of goals and benchmarks in successful teleological pursuits.
Rewards are never perpetual but dynamic and contingent on virtuous activity eg study for exams and the reward is passing or some prize for achievement.
What is meaningful about PERPETUAL or Eternal Rewards, especially for limited practices "in the corridor" of an illusionary reality that's a puppet show Orchestrated by a master engineer ?
Vice versa - what's the point of PERPETUAL punishment in an afterlife?
Failing to achieve a goal [missing the mark] is also a dynamic activity that is worldly with feedback of failure and sometimes ability to learn & grow.
If cannot learn & grow with no agency in an afterlife, what's the point of the suffering.
If can learn & grow with agency in an afterlife, then it's just continuation of this world "corridor" - corridor all the way & no Palace.
My basic point in this long rant, is that once thr notion of a "Palace" in thr afterlife is incoherent and Nihillistic then EVERYTHING in the religious theistic world view is nihilistic- including the corridor (this world)
The Nietzschean sees this world is your reality, become an Ubermensch to make the most worthwhile life NOW, affirming LIVING LIFE as Amor Fati (love of one's fate)
- not wanting life as a nihillist seeking a Palace in some mystical world that when contemplate and analyse it, ends up a figment of the imagination.
I part from Nietzschean view in some respects by affirming we have a high degree of agency but acknowledge that we are also thrown into the world that impinges itself on us forcefully in such a way that we are entangled and part of the world not seperate from it.
The "corridor" in Pirke Avot is our existence and we can choose to make it as much as possible our Palace, and if we don't, the corridor will be a nihillistic void of superficiality and suffering.
The funny thing - much of what makes the corridor of our existence meaningful & valuable are exactly the same as the most religious Theistic values such as raising kids, loving relationships, family values, productive work - even defending your terrorory from invaders & terrorists.
The question of religious nihilism is a seperate discussion, and does not affect the primary discussion here.
Regarding the theistic justification for meaning, most theist will tell you that somehow their religion encapsulates and incorporates all the meaningful aspects of their lives, and the ones who won't will tell you that it's the yetzer hara (or whatever name of their religion calls it) who makes temporal existence seem meaningful when in fact it's not because it's unjustified.
As a side note - Absurdism is Albert Camus not Satre.
In the novel the plague, Albert Camus illustrates that meaning is not something to be discovered, but something to be created through action. The characters, despite their awareness of the absurdity of their situation (plague and impending death), choose to act with courage, solidarity, and compassion. For example, Rieux, Tarrou, and Rambert all choose to work tirelessly to combat the plague, not because they believe they will defeat it, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. Their actions in the face of absurdity are what give their lives meaning.
The interesting convergence here is that the "Hero's" in Alber Camus absurdism act despite the nihillism in a way that what most virtue ethics consider religious meaningful values such as courage, compassion & solidarity.
The courage, compassion & solidarity ARE MEANINGFUL ACTIVITIES - for their own sake, in this world - not for rewards in an afterlife.
In a paradoxical way, by Albert Camus Absurditism utterly embracing Nihillism, the nihillism is transcended and bypassed - that we create the meanings despite the nihillism, spitting at the nihillism in defiance.
I can be courageous & compassionate because I choose to do so - not because of getting some reward in an afterlife as a prize.
I.e one can develop virtues for their own sake, not for rewards or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Just checked it up, you're right that the term absurdism refers to camus's philosophy, but I was referring to his existentialism which focuses on the idea of the absurd.
I would just like to point out that depicting theists as doing what's right for a prize in the afterlife is a straw man, (אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב), their argument to the atheist that religion provides meaning is based on their ontological grounding of purpose, morality, and goodness. (We can debate if theism succeeds in grounding these, but at least they believe it does, and they don't see how a non-theist philosophy doesn't lead to nihilism.
I agree about the straw manning, Judaism is a little more quiescent on afterlife rewards & punishments than let's say Islam & some versions of Christianity.
If you were to go down the ontological route of grounded necessity for purpose, morality & meaning, then would end up in the Euthyphro dillemma.
