> > I suppose the other possibility (given a meaningless universe) is that, by conceiving the idea of meaning, we have in a sense created meaning.
>
> I've heard people attibuting these sorts of ideas to Kant...is that misinterpretation? (I'm not very learned in philosophy)

The following comes from what little Kant I've read; mostly his short essays. The one whose name I can recall and which is somewhat related to the topic is "Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent."*

Kant would not agree that the universe is meaningless or that our conception of meaning makes the universe meaningful. You might argue (by stretching things a bit) that Kant would say that our (humanity's) existence makes the universe meaningful.

Kant states that while figuring out the meaning of a single human life is perhaps an impossible task, the goal of the human species as a whole can be determined. That goal is the complete development of human reason.

For Kant, history begin when the first being began supplementing pure animal instinct with rational thought. Though Kant doens't speak in these terms, one could argue that before "history" began, life had no purpose, other than to wait around for one of the primates to start reasoning, perhaps. History ends when human reason is completely developed, meaning the species is perfect. After this point, humans will have reached their goal, so you might either say that post-"Kantian history" life is meaingless or that its purpose is to simply perpetuate and bask in its own perfection.

Bal"*: Not to be confused with the recent Cosmo article 'Airheaded Promiscuity: A History.'"anthalus