purpose of life [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

piquant

01-27-2004, 12:17 AM

If you do a good deed, with the gurantee of repayment for it in the afterlife, is it as good as a good deed for which you will recieve no repayment because there is no afterlife, especially if the god deed requires death...The Achilles question.

As to the meaning of life...I'm glad we almost all agree that there is no meaning. That at least is encouraging.

If there is no meaning, then how do you live? This question has driven me insane. I've settled into being an experience collector, although I don't really know what I'm saving them up for. I just figure life is so ephemeral it has to be grabbed at with two fists if I ever mean to catch any of it. I want a universal, eternal meaning though. I was raised on a universal meaning, and despite all my existential bulls*** it is still what I crave.

My biggest fear, aside from mediocrity (which I am rapidly achieving), is wasting this life waiting for an afterlife whose existence is uncertain at best.

"And I'm not afraid to make a mistake, even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake, and perhaps as long as eternity too."

"And what is there offered on the other hand, an eternity of bliss in the company of the Dean of Studies?"
-Joyce

"I believe, help thou my unbelief."
-some saint

azmuse

01-27-2004, 12:44 AM

i liked something heard years ago, along the lines of
is something worth not dying, but living for.
if you give life a chance, i think it just happens. with or without trying to make sense of it. i had these vines (beans) last summer that were a helluva lot more intelligent than me. i was in total awe. i'd've never known to grow like them if i'd intellectualized it. (and i would've.) they just flowed and knew.

subterranean

01-27-2004, 03:32 AM

I have no idea what is the purpose of life. To me perhaps the purpose of life is to live life as happy as I can, and find the answers to my long list of questions step by step.

crisaor

01-27-2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by imthefoolonthehill
well what the hell am I supposed to do with my life? Be happy? Be nice? for what? its nothing.
If you find life to be that boring (an idea that you've posted several times already), then I suggest you kill yourself or try to make the best of it. Either way, choose one and stop complaining all the time.

Originally posted by DumbLikeAPoet
From a Christian perspective the point of life is simple. The purpose of life is to worship the Lord, to praise the Lord and to follow the Bible.
jonus, that's very debatable.

Originally posted by subterranean
I have no idea what is the purpose of life. To me perhaps the purpose of life is to live life as happy as I can, and find the answers to my long list of questions step by step.
Hi Sub, long time no see :) . I think that's as good as a definition of life can get. People should find its own answers. There are endless tiny reasons for living. I'm sure we can all think of one at least.

imthefoolonthehill

01-28-2004, 01:06 AM

oops... I need to read these things carefully before I reply. (note the edit)

And Crisaor... I have only two very unoriginal words for you. Bite me.

I'm not always complaining about the purpose of life... and saying that I am is incorrect.

besides... I wasn't just complaining... I was hoping if I said that, someone might be more willing to post a valid purpose. (and for the love of all things sacred, please don't ask what is valid untill we have more than two or three ideas... which I'm not sure we will have)

As for killing myself... an option, but thats like walking out on a really stupid movie... you keep on hoping that it gets better... and usually sit through the entire thing... sometimes its worth it, sometimes its not... I figure, why the hell not... the worst it could be is a bad movie, eh?

fayefaye

01-28-2004, 07:34 AM

Fool, 1. I use that damn movie analogy all the time. I can't believe somebody else on the face of the planet does!!! (you wouldn't BELIEVE how many bad movies I've sat through)
2. Whatever happened to avoiding the big questions you can't answer?
3. Life? Well, I don't think there is a single answer to that one. Maybe life has no meaning. Sorry, I'm just not a philosopher. You have to find a meaning for your life. make one for yourself. Some people find no meaning, and DO kill themselves. Some people change the world. Still others change themselves, and those around them. I'll dictate the meaning of your life to you, if you want. but then you would just be a mindless drone, in which case you may as well be dead. I wonder if you get what I mean?

Jay

01-28-2004, 11:51 AM

Talking about ideas, what if the purpose of life is life itself? Yeah, definitelly helping... not, I know.

crisaor

01-28-2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by imthefoolonthehill
oops... I need to read these things carefully before I reply. (note the edit)
And Crisaor... I have only two very unoriginal words for you. Bite me.
You're right. That is very unoriginal.

Originally posted by imthefoolonthehill
I'm not always complaining about the purpose of life... and saying that I am is incorrect. besides... I wasn't just complaining... I was hoping if I said that, someone might be more willing to post a valid purpose. (and for the love of all things sacred, please don't ask what is valid untill we have more than two or three ideas... which I'm not sure we will have)
No one can give you a valid purpose. What works for others doesn't necessarily work for you. Hey, maybe that's what life's for: finding out its purpose. Or, another not so cheap answer: the little things. Your woman, the family, the friends, music, movies, books of course, your favourite foods and drinks, the tiny victories and the small defeats. The little details around the road that make it interesting.

imthefoolonthehill

01-28-2004, 10:21 PM

the purpose of something can't be something in itself... the purpose of a movie is not a movie, but entertainment. The purpose of a fireplace is not a fireplace, but to provide warmth. Even a Riddle has a purpose outside of itself: to provide entertainment or to seek an answer, not the purpose of the riddle...

if something exists for the sake of existing, then it must be purposeless.

Fayefaye: dictate the meaning to me anyways... it doesn't mean I will accept it... merely that I will consider it.

And I share the feeling of disgust for mindless drones.

IWilKikU

01-28-2004, 11:15 PM

One of my favorite quotes about the meaning of life:

"If there is a God up there, and he is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining."

Not sure who it's by. Maybe Twain???

fayefaye

01-29-2004, 07:27 AM

fool, I don't want to dictate the meaning of your life to you. It will end up sounding like one of those corny quotable fridge magnets, that are supposed to provide inspiration, but provide nothing. My words mean nothing. I don't really know anyways, my life lacks meaning.

Put it this way- a bunch of people in an internet forum aren't gonna know the answer. A bunch of theologians and philosophers also do not really know the answer. You're essentially screwed, sorry to say it. I wish life WAS like a box of chocolates. At least then you have one of those flimsy pieces of cardboard that tell you what's inside everything. I'd kill for one of those flimsy pieces of cardboard.

crisaor

01-29-2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by IWilKikU
One of my favorite quotes about the meaning of life:
"If there is a God up there, and he is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining."
Not sure who it's by. Maybe Twain???
Good one. :p :D

atiguhya padma

01-29-2004, 04:07 PM

<what is the meaning or purpose of life?>

This question already assumes too much, Is there a purpose? Is there a meaning?

<What is a good person?>

What is a person is difficult enough... in fact, probably impossible to adequately answer.

<To open one's heart.>

DIY surgery?:)

God? Why should there be such a thing? The cosmic rubbish floating out there in space suggests that he isn't a particularly good or economic designer. The fact that pain and suffering are built into the very nature of life, suggests a certain amount of sadistic pleasure (or bad design). The fact that everything decays suggests that his products are poorly constructed (or badly designed). The truth of the matter is the Universe is more or less a waste of time and life is itself an illusion of a feeble and doomed revolt against the tyranny of thermodynamics.

So where does that leave us? Well, where it has always left us. The vast majority of what we experience is illusionary. The idea that we exist as conscious selves is an illusion. The notion that we have any kind of freedom of thought and action is an illusion. The world we see out there doesn't exist as we think it does. But we have to believe that our illusions are not entirely true illusions. For if we don't, we may lose the will to live. And to do that is to take yourself far too seriously!

The meaning of life is probably sex.

atiguhya padma

01-29-2004, 04:31 PM

Oh and I forgot to say...... if you live you have far more options open to you.

It's really the meaning of death that is the difficult question to answer. You see, while you're alive you can always keep asking what life is, you can always keep experiencing life. When you're dead, your body (including your brain, or what people call your mind) doesn't hang around to ask these questions, to have these experiences. You might experience dying. You'll probably not experience death.

crisaor

01-29-2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
God? Why should there be such a thing?
Because people believe in Him/Her/It/Them. That should be reason enough.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
The cosmic rubbish floating out there in space suggests that he isn't a particularly good or economic designer.
Is this for real? :confused: I take it you've never seen the stars at night, or a comet, or a sunset near the beach, or the mountains and seas. Do it, you'll be amazed.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
The fact that pain and suffering are built into the very nature of life, suggests a certain amount of sadistic pleasure (or bad design). The fact that everything decays suggests that his products are poorly constructed (or badly designed). The truth of the matter is the Universe is more or less a waste of time and life is itself an illusion of a feeble and doomed revolt against the tyranny of thermodynamics.
I'll say it again. Make the best of it or kill yourself. Life may suck sometimes or always, I don't care. But you are wrong in assigning it no value. I'm no optimistic, but entropy lovers really rub me the wrong way. Nothing personal. :)

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
So where does that leave us? Well, where it has always left us. The vast majority of what we experience is illusionary. The idea that we exist as conscious selves is an illusion. The notion that we have any kind of freedom of thought and action is an illusion. The world we see out there doesn't exist as we think it does. But we have to believe that our illusions are not entirely true illusions. For if we don't, we may lose the will to live. And to do that is to take yourself far too seriously!
This is perhaps the cheapest take on life. "All is an illusion. We're not conscious beings. We're nothing but slaves without any possibility of free will whatsoever." I don't know if you ever witnessed slavery or the loss of free will. Maybe you have, or maybe you don't. But you express yourself very lightly, as if you haven't.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
The meaning of life is probably sex.
I may agree on that. :D ;)

atiguhya padma

01-30-2004, 05:56 PM

Crisaor,

Thank you for your reply.

Firstly, just because somebody believes in something doesn't make the subject of that belief a real object. People may believe in God. It doesn't mean God exists.