Is the purpose, morality & meaning arbitary & the subjective will of God or is God the guide for what already intrinsically must have properties of goodness, meaning & purpose.
If its the latter horn of the Euthyphro, then the atheist can align with the purposeful, meaningful & good which can be discovered. (Not getting into how discovered or whether only possible through direct revelation or accessible through reason & intuitions)
It at least seems to myself that the meaning, purposeful & good must align with some reasoning- there is a reason why torturing babies for fun wasn't chosen as the height of a purposeful meaningful good action, and must be reasons for the good regardless what "God decides" so to speak.
If one takes the other horn of the Euthyphro, God becomes an epistemic nihillist and promotes a type of nihillism. (Purposes, meanings & goodness just subjectively arbitary)
Although - my view is that purposes & meanings come from our biological groundedness & abstracted from the struggles of biological and cultural survival and flourishing.
Not being reductionist, the purposes & meanings can be a plurality and many different causes such as survival instincts, death anxiety, reproductive success and social cohesiom and defence to name a few that are intertwined.
I partially adressed the euthyphro dillemma; that even if god's will is arbitrary, it's still not subjective as it has an intological status with the world by virtue of also being a manifestation of his will. The answer why it wouldn't be arbitrary is because he wills good by virtue of his own nature, which would make sense if you explain the ontological status of being good as being more connected with reality, and god being the ultimate reality and wants good for us necessarily want's what is in alignment with his own nature, but that is a seperate discussion and irrelevant if one is a realist when it comes to meaning.
>>>It has often been asserted that unless one believes in God, life is inherently meaningless.
This is similar to saying that "it has often been asserted that unless one believes in the tooth fairy, there is no point in losing teeth." As a fact of life, teeth will be lost and one should not confuse the utility (use) of stories with the truth of these stories.
We can philosophize all day about an idea and even enjoy it, but it doesn't make it true.
Can you explain more about what the premises and conclusion in your “formal argument” is. I’m having trouble understanding the form of the argument and having P1 and P2 in a conclusion of a formal argument is confusing and unnecessary to me.
The accusation of the theist is that meaning is fake, but if we can demonstrate that 1. there is a world of experience and 2. the world of experience contains goals, then meaning is very real within the context of the world of experience. This just raises the objections that i listed, which is 1. the world of experience is fake as per reductionism, 2. the goals are fake as per subjectivism, and 3. the meaning is a lie because it only fulfilled temporarily.
I assume a proponent of this argument will have a different definition of “meaningful “.
To me it seems obvious from my experience and talking to other people that people experience feelings as you laid out in your definition. So it seems pretty trivial. I found the objections silly and it seemed to complicate a simple idea, but perhaps you’ve actually seen these objections that seems silly to me.
The actual feeling is pretty simple, but if it's just a feeling the question is is one actually justified in investing in it, because of it's simply an illusion that there is being a purpose fulfilled than one who realizes that will realize the truth that there's really no point.
But what is it a feeling of? Of fulfillment. If the fulfillment is simply an illusion, than it seems unjustified. Now obviously nothing would be objectively wrong with doing something unjustified, but from a psychological POV knowing its futility leads to despair and ultimately nihilism, and from a philosophical POV as long as it's not justified you can't build a coherent philosophy based on it, ultimately leading to nihilism as well.
I dunno. I’m missing why it would be unjustified if it is a feeling of “fulfillment”. Any time a feeling causes an urge and you follow that urge, then one is justified in following that urge.
I’m not sure I understood your point afterwards about the diffeeent POVs and futility despair and nihilism when doing unjustified things. It could be I’m just missing the point about why it’s unjustified.
To illustrate the psychological POV, Camus used the famous myth of Sysiphus about a guy who was forced to roll a stone up and down the hill forever as a punishment. Don't you agree that recognizing the pointlessness of the task would drive him crazy?
From a philosophical pov, if you can't defend it you can't say its true, so you're still stuck with the belief that everything is pointless. The feeling is a lie if nothing is actually fulfilled. It's like thinking something was done when it really wasnt, because the feeling is that something is now better, while from an objective pov it was always indifferent. Just try imagining the world that way for a minute, and you might find it hard to think of a reason to do anything as long as you think that way.
