[metmom]

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Neither did your question in post 51 : Assume for a second that the universe is "pointless" and there is no "meaning of life". Would you rather accept the truth or live in a delusion?

If there were no meaning or point to anything, what difference would it make?

If there were no meaning or point, would there be any *truth*? And what would *truth* be?

[ndt]

If there were no meaning or point to anything, what difference would it make?"

Whether it matters or not makes no difference what so ever. It's a simple red pill blue pill question.

Would you want to know there was no purpose or would you rather just continue to believe there was?

Everyone, yourself included is trying to expand it into some grand unanswerable question so you can avoid taking a position. Hell even Keanu Reeves could answer it and he's not that bright.

[raygun]

Finally somebody nailes it! At least you got as close as anybody thus far.

The fact of the matter is that the question posed, given the axiomatic presupposition, is itself immaterial and the answer to the question posed is irrelevent.

Pointless existance taken to its logical conclusion can only result in nihilism. Nihilism breeds contempt, and ultimately despair, in that one’s own contempt is pointless.

On the other hand, an inherent and fundemental philosophical attitude that there is meaning and direction to the universe, all the things in it, and their interactions would have a tendency to instill hope. Hope that is that things can get better, and that perhaps this is not it, i.e., all that there is.

The difference between the two would intrinsicly be that of a value judgement. However, given the axiomatic presupposition, neither position would have any value whatsoever, let alone one having greater value than the other.