I may be mistaken, but it does rather sound as if you think the reason for the existence of vast amounts of waste matter (if you object to me calling it waste matter, maybe you would care to assign it a purpose, other than that of providing the carbon for life on earth - that would be far too anthropocentric for my taste) filling up space is just so that people like you can look up at the stars and admire them. If you think that God is a good designer, again maybe you could assign a reason for so much matter in the Universe that has so little apparent purpose. I mean couldn't God have made the Universe a millionth of its actual size? It just seems such a waste.

Don't get me wrong Crisaor. I believe there are many things in the Universe that I see as beautiful. And this certainly helps to appreciate life a little more. However, where we may differ, is that I believe beauty lies in perception, not in the intrinsic nature of what is perceived.

Regarding freewill, it does sound like you haven't really read much on the subject. I would recommend that you begin by searching for Benjamin Libet's work on the web, especially a paper entitled Do We Have Freewill? In it you will see that neuroscience has shown that when we think we have made a choice, electrical activity in the brain shows that an unconscious 'choice' has preceded the 'feeling' of freewill. The best we can do is act as a veto to unconscious 'choices'. I would also recommend Straw Dogs by John Gray, and Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. Finally, if you look at work done on blindsight, you will see how much of our perceived reality we interfere with and create.

When you ask whether I have experienced slavery or loss of free will - these terms seem to be used very lightly by yourself. If you fully understood both of these terms, you wouldn't be asking this question. Slavery is lack of freedom, not lack of freewill.

Regarding <Make the best of it or kill yourself.> again you use these terms lightly too. I do not deny that there is happiness to be experienced. I experience plenty of it. You seems to assume that somebody with my outlook on life cannot be happy. On the contrary, it is when we stop our search for meaning and purpose, and just live, that we are most likely to be happy. When you come to terms with the true nature of things, then maybe release happens.

IWilKikU

01-30-2004, 07:44 PM

you have a very well-read, well-thought-out outlook on life. Not one that I agree with, but one that I can respect.

crisaor

01-30-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor,
Thank you for your reply.
You're welcome. I thank you. :)

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Firstly, just because somebody believes in something doesn't make the subject of that belief a real object. People may believe in God. It doesn't mean God exists.
It doesn't, at least in the normal sense. But when speaking of the existence of a higher, all creator being, you'll agree with me that perhaps a "normal" approach isn't the only way to go. There's a theory that says that God exists merely because (many) people believe so (I think azmuse brought that up in the religious texts forum). I'm not sure that I agree with it, but it's a plausible possibility. If understand you correctly, you're saying that just because other people believe in God that doesn't mean that that's enough for you to know that God exists. If that's the case, it's perfectly ok.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I may be mistaken, but it does rather sound as if you think the reason for the existence of vast amounts of waste matter (if you object to me calling it waste matter, maybe you would care to assign it a purpose, other than that of providing the carbon for life on earth - that would be far too anthropocentric for my taste) filling up space is just so that people like you can look up at the stars and admire them. If you think that God is a good designer, again maybe you could assign a reason for so much matter in the Universe that has so little apparent purpose. I mean couldn't God have made the Universe a millionth of its actual size? It just seems such a waste.
Well, i don't know if it's a waste. Maybe there is some clear purpose behind it. But I don't know what is it. You'll have to settle with the apparent one.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Don't get me wrong Crisaor. I believe there are many things in the Universe that I see as beautiful. And this certainly helps to appreciate life a little more. However, where we may differ, is that I believe beauty lies in perception, not in the intrinsic nature of what is perceived.
Maybe so, but again, it depends on your view on life. Some people may think the opposite. Personally, I believe that no one follows one or the other. Some things we admire because of its true nature, others because of our own.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Regarding freewill, it does sound like you haven't really read much on the subject. I would recommend that you begin by searching for Benjamin Libet's work on the web, especially a paper entitled Do We Have Freewill? In it you will see that neuroscience has shown that when we think we have made a choice, electrical activity in the brain shows that an unconscious 'choice' has preceded the 'feeling' of freewill. The best we can do is act as a veto to unconscious 'choices'. I would also recommend Straw Dogs by John Gray, and Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. Finally, if you look at work done on blindsight, you will see how much of our perceived reality we interfere with and create.
Why do you refer to science when talking about free will? It takes the common sense out of it and reduces the arguments to merely simple premises and a simpler conclusion.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
When you ask whether I have experienced slavery or loss of free will - these terms seem to be used very lightly by yourself. If you fully understood both of these terms, you wouldn't be asking this question. Slavery is lack of freedom, not lack of freewill.
Can there be free will without freedom? You speak as if all of us aren't really free because the constructs of our minds and all that, but I insist. Comparing this to someone who really isn't free shows that your idea is wrong, IMO. Thats's what I said in the other post.
Anyway, all that I see is that you're trying to throw all what I said to you to me, without saying anything of your own about it.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Regarding <Make the best of it or kill yourself.> again you use these terms lightly too. I do not deny that there is happiness to be experienced. I experience plenty of it. You seems to assume that somebody with my outlook on life cannot be happy. On the contrary, it is when we stop our search for meaning and purpose, and just live, that we are most likely to be happy. When you come to terms with the true nature of things, then maybe release happens.
Well, I disagree. Maybe you don't suscribe fully to entropy (my mistake) but if you have that particular view on life you can't be happy indeed.