I think I’m confused about the claims that you are making or are addressing.
In the Sysiphus example, I agree that people will usually feel negative feelings when confronted with the fact that it is pointless. But that’s because there is no goal that the person is fulfilling. If there is a goal, the the fact that things are “ultimately” pointless has less likelihood on creating negative feeling in my experience. Either way, I’m not sure why this is relevant.
I’m still having a hard time understanding the philosophical POV. I think I may misunderstanding what you think this “feeling” is.
Ok. Let's begin with your starting point that if you have a feeling which tells you to do something, then why not do it? Great. So what are theists making such a fuss about? Because we are also rational beings, and if we realize that what we are feeling is a sense of purpose, but the purpose is not actually there, it ends up being pretty stupid and unmotivating. So the atheist simply says that we make our own purpose. But the theist objects that when it's made up it's still the same stupid. So I'm trying to analyze what it would mean if it was true, and the answer ends up being that theres a way to explain the world experientially, (or what some might call the narrative world,) and if you look at things that way meaning is very real. The theist ultimately is falling back on this idea as well, he justs makes the experiential world cosmic, infinite and objective, but the atheist says that although its not cosmic, and it's subjective and temporal, since the experiential world still exists at least by us, meaning is still real so it doesn't end up being stupid and only for dumb people who don't realize the truth.
What would it mean for a “purpose” to actually be there?
When I describe a feeling as having purpose, it’s just descriptive about how it fulfills other goals or desires that I have. Like giving money to poor people has purpose in that the person won’t starve and I care about reducing pain.
Do people mean something different when they say something has a purpose?
Aristotle believed that everything has an intrinsic purpose which controls its nature, and with regard to humans they should figure out what that purpose is and direct all efforts towards that to become a 'complete' or 'fulfilled' person. This idea, although it has fallen out of the natural sciences, it's still a common theme in religous thought, where we want to acheive שלימות or become better, and the feeling is just what comes along when you actually have it, but sometimes the feeling can be a mistake (usually attributed to yetzer hara who makes it feel that way so you get confused about your purpose). In religous thought it's usually connected with what god wants, because since he created you, you exist for the purpose he created you for, so it's real in that sense.
But to get to real-life examples; let's say someone wants to accomplish something, like learning a new skill or becoming a successful professional. What underlies that desire? It's because he looks at that goal as somehow making him better/making him worth something/doing something important. It's not just for the feeling in the end, he looks at it as important right now, and that's why he wants to do it and the feeling is just because he now feel like a better person/worth more/more important. But it what sense is that actually true? If it's just an illusion he may as well just give up now, cuz he'll never actually get there. So we have to figure out a justifiable definition of what makes him actually better. My definition is that it uses the world of experience, which if accepted as an axiom, some experiences are more valuable than others, either through religion, which ultimately ties back to the experiential world of god, or through our own experience which is a direct experience. (Aristotle view the world of experience as just a part of the natural world, but nobody today believes that.)
>>I am no philosopher
Simon Furst -
On the one hand, you are arguably the best qualified of all people to judge that.
But on the other hand, nothing I have read so far of everything you've written, including and especially this article, suggests to me that you are not a philosopher.
(Is there an objective test by which we can determine whether someone is or isn't a philosopher?)
Agree with your general thesis - but the situation is far more problematic once you question what Theistic meaning is actually supposed to be, rather than the defensive justifying meaning making for the atheist.
Ask a theist what is meaningful in their life and much of what you will hear are the temporary high value salient features any atheist can value....their family, being loved, loving another, contributing to society, work that is fulfilling in that it Enhances skills & virtues, having children, ability to trust others in relationships.....just brain storm what most Theists find meaningful - most of these are embodied, contingent, worldly experiences.
What maybe meaningful to a Theist that isn't available to an atheist ? Prayer ?
Perhaps rituals performed as part of community ?
Perhaps there are secular type rituals that can be part of communities - at the end of the day its still worldly gathering of people sharing aligned values.
