using syllogisms to refute philosphical ideas?

[Heenry]

existentialism says that life has no inherent meaning and that we create our own meaning in life, but by acknowledging and embracing this idea aren't we embracing some other meaning rather than 'our own'? you might even say we don't have our own meanings which brings me to nihilism which says among other things"life is without objective meaning" but you can't use a meaningful statement to say that life isn't meaningful? on the other hand, philosophical ideas involving clearer absolutes seem implausible to me. i'm not asserting any positions here (least i don't think i am) i'm just deliberating, and i'm curious what you think.

 

[Keith]

I do so love it when people are intelligent...

You've realized some inherent flaws with some ideals of philosophy.
However, you must remember: Humans are inherently flawed, and always disagree. thus, contradictions are intrinsic to the human lifestyle.

In my opinion, the only absolute is that there are no absolutes, which ironically contradicts itself. There's a better wording for it somewhere...

Regardless. To clarify: You've reached the point of philosophy where the inherent flaws become clear, and thus you start to question the basis of philosophical ideals. However, this is entirely pointless, as you will get nowhere with it.
Now, one might contend that philosophy itself is pointless, but really, we could argue for eternity.

It's best to not waste your time questioning such deep problems. People have dedicated their lives to such things, and still haven't figured it out.

just leave it at: Currently, the human nature is to disagree. Thus, everything in existence as viewed by us is inherently flawed.

To some extent.