star blue

01-31-2004, 05:58 AM

you two need to start listening to each other.

star blue

01-31-2004, 06:01 AM

it's as if heidegger and the pope were screaming across a table.

star blue

01-31-2004, 06:07 AM

but then again, not really . . .

atiguhya padma

01-31-2004, 02:17 PM

Crisaor,

Maybe you might answer some questions for me:

1) What do you mean by free will? Will that is free of every influence? How would that be possible? I mean even if will is not constrained physically, there is always the problem of psychological conditioning, habit formation, unconscious stimuli etc. Do you mean free will is free of all this? Or are you talking about some more limited kind of free will? Dan Dennett in Freedom Evolves shows how completely free will would not even be desirable, if it were possible.

2) What do you disagree with regarding entropy? Do you think there are examples of processes in our Universe that do not follow strict thermodynamic rules? Even life itself, even human intelligence, and creativity etc is feeding off energy from the Sun. It is all following strict thermodynamic rules. Maybe you could give me an example of something that doesn't do this.

3) What have you got against science? Without it, you wouldn't be able to live your life as you do. We certainly wouldn't be able to have this conversation without science. I am not a scientist. I am not even a great lover of science. But I cannot possible deny that science has provided us with many benefits and many of our best explanations for the way that the world works. Just think about how many products in your life have some causal link with science.

4) I really don't know what you mean regarding the use of science in the arguments about freewill. Firstly, of the authors I referred to, only Libet is a scientist. Parfit is a philosopher, Gray is Professor of European Thought at the LSE. Secondly, are you saying that common sense is a better yardstick than science? If we had abandoned science for common sense, we would still be believing the kind of superstitious rubbish that a belief in God is the residue of. We would be trusting soothsayers, prophets of doom, astrologers etc. Unfortunately, for many, they still do. I would much prefer to trust a car, an aeroplane, a train (all products of scientific thinking) as a method of transport, for instance, than astral projection or levitation.

Atiguhya Padma

IWilKikU

01-31-2004, 07:14 PM

I think that both of you are taking what the other is saying out of context.

crisaor

01-31-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor,
1) What do you mean by free will? Will that is free of every influence? How would that be possible? I mean even if will is not constrained physically, there is always the problem of psychological conditioning, habit formation, unconscious stimuli etc. Do you mean free will is free of all this? Or are you talking about some more limited kind of free will?
Good point. I'm simply referring to the possibility of choosing an alternative (any), despite the existence of multiple stimuli or conditioning (something of course I'm aware that exists).

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
2) What do you disagree with regarding entropy? Do you think there are examples of processes in our Universe that do not follow strict thermodynamic rules? Even life itself, even human intelligence, and creativity etc is feeding off energy from the Sun. It is all following strict thermodynamic rules. Maybe you could give me an example of something that doesn't do this.
I disagree because I don't like it. It doesn't suit my beliefs or my outlooks on life.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
3) What have you got against science? Without it, you wouldn't be able to live your life as you do. We certainly wouldn't be able to have this conversation without science. I am not a scientist. I am not even a great lover of science. But I cannot possible deny that science has provided us with many benefits and many of our best explanations for the way that the world works. Just think about how many products in your life have some causal link with science.
I never said I was against science. I just complained about the turn of direction you wanted to give the discusion. No more. Science has its ups and downs, just like religion. There's no need to choose one over the other.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
4) I really don't know what you mean regarding the use of science in the arguments about freewill. Firstly, of the authors I referred to, only Libet is a scientist. Parfit is a philosopher, Gray is Professor of European Thought at the LSE. Secondly, are you saying that common sense is a better yardstick than science? If we had abandoned science for common sense, we would still be believing the kind of superstitious rubbish that a belief in God is the residue of. We would be trusting soothsayers, prophets of doom, astrologers etc. Unfortunately, for many, they still do. I would much prefer to trust a car, an aeroplane, a train (all products of scientific thinking) as a method of transport, for instance, than astral projection or levitation.

I objected to it because I understood that you wanted to reduce the term free will to merely a series of electric impulses in your brain. There's no interest for me in discussing that kind of definition.
Again, I never said anything about science being a bad yardstick or anythying likle that. I wasn't (I'm not) talking about methods of transport, cosmogonies, or the like, I'm talking about the way I feel that a conversation should be followed. I apologise if I seem reluctant to some of your arguments, but discussing science is really not my thing. This is a thread on the purpose of life, science has little relevance here in my opinion.

atiguhya padma

01-31-2004, 09:33 PM

Crisaor,

I can appreciate what you are saying, whilst disagreeing with it. I do feel that I must respond to a couple of things you have just said though.