(Eg keys say waving Lulav, putting on tefillin, lighting shabbat candles)
However, I think the religious obsession with the other worldly & afterlife type theology CREATES nihillism - that nihillism is an invention created and formed by the ultra religious mindset.
This is the Nietzschean critique that Christianity itself created the requisite structures for nihillism to be possible.(Quite heavy on this in the Anti-Christ)
This is because theistic focus on the afterlife & otherworldly creates a vacuum and negation of this world, the very veridical real manifestation we actually live in as illusionary.
This is very specific to ascetic aspects of religion, very critical of Christianities notion of original Sin and this world as fallen but has plenty validity in Judaism with notions such as this world mearly a corridor waiting for the Palace.
Chapter 4 Mishna 17
Rabbi Yaakov would say: this world is like a corridor (hallway) before Olam Haba (the World-to-Come). Prepare yourself in the corridor (hallway) in order that you enter the Palace.
What if ask why is the Palace meaningful ?
What is meaningful about "Olam Habah" as some perpetual reward ?
Why is perpetual reward meaningful and doesn't collapse into Nihillism ?
Rewards are outcomes of goals and benchmarks in successful teleological pursuits.
Rewards are never perpetual but dynamic and contingent on virtuous activity eg study for exams and the reward is passing or some prize for achievement.
What is meaningful about PERPETUAL or Eternal Rewards, especially for limited practices "in the corridor" of an illusionary reality that's a puppet show Orchestrated by a master engineer ?
Vice versa - what's the point of PERPETUAL punishment in an afterlife?
Failing to achieve a goal [missing the mark] is also a dynamic activity that is worldly with feedback of failure and sometimes ability to learn & grow.
If cannot learn & grow with no agency in an afterlife, what's the point of the suffering.
If can learn & grow with agency in an afterlife, then it's just continuation of this world "corridor" - corridor all the way & no Palace.
My basic point in this long rant, is that once thr notion of a "Palace" in thr afterlife is incoherent and Nihillistic then EVERYTHING in the religious theistic world view is nihilistic- including the corridor (this world)
The Nietzschean sees this world is your reality, become an Ubermensch to make the most worthwhile life NOW, affirming LIVING LIFE as Amor Fati (love of one's fate)
- not wanting life as a nihillist seeking a Palace in some mystical world that when contemplate and analyse it, ends up a figment of the imagination.
I part from Nietzschean view in some respects by affirming we have a high degree of agency but acknowledge that we are also thrown into the world that impinges itself on us forcefully in such a way that we are entangled and part of the world not seperate from it.
The "corridor" in Pirke Avot is our existence and we can choose to make it as much as possible our Palace, and if we don't, the corridor will be a nihillistic void of superficiality and suffering.
The funny thing - much of what makes the corridor of our existence meaningful & valuable are exactly the same as the most religious Theistic values such as raising kids, loving relationships, family values, productive work - even defending your terrorory from invaders & terrorists.
The question of religious nihilism is a seperate discussion, and does not affect the primary discussion here.
Regarding the theistic justification for meaning, most theist will tell you that somehow their religion encapsulates and incorporates all the meaningful aspects of their lives, and the ones who won't will tell you that it's the yetzer hara (or whatever name of their religion calls it) who makes temporal existence seem meaningful when in fact it's not because it's unjustified.
As a side note - Absurdism is Albert Camus not Satre.
In the novel the plague, Albert Camus illustrates that meaning is not something to be discovered, but something to be created through action. The characters, despite their awareness of the absurdity of their situation (plague and impending death), choose to act with courage, solidarity, and compassion. For example, Rieux, Tarrou, and Rambert all choose to work tirelessly to combat the plague, not because they believe they will defeat it, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. Their actions in the face of absurdity are what give their lives meaning.
The interesting convergence here is that the "Hero's" in Alber Camus absurdism act despite the nihillism in a way that what most virtue ethics consider religious meaningful values such as courage, compassion & solidarity.
The courage, compassion & solidarity ARE MEANINGFUL ACTIVITIES - for their own sake, in this world - not for rewards in an afterlife.
In a paradoxical way, by Albert Camus Absurditism utterly embracing Nihillism, the nihillism is transcended and bypassed - that we create the meanings despite the nihillism, spitting at the nihillism in defiance.
