Question

I read the following argument, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion on whether it holds water:
1. Every meaning arises from positing some system, object, or content beyond the thing under discussion itself. Meaning is not an internal property of the thing, but exists only in relation to some external referent. For example: a soccer game receives its meaning only in relation to external concepts like competition, rivalry, victory, or group identity. Meaning, then, is always external to the thing itself (the game and the rules of soccer themselves).

2. Therefore, if the world as a whole has meaning, the source of that meaning must necessarily be beyond the boundaries of the world itself. In other words, a person who assumes that only the world before us exists must also conclude that the world as a whole has no meaning.

What do you think?