<Science has its ups and downs, just like religion. There's no need to choose one over the other.>

Science is not comparable to religion. Science has clear rules, a set of clear methods for determining the truth of propositions etc. Religion as far as I am aware has none of this. Religious propositions essentially end up inconclusive, because there is never demonstrable ways of falsifying or verifying religious propositions. What use, therefore, is religion, except for some psychological feel-good experience?

You disagree with entropy because you don't like it?!!?

I presume you disagree with the fact of death then too. And murder. And, of course, the absence of freewill and the nonexistence of God. In other words you will only agree with what I say if you like it. Bearing that in mind, there doesn't really seem any point in continuing this conversation: if you happen to agree with anything I say, it will be because you like it, rather than whether it is true or not, or whether you believe it to be true or not. It seems to me that freewill and God only exist for you because you want them to, and therefore I can't really take you seriously. I mean I wish God existed too, but that is hardly a reason to believe in him.!!

Helga

01-31-2004, 09:45 PM

I think the purpose of life is to be remembered. To leave something behind when you die. I don't care what you belive in, to me that is it, and I don't care if it's bad or good but to leave something. Your name should be written down somewere else than your tombstone. Do something big, do something that is worth talking about after you die. So many people weren't known for their work untill they die, that is the purpose. Even though it's not the whole world that talks about you but only a few people, if your recognised for what you did, what ever it is, it's worth loving, and dieing.

crisaor

01-31-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Science is not comparable to religion. Science has clear rules, a set of clear methods for determining the truth of propositions etc.
That's very debatable. Take economics, for instance.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Religion as far as I am aware has none of this. Religious propositions essentially end up inconclusive, because there is never demonstrable ways of falsifying or verifying religious propositions. What use, therefore, is religion, except for some psychological feel-good experience?
There's more than that, but you've already answered your question.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
You disagree with entropy because you don't like it?!!?
Yes. I don't like it because I feel that its contents don't relate to the world in the way that the theory implies. Why do you find this so difficult to understand?

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I presume you disagree with the fact of death then too. And murder. And, of course, the absence of freewill and the nonexistence of God. In other words you will only agree with what I say if you like it. Bearing that in mind, there doesn't really seem any point in continuing this conversation: if you happen to agree with anything I say, it will be because you like it, rather than whether it is true or not, or whether you believe it to be true or not.
No, I don't disagree with the plain acts, because they're not something that can be agreed on. I would disagree with them if we were discussing methods of getting ahead in life or sh** like that. No, I won't agree only in what I like, atiguhya padma. Your judgement is wrong and exaggerated. But if you truly believe this, then you're right when you say that there is no point in continuing this conversation.

A poem test

01-31-2004, 11:54 PM

In a world of strife
What's the point to life?
Hmm, this is suppose
Is the way it goes

To live and to give
To be and to see
To try and to die

To please, not to tease
To love, not to shove
To share, not to scare

Enjoy, not annoy
To serve and not swerve
To do what is true

In a world of strife
Well, this should suffice
The meaning of life
It is sacrifice

-A poem test

star blue

02-01-2004, 03:39 AM

what is this, chicken soup for the teenage soul?

sloegin

02-01-2004, 04:45 AM

A suggestion: chaos and destruction.

atiguhya padma

02-01-2004, 10:22 AM

Crisaor,

You claim that you don't disagree with / don't like entropy <because I feel that its contents don't relate to the world in the way that the theory implies.>

I ask you again to please provide an example of where entropy is wrong, where its content doesn't apply or relate to the world or to life. If you can give me an example, I might be able to agree with you.

I thought that what you were saying was that you disagree with entropy because you don't like it (see quote below). I assumed that if this was true, then the yardstick by which you measure disagreement with the theory of entropy (and presumably all theories) is whether you personally like that theory or not. Is this not what you were saying?

<I disagree because I don't like it. It doesn't suit my beliefs or my outlooks on life.>

atiguhya padma

02-01-2004, 10:27 AM

Sloegin,

Destruction and disorder seem to be very much related to where the Universe and life is going. Indeed, entropy implies that there is a linear journey towards destruction and away from order.

Atiguhya Padma

IWilKikU

02-01-2004, 01:18 PM

Kebabs. The meaning of life is to eat as many Kebabs as you can before you die. I eat (on average) two a week. I would like to improve that to 4 or 5. I should move to Turkey. I love Kebabs. I want a Kebab right now. Yum!

star blue

02-02-2004, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I ask you again to please provide an example of where entropy is wrong, where its content doesn't apply or relate to the world or to life. If you can give me an example, I might be able to agree with you.

a maxwell's demon.

star blue

02-02-2004, 03:42 AM

(here it comes . . .)

sloegin

02-02-2004, 06:22 AM

We've already dealt with this.

star blue

02-02-2004, 12:06 PM

yup.