I can be courageous & compassionate because I choose to do so - not because of getting some reward in an afterlife as a prize.
I.e one can develop virtues for their own sake, not for rewards or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Just checked it up, you're right that the term absurdism refers to camus's philosophy, but I was referring to his existentialism which focuses on the idea of the absurd.
I would just like to point out that depicting theists as doing what's right for a prize in the afterlife is a straw man, (אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב), their argument to the atheist that religion provides meaning is based on their ontological grounding of purpose, morality, and goodness. (We can debate if theism succeeds in grounding these, but at least they believe it does, and they don't see how a non-theist philosophy doesn't lead to nihilism.
I agree about the straw manning, Judaism is a little more quiescent on afterlife rewards & punishments than let's say Islam & some versions of Christianity.
If you were to go down the ontological route of grounded necessity for purpose, morality & meaning, then would end up in the Euthyphro dillemma.
Is the purpose, morality & meaning arbitary & the subjective will of God or is God the guide for what already intrinsically must have properties of goodness, meaning & purpose.
If its the latter horn of the Euthyphro, then the atheist can align with the purposeful, meaningful & good which can be discovered. (Not getting into how discovered or whether only possible through direct revelation or accessible through reason & intuitions)
It at least seems to myself that the meaning, purposeful & good must align with some reasoning- there is a reason why torturing babies for fun wasn't chosen as the height of a purposeful meaningful good action, and must be reasons for the good regardless what "God decides" so to speak.
If one takes the other horn of the Euthyphro, God becomes an epistemic nihillist and promotes a type of nihillism. (Purposes, meanings & goodness just subjectively arbitary)
Although - my view is that purposes & meanings come from our biological groundedness & abstracted from the struggles of biological and cultural survival and flourishing.
Not being reductionist, the purposes & meanings can be a plurality and many different causes such as survival instincts, death anxiety, reproductive success and social cohesiom and defence to name a few that are intertwined.
I partially adressed the euthyphro dillemma; that even if god's will is arbitrary, it's still not subjective as it has an intological status with the world by virtue of also being a manifestation of his will. The answer why it wouldn't be arbitrary is because he wills good by virtue of his own nature, which would make sense if you explain the ontological status of being good as being more connected with reality, and god being the ultimate reality and wants good for us necessarily want's what is in alignment with his own nature, but that is a seperate discussion and irrelevant if one is a realist when it comes to meaning.
>>>It has often been asserted that unless one believes in God, life is inherently meaningless.
This is similar to saying that "it has often been asserted that unless one believes in the tooth fairy, there is no point in losing teeth." As a fact of life, teeth will be lost and one should not confuse the utility (use) of stories with the truth of these stories.
We can philosophize all day about an idea and even enjoy it, but it doesn't make it true.
Can you explain more about what the premises and conclusion in your “formal argument” is. I’m having trouble understanding the form of the argument and having P1 and P2 in a conclusion of a formal argument is confusing and unnecessary to me.
The accusation of the theist is that meaning is fake, but if we can demonstrate that 1. there is a world of experience and 2. the world of experience contains goals, then meaning is very real within the context of the world of experience. This just raises the objections that i listed, which is 1. the world of experience is fake as per reductionism, 2. the goals are fake as per subjectivism, and 3. the meaning is a lie because it only fulfilled temporarily.
I assume a proponent of this argument will have a different definition of “meaningful “.
To me it seems obvious from my experience and talking to other people that people experience feelings as you laid out in your definition. So it seems pretty trivial. I found the objections silly and it seemed to complicate a simple idea, but perhaps you’ve actually seen these objections that seems silly to me.
The actual feeling is pretty simple, but if it's just a feeling the question is is one actually justified in investing in it, because of it's simply an illusion that there is being a purpose fulfilled than one who realizes that will realize the truth that there's really no point.
But didn’t you define “meaning” as a feeling?
And why wouldn’t someone be justified in investing a feeling?
But what is it a feeling of? Of fulfillment. If the fulfillment is simply an illusion, than it seems unjustified. Now obviously nothing would be objectively wrong with doing something unjustified, but from a psychological POV knowing its futility leads to despair and ultimately nihilism, and from a philosophical POV as long as it's not justified you can't build a coherent philosophy based on it, ultimately leading to nihilism as well.
I dunno. I’m missing why it would be unjustified if it is a feeling of “fulfillment”. Any time a feeling causes an urge and you follow that urge, then one is justified in following that urge.
I’m not sure I understood your point afterwards about the diffeeent POVs and futility despair and nihilism when doing unjustified things. It could be I’m just missing the point about why it’s unjustified.
To illustrate the psychological POV, Camus used the famous myth of Sysiphus about a guy who was forced to roll a stone up and down the hill forever as a punishment. Don't you agree that recognizing the pointlessness of the task would drive him crazy?
From a philosophical pov, if you can't defend it you can't say its true, so you're still stuck with the belief that everything is pointless. The feeling is a lie if nothing is actually fulfilled. It's like thinking something was done when it really wasnt, because the feeling is that something is now better, while from an objective pov it was always indifferent. Just try imagining the world that way for a minute, and you might find it hard to think of a reason to do anything as long as you think that way.
I think I’m confused about the claims that you are making or are addressing.
In the Sysiphus example, I agree that people will usually feel negative feelings when confronted with the fact that it is pointless. But that’s because there is no goal that the person is fulfilling. If there is a goal, the the fact that things are “ultimately” pointless has less likelihood on creating negative feeling in my experience. Either way, I’m not sure why this is relevant.
I’m still having a hard time understanding the philosophical POV. I think I may misunderstanding what you think this “feeling” is.
Ok. Let's begin with your starting point that if you have a feeling which tells you to do something, then why not do it? Great. So what are theists making such a fuss about? Because we are also rational beings, and if we realize that what we are feeling is a sense of purpose, but the purpose is not actually there, it ends up being pretty stupid and unmotivating. So the atheist simply says that we make our own purpose. But the theist objects that when it's made up it's still the same stupid. So I'm trying to analyze what it would mean if it was true, and the answer ends up being that theres a way to explain the world experientially, (or what some might call the narrative world,) and if you look at things that way meaning is very real. The theist ultimately is falling back on this idea as well, he justs makes the experiential world cosmic, infinite and objective, but the atheist says that although its not cosmic, and it's subjective and temporal, since the experiential world still exists at least by us, meaning is still real so it doesn't end up being stupid and only for dumb people who don't realize the truth.
What would it mean for a “purpose” to actually be there?
When I describe a feeling as having purpose, it’s just descriptive about how it fulfills other goals or desires that I have. Like giving money to poor people has purpose in that the person won’t starve and I care about reducing pain.
Do people mean something different when they say something has a purpose?
Aristotle believed that everything has an intrinsic purpose which controls its nature, and with regard to humans they should figure out what that purpose is and direct all efforts towards that to become a 'complete' or 'fulfilled' person. This idea, although it has fallen out of the natural sciences, it's still a common theme in religous thought, where we want to acheive שלימות or become better, and the feeling is just what comes along when you actually have it, but sometimes the feeling can be a mistake (usually attributed to yetzer hara who makes it feel that way so you get confused about your purpose). In religous thought it's usually connected with what god wants, because since he created you, you exist for the purpose he created you for, so it's real in that sense.
But to get to real-life examples; let's say someone wants to accomplish something, like learning a new skill or becoming a successful professional. What underlies that desire? It's because he looks at that goal as somehow making him better/making him worth something/doing something important. It's not just for the feeling in the end, he looks at it as important right now, and that's why he wants to do it and the feeling is just because he now feel like a better person/worth more/more important. But it what sense is that actually true? If it's just an illusion he may as well just give up now, cuz he'll never actually get there. So we have to figure out a justifiable definition of what makes him actually better. My definition is that it uses the world of experience, which if accepted as an axiom, some experiences are more valuable than others, either through religion, which ultimately ties back to the experiential world of god, or through our own experience which is a direct experience. (Aristotle view the world of experience as just a part of the natural world, but nobody today believes that.)