Meaning of Life - Page 2

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

July 14 2008 17:03 GMT

#21

Quoting the OP: Ok why does there have to be a meaning of life? Seriously. All right were human's were a little smarter than the average creature, but that doesn't mean there has to be a reason for anything. There doesn't have to be a 'meaning' of life, we simply exist. And we try to ensure that existence for as long as possible.

I'm going to sleep and going down to cincinatti for a bit so I'll answer the venemous responses in a couple days.
-----------------------------------

I'm kind of fascinated with this post, because to me it is full of meaning. I wonder what compelled the OP to start this thread. It seems to me that this topic and the sharing of opinion carry some meaning for the OP. Somehow this post reflects some aspect of the OP's purpose. If there is no meaning, why eat, sleep, breathe? Why concern oneself with whether or not people believe there is meaning in life? Why care to address venomous responses? Why even take a step to elicit venomous responses if life is meaningless? If life is meaningless, why bother upsetting people to the point of getting them to spout anything venomous? This post, in other words, to me, reflects meaning. The OP finds meaning in creating things like this thread.

I don't think it is so absurd that people would find meaning in the destruction of meaning. Some people like construction and others like destruction (destruction might be too strong a word, but we'll roll with it).

Part of how we weave meaning into our lives is with the creation of ideas and the play of language. Much religion (perhaps all) is a reflection of this. People have created ideas that give meaning. Others (perhaps the DAwkins' of the world) find meaning in destroying these constructions. I would argue that science, too, is constructed meaning (objectivity is a meaningful goal for some people).

We can also play with meaning, combining ideas and methods in new ways to create new forms. This can be seen as play or as a spiritual endeavor or both.

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

July 14 2008 17:10 GMT

#22

Mistik says to Quesadilla: that's the problem. you feel instead of think.

What makes you think that thinking and feeling are so separate? Nietzsche, for example, who was very critical of Christianity and other philosophies that posited transcendental meaning, would argue that thinking arises out of feeling and instinct, and that feeling and instinct play a much bigger role in any philosophy than thought.

abandonallhope

Sweden563 Posts

July 14 2008 22:31 GMT

#23

Humanity does not have a purpose, so what?

.MistiK

Netherlands347 Posts

July 15 2008 11:50 GMT

#24

On July 15 2008 02:10 nA.Inky wrote:
Mistik says to Quesadilla: that's the problem. you feel instead of think.

What makes you think that thinking and feeling are so separate? Nietzsche, for example, who was very critical of Christianity and other philosophies that posited transcendental meaning, would argue that thinking arises out of feeling and instinct, and that feeling and instinct play a much bigger role in any philosophy than thought.

I think that our emotions and instincts are still primitive and not on a much higher level than those of animals.
I believe that we can understand the world around us with logic and experimenting, not by deciding that something feels right or wrong.

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

July 15 2008 15:29 GMT

#25

Mistik says: I think that our emotions and instincts are still primitive and not on a much higher level than those of animals.
I believe that we can understand the world around us with logic and experimenting, not by deciding that something feels right or wrong.
-------------------------------------
In your writing I see a lot of unexamined assumptions.

Do you THINK our emotions and instincts are "still primitive" and "not on a much higher level than those of animals," or do you "merely" FEEL that way?

What makes feelings and instincts primitive? Is this a value judgment?

You seem to place value on thinking and you deride feeling and instinctual behavior as "primitive." You also seem to posit a world in which humans are superior to animals. This is common, and is what you might call anthropocentrism. Humanity takes its own qualities and uses those as the standard by which all things are judged, and so it is no surprise that animals and other things are seen as inferior to people. Is this judgment really called for, or does it merely "feel" right?

You seem to believe we can understand the wider world through a set of processes - are you sure that belief is not rooted in some emotional preference?

What separates feeling and instinct from thought? Are you sure they really are so separate? I'm not.

There is no doubt that humans can do experiments and get certain results through trial and error. That we can make a light bulb does not mean, in my view, that we truly understand the process, only that we know that if we do X Y and Z, we get light. This does not elevate us above animals. Animals also create processes to accomplish goals. Indeed, one way of looking at intelligence is through adaptability. Considering how humans live on this world, one could make the argument that humans are dumber than many animals, making decisions that reflect "selfish desires" and not "rational thought."

Do keep in mind that there is no such thing as unmediated "objective" experience of the world. We can never know the world "as it really is," only as we experience it. Then also keep in mind that our experience is always mediated through our emotions.

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

Meaning of Life - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming