Thanks for your detailed reply and thoughts!

I think by "irrelevant" as used the in the context "to put it more simply, logic and human intuitions are, at the most basic level, irrelevant," I just mean that logic is not inherently related to human intuitions. I do not mean the question of "meaning of life" is irrelevant. I actually do not take a stance on whether the question "what is the meaning of life" is relevant/important.

The psychiatrist's basic point (and my current position on the issue) is that: "meaning of life" is a human construct. Being a human construct, its definition inherently depends upon each and every individual's different human intuitions. Since different people have different definitions of "meaning of life," there's no hope at arriving at a universal answer to the question---so there is no thing in the universe that is objectively meaningful and have intrinsic good/value to all humans. That is my first point. The second point is that because the whole concept of "meaning" is very much an intuition of the human mind, and human intuitions are not always logically consistent, may be we should not trust logic so much as a tool to arrive at an answer to the question, "what is the meaning of MY life." If two pieces of intuitions are logically contradictory, it is not because one piece of intuition is "true" while the other piece is "faulty." Both intuitions are valid---we should not extrapolate intuitions too much using logic. Because human constructs are based upon individualized human intuitions, there is no such a concept as "universal truth" with regard to human subjects. This is not a claim that is isn't "universal truth" about any question in the universe. It is just a claim that there isn't "universal truth" about human-related questions in the universe. So, the basic claim is that logic is overused in arriving at answers about meaning of life, and it is perfectly fine living a life that intuitively feels meaningful to you without giving much weight to a logical argument that tries to disprove your intuition about what is meaningful to you.

​

>I would argue that it is only through examining what feels meaningful to us that we can learn what is really at root meaningful to us. To the extent that our beliefs about what is meaningful to us are dependent upon other beliefs then they're going to be dependent on those other beliefs in specific ways and knowing in which ways they are dependent upon other beliefs will help us to further abstract those beliefs away and get closer to the root of what is meaningful to us.

I agree with that!