EPT
Meaning of Life
| Blogs > DamageControL |
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
RavenWrath
Germany174 Posts
now I feel bad someone else did it  | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
| ||
|
RavenWrath
Germany174 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:24 micronesia wrote: I agree with Falcynn. However I don't think that stance kills the need for philosophy by any means (sorry RavenWrath :p ) Yeah I know. But I bet i could talk some philosophers into it with enough time + Show Spoiler + and a baseball club | ||
|
Blind
United States2529 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:20 RavenWrath wrote: Not at all. You don't have to be a philosopher to wonder about the meaning of life. On the other hand, as a philosophy major, I haven't even tackled the question in any of my classes. But there are tons of other things philosophers want to know, ethics, language, logic, epistemology, etc.you are absolutely right... and you just ruined the life of 90% of the philosophers. now I feel bad someone else did it And to the OP, I agree. I don't think there is necessarily a meaning to life, so the question "What is the meaning of life?" is just nonsensical. | ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://mymatches.net/media/graphics/STARCRAFTBTLCST.jpg) | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
Actually, "meaning" can be considered subjective, in which case your life can have a meaning as long as you believe it has a meaning. | ||
|
Quesadilla
United States1814 Posts
If I didn't have a purpose, I'd probably agree with AcrossFiveJulys post. Having only a meaning of merely existing... feels so acute to me. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
To save time (unless someone wants to dispute my assumptions, which would be welcome), I'll say that "meaning" in this context doesn't mean "what a label points to" such as with the meaning of words, which point to ideas (like the word "faster") or objects (as names do), but rather refers to a "goal" or "purpose." Life, in this context, refers not to the idea of something having cells and reproducing and using energy or whatnot, but rather the idea of human behavior while alive. So a clarified rewording of the original question is "What is the reason, or what are the reasons, for humans to live?" Not perfect, but getting better. I'll leave it to someone else to improve on clarifying the question, and go on to my opinionated answer. I think it's to do what you want to do. Selfish? Maybe. But it's also possible to want to help other people, which makes altruism possible in my worldview. To address those who hold the view that there is some external purpose of life, other than what we make of it: Where did it come from? Where is it? How do you know? Can you prove it? Obviously, these questions aren't always answerable, but I'm trying to stimulate conversation here  | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11601 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:48 Slithe wrote: People want to believe that there is a meaning to their lives, so they look for one. It's very possible that there is no meaning. Actually, "meaning" can be considered subjective, in which case your life can have a meaning as long as you believe it has a meaning. I agree with everything you say. Life doesn't have to have a meaning. Some people say life's purpose is to reproduce, and that is their goal in life. I know a girl who says, "I just want to marry a nice guy and have 2 kids, nothing more". So far, she is half there with 1 kid. She found what her life purpose is. Personally, I want life to worthwhile in my opinion of what worthwhile is. I want to travel, and experience many different things and then let others know what I have learned. So I guess my meaning is to teach others? IDK Life is short, so have fun while it lasts, do what you want. | ||
|
Blind
United States2529 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:52 BottleAbuser wrote: Well put. Are you a philosophy major by any chance? I see you've got some logic notation going in your quote.A truly philosophical approach would first tackle what the meaning of the terms "meaning" and "life" are. To save time (unless someone wants to dispute my assumptions, which would be welcome), I'll say that "meaning" in this context doesn't mean "what a label points to" such as with the meaning of words, which point to ideas (like the word "faster") or objects (as names do), but rather refers to a "goal" or "purpose." Life, in this context, refers not to the idea of something having cells and reproducing and using energy or whatnot, but rather the idea of human behavior while alive. So a clarified rewording of the original question is "What is the reason, or what are the reasons, for humans to live?" Not perfect, but getting better. I'll leave it to someone else to improve on clarifying the question, and go on to my opinionated answer. I think it's to do what you want to do. Selfish? Maybe. But it's also possible to want to help other people, which makes altruism possible in my worldview. To address those who hold the view that there is some external purpose of life, other than what we make of it: Where did it come from? Where is it? How do you know? Can you prove it? Obviously, these questions aren't always answerable, but I'm trying to stimulate conversation here | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
iheartgna
United States184 Posts
Considering that the singular most important thing is for our species to survive I suggest that our great meaning is to be able to sustain life for our species indefinitely. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
Edit: I don't know how to use tags. | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
>>That's pretty depressing. Let's have kids and make sure they live long enough to have kids and do the same for them. Blech. Ancestral, causation alone isn't what some people are looking for, I think. We're looking for some deep and profound motivation to go through the shit we do every day. I think. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Everyone will make up a personal opinion what it is. Or maybe not even that, because one doesn't have to care about such grand questions, but just focus on individual goals/tasks instead. These will have more meaning to you anyway. I think it's useless to think about that question. Sometimes I think we'd be better off if we weren't always wondering about crap like why we exist, what happens after death, or if there is a god. But somehow we can't. In such discussions I always have to think of things like "what was there in the beginning of *everything*". Religious people will say 'god' of course, but that's kinda stupid. That would mean god always existed, that he wasn't created by anything. What was *HIS* purpose back then? To create everything? Well, great. But why? And what if he hadn't done that. And *where* does he exist anyway if there is *nothing at all* to exist in yet? If you think like this, then the following non-religious thought is just equally likely: that the universe like it is has always existed (i.e. forget about the god thing) and that everything in it has just evolved like it is. And there is nothing "outside" of it, nothing which can control everything (i.e. a god), and nothing which can control the controller (i.e. the "mother" of god or a god even more powerful than our gods). Saying "god is the beginning" is just as arbitrary as saying that another thing is the beginning. It's just a stupid means to give meaning to everything. But thinking of some "great benevolent dictator of all life" (i.e. god) seems to be just the thing for us humans. Even if we're no slaves, we still voluntarily and happily "subordinate" ourselves to some imaginary invisible greater power. It's just our pathetic nature I guess. It's kind of a recursive problem, isn't it. So yeah I think it's stupid to think about such things. We humans just can't grasp this stuff anyway, so why bother. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Food only has meaning in relationship to something that eats, otherwise "food" might just be "thing." Hunger is real, but it only exists in something that needs food to live and be healthy. The words "I'm going to kill you" may be spoken light heartedly by a friend as they slug you playfully for making a silly comment, and mean something very different when spoken by a stranger in a dark alleyway. People look for a transcendental meaning - something that holds true in all contexts and all times. I'm not so sure THAT kind of meaning exists. That is usually the kind of meaning people are talking about when they ask "what is the meaning of life?" But there is still meaning, and there can be tremendous meaning in life, but that meaning does not exist apart from a context. The play of various forces within the universe generates meaning, and that meaning is constantly shifting as the relationships between those forces shift. | ||
|
.MistiK
Netherlands347 Posts
On July 14 2008 14:49 Quesadilla wrote: Man, I feel sooo blessed to not have that point of view... If I didn't have a purpose, I'd probably agree with AcrossFiveJulys post. Having only a meaning of merely existing... feels so acute to me. that's the problem. you feel instead of think. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
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
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
| ||
|
.MistiK
Netherlands347 Posts
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
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. | ||
| ||