crisaor

02-02-2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by IWilKikU
Kebabs. The meaning of life is to eat as many Kebabs as you can before you die. I eat (on average) two a week. I would like to improve that to 4 or 5. I should move to Turkey. I love Kebabs. I want a Kebab right now. Yum!
LOL. :D Congratulations kik, I think you found it. :)

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor,
I ask you again to please provide an example of where entropy is wrong, where its content doesn't apply or relate to the world or to life. If you can give me an example, I might be able to agree with you.
Well, a lot of things. Energy dispersal, for instance. I don't believe it to be right. Maybe because I concur with Hume, or because I happen to despise the grim outlook on life that derives from the "scientific" analysis. But don't bother, I'm hardly willing to discuss entropy. Sorry.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I thought that what you were saying was that you disagree with entropy because you don't like it (see quote below). I assumed that if this was true, then the yardstick by which you measure disagreement with the theory of entropy (and presumably all theories) is whether you personally like that theory or not. Is this not what you were saying?
No, it's not. I've said this already.

subterranean

02-03-2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Helga
I think the purpose of life is to be remembered. To leave something behind when you die. I don't care what you belive in, to me that is it, and I don't care if it's bad or good but to leave something. Your name should be written down somewere else than your tombstone. Do something big, do something that is worth talking about after you die. So many people weren't known for their work untill they die, that is the purpose. Even though it's not the whole world that talks about you but only a few people, if your recognised for what you did, what ever it is, it's worth loving, and dieing.

I don't know, but for me there's nothing wrong for not having people's acknowledgemet during your existence!:rolleyes:

psycojones

02-03-2004, 11:51 PM

what is the meaning of human life, for that matter, of the life of any creature? to know an answer to this question means to be religious. you ask: does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? i answer: the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life. albert einstein
personally, my theory on the meaning of life is what lifes meaning is to you. their can be no same meaning to all people, simply because not all people are the same. we are not the same in the way we think, the way we move, the way we react, the enviorment in which we are brought up in... i can go on forever. what one man thinks of god in north america is not what another man thinks of god in africa. just a thought for the moment.

star blue

02-04-2004, 05:19 AM

that was really deep.

subterranean

02-05-2004, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by psycojones
what is the meaning of human life, for that matter, of the life of any creature? to know an answer to this question means to be religious.

and philoshopical as well!

fayefaye

02-06-2004, 10:55 PM

KEBABS!! that's it! and it's so simple.... kik-you're a genious! :p

oh, don't get me started on entropy. IT IS NEVER WRONG.

star blue

02-06-2004, 11:21 PM

within the framework of physics, probably not . . . but that's just one way of seeing the world.

fayefaye

02-06-2004, 11:25 PM

Do you REALLY want me to go over this AGAIN. Your only argument is the Maxwell demon, and I already proved that can't work. Do you even have anything else?

star blue

02-06-2004, 11:29 PM

you've never proved anything to me, faye, ever. but I've had you feeding out of the palm of my hand. so quit being a smarty-pants.

oh, and I've got much, much more if you want it.

fayefaye

02-06-2004, 11:42 PM

dish it out.

atiguhya padma

02-07-2004, 03:28 PM

Fayefaye,

<oh, don't get me started on entropy. IT IS NEVER WRONG.>

You are quite right!!

I can't believe that people find it so difficult to accept. Surely anyone can see it at work all around us.

Atigihya Padma

star blue

02-07-2004, 09:13 PM

of course you can't believe it, atiguhya. you have your paradigm, I have mine. it's just . . . I don't go around parading the ideas I believe are tue.

I remember you quoted the tractatus in one of your posts. 'what we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence.' fair enough, but now it seems you're assuming those abstract notions like identity and existence that can not be explained through language or signs are somehow universally true.

entropy is a theory of cause and effect. it's the theory of causality from a to b. if you drop an egg, it cracks. the harmony of the universe suffers another tiny blow. but who's to say that a and b were supposed to be separated in the first place? who's to say that a and b even exist? entropy depends on concepts that we have only a limited understanding of.

psycojones

02-08-2004, 01:02 AM

i love the way all of you think. even if i disagree in some things. i suggest some of you should look a man by the name of chris langan on the net. you will get a kick out of him. he is pretty smart.

fayefaye

02-08-2004, 01:08 AM

You're assuming we think. :p

imthefoolonthehill

02-08-2004, 02:10 AM

HOLY CRAP GUYS!!!!

You guys are all arguing... and no one has really given me much of an answer.... so far... I have

1. There is no purpose
or
2. Humanity must find its own purpose

3. To please God or something like that...

Now I haven't read all of you smuck's arguments..... so if I missed something, let me know.

I think I have something to contribute.

There must be a reality, because if there is no reality, then why the hell aren't you rich and famous? Why are you surprised when someone yells boo? If you are making your own reality, then why the hell do you feel sad? Why do you get depressed? Why aren't you living the good life?

For the reasons listed above, we cannot determine our own reality. And don't give me that crap about not knowing how, because you know it is just that... crap. Its crap that will get you in good standing in a liberal college, but in the real world, its inapplicable.

I get sick of people saying this isn't real, or that something exists because they believe in it. That may be true for an ideal, but nothing else. If you think this isn't real, then unplug your keyboard and type. Make the words come up onto the screen. If you are just imagining all this, then why can't you imagine up a wireless keyboard, ya shmucks?

You all disgust me. Even I disgust me. Idle minds are depression's toys.

fayefaye

02-08-2004, 04:38 AM

ahhhhh. I love the reason that underpins your posts, fool.

Tell me the meaning of life of an ant. Therein lies your answer. Tell me why they run around like crazy even if their actions won't have a huge impact on the survival of the colony. Tell me why if you squish a few, more run out to save them, risking their own lives. Tell me why I still squish 'em. It's just one of those things... I think it's kinda arrogant that people think there is a purpose to human lives, but not to those of other animals. Biologically, we must continue civilisation to further the existance of the human race. Religiously, we must please God. Personally, we must chase happiness like a dog chasing it's tail. Philosophically, we're supposed to love thy neighbour, or something... You can't expect us to know the answer, fool. It's been around for centuries, and if all the other people couldn't come up with one, why expect us to either?

imthefoolonthehill

02-08-2004, 11:06 PM

I didn't really... but hope springs eternal. But Fayefaye... that is both the most depressing and perhaps the most sensible post i've seen so far.

At least it has some ideas.

subterranean

02-08-2004, 11:15 PM

I was just wondering..do you happen to live somewhere alone on top of a mountain?

Just curious...

imthefoolonthehill

02-08-2004, 11:21 PM

uh... no. Although sometimes I think I would like to.

some of the happiest times of my life have been spent in the Sawtooth Mountains, on a tall peak or deep valley.... or really anywhere in between....... its all good. every other summer I go on 50 mile hikes with my scout troop. This year, I'm skipping it and going to Germany instead... hope I don't regret it.

oh ... and to clarify... the fifty mile hikes where in the sawtoothes... thats why I mentioned them.

atiguhya padma

02-09-2004, 08:16 PM

We only think that we should have meaning in our lives because we think, we have language, we see ourselves as different ot the rest of the animal world. But we too are animals. And we have only evolved into an animal that asks these kind of questions over the last few thousand years. Our genetic structure is hardly different to the early humans that roamed the plains of Africa. Yet they most probably would not see themselves so divorced from nature as to expect there to be some profound meaning to their lives. So why should we? Our ability to ask these questions is merely a by-product of evolution.

subterranean

02-09-2004, 11:02 PM

It's not only about genetic evolution..Consider other things like the development of technology, the increase of population, the changing environmental and earth landscapes. Some are merely about revolution instead of evolution.
Indeed there are two views in environmental sciences, seeing human as a part of nature and human as a differen part. I see that the first one is more idealistic, but in reality human and nature is more and more become two separate entities.

fayefaye

02-10-2004, 06:30 AM

Sorry fool. I wish I lived on a mountain.

I don't think the question is just a by-product of evolution, that's just too cold and detached a way to view it....

psycojones

02-11-2004, 01:25 AM

atiguhya padma says a lot of things i agree with. the homo-sapian is approx 10 000 years old. prior to the homo-sapien was the cro-magnon, they say they were here about 40 000 years. prior to them was the neanderthals. they were here about 200 000 years ago. from there we can just go down the line from homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithecus, ramapithecus, proconsul, aegyptopithecus, eocene, to something called a paleocene 65 million years ago. now with this being said, they have seem to come up with a theory that some where along the way, around the cro-magnon era we really began to settle more and harvest in sertain parts of the world. of course over time we began to evolve to adapt to out enviorment. humidity played a role on the shape of certain speicies noses. areas around the equater over many generations, the pigments in our skin color began to change color. i believe Darwin once said, it is not the one who is the stongest or the smartest that will survive, but the one who can adapt to change. now to make this just a bit interesting, for those of us who might believe in God, is it possible that maybe Gods plan to make man could include evolution or not? the only reason why i ask this is because over the centuries may people have died in proveing things, such as, the world is not square, the earth is not the center of the universe, medicine, ect...because the churches were not ready to accept this may people died. but when proven over time the churches began to accept and they changed. PLEASE understand i only ask this out of intrest and not offence. thank you.

crisaor

02-11-2004, 01:42 AM

First of all, define evolution.

It's true that if you consider the progress of science, you may conclude that humanity's evolving, but when you consider some other areas (human behaviour, specifically), I'm not so sure of that. You mentioned how the church used to burn people for speaking truths not accepted or for any other idiotic reasons they could come up with, but I don't think that the situation is any different now. Obviously, there's some minor tints, but the heavy stuff is still the same. Countries still go to war for no reason (there's the money issue, but that doesn't qualify as a justification), still practice imperialism imposing their views and cultures over the weak, the church has supported all kinds of dictatorships (WW II, Latin America in the 80's), moral values have notoriusly decreased in the past years, the breach between rich and poor is getting wider, etc.

psycojones

02-11-2004, 01:57 AM

do you really think the richer are getting richer and poor are getting poorer, or could it be we have doubled the earths population from 3 billion to 6 billion in 40 years. they say there is more people alive on the earth right now then there are dead 5000 years ago untill now. which means there is just more poor and rich people to see. not to mention media is something fairly new to our species. only in the last 50-60 years have we been reporting in great detail about things happening on the other side of the world. only the last 30 years have we realized that only stories that sell are the things we do not experience. there for is it not fair to say that much of what we see on t.v. read in the newspaper are stories that give us shock value and not truth, or at least the full truth. if i were to go one step further with this, maybe we could say that with the media only reporting the bad things and not sharing the good things we get a perception of this horrorible world which is not more than a perception the media gave us because nobody wants to here about someone going to work and having a great day

fayefaye

02-11-2004, 06:12 AM

But surely you're willing to acknowledge that the opposite is also true? That bad things happen all the time we don't even hear about? The proportion of rich to poor is ugly, real ugly. That's what's scrutinised, not the number of rich, and poor.

fool, it's insanely trite of me to do this, but bear with me a momemt:
'If you provide some happiness, some comfort to others, your life becomes meaningful. If it creates problems or suffering to others, then there is no meaning to your existence' [Dalai Lama]

Anyway, it fits in with what I said about the philosophical(?) purpose of life being to love thy neighbour, the idea that your life has meaning if you can have a positive impact on the world, change those around you. You're asking what the purpose of life is, in which case it sounds like there's something specific we're supposed to do here... maybe it's just a way we're supposed to live....

psycojones

02-13-2004, 01:40 AM

hey fayefaye. i totally know what you mean. but i think you and i see the world differently. i do not look at who is rich and who is poor, but who is more advanced and who is not. i realize there are people starving in the world, and their are people who are dirt poor, but when the world began to change into an economic world, those who wanted to stick with tradition ended up falling behind. and the positive impact thing, well what was a positive impact to hitler, would not be a positive impact to ghandi. which takes me back to the question about what the meaning of life is. we are all different in every way. there fore lifes meaning is diffrent to everyone, and lifes meaning surely changes as we experience different things through out our life. what is the meaning of life? what ever fits the moment.

imthefoolonthehill

02-13-2004, 02:22 AM

once again... HOLY CRAP GUYS!!!!

I didn't think there would be so much of a response (thats not to say I'm not pleased)

first of all... in defense of the church... (which everyone seems all too happy to bash)... I would like to point out that if the church followed the Bible, there would be a constant, humanist (by the classical, 17-18th century definition, not the modern one) search for truth... all this opposing science and stuff like that...

as for evolution.... doesn't it violate the law of entropy? (or whatever the name of the law is that states that things are constantly going from a more complex, organized state to a less complex, chaotic state)...

and... since psychojones mentioned ghandi... might i mention that ghandi and hitler have somethign in common... they both got more than a million people killed....

have a nice day 'yall'

fayefaye

02-13-2004, 10:12 AM

No, entropy is not violated by evolution. ... they're different sort of concepts...

imthefoolonthehill

02-13-2004, 07:27 PM

it seems to me that if evolution is the theory of (some) things naturally going from less complex to more complex and entropy is the theory of all things naturally going from more complex to less complex, then one of them must be wrong.

atiguhya padma

02-13-2004, 07:41 PM

Remember that entropy is the theory that energy flows from usable to used. In doing so, matter goes from more complex to less complex. In evolution, living things evolve into more complex things by stealing energy from the Sun. Evolution does not contradict entropy. It confirms it. Were you to consider the whole of life and the Sun as a single system, then the complexity/energy potential of the whole system is forever deteriorating.

star blue

02-13-2004, 10:49 PM

you're right about that, atiguhya. the earth is not a closed system.

psycojones

02-14-2004, 02:01 AM

you explained that well atiguhya padma, and i agree. i brought this up before but atiguhya padma i would like you to look up a man by the name of chris langan. not the musician, but the man with the 210 i.q. he speaks of entrophy, and has many on line debates with with university professors. i think you will like what he has to say.

imthefoolonthehill

02-14-2004, 02:54 AM

so... according to entrophy... in a hundred billion trillion years^234597234582745809275980247598 everything should be in its simplist, most depleted form?

psycojones

02-15-2004, 09:47 PM

ha ha, untill we discover something else to challenge that theory.

falling*moon

02-07-2006, 06:25 PM

yes, i can be like the horse..

run...sleep.....eat.....then die... the only difference is that i learn and go to school..!!

i wonder why ??

Kashkin

02-08-2006, 08:00 AM

The purpose of life, is to live.

...

You'd think more people would figure that out. I mean a huge jump of logic like that... but seriously, the chances of so few getting there is just astronomical...
[/tongue in cheek]

wilbur lim

09-22-2008, 05:38 AM

The purport of life is to abide by the rules of life with rectitude.

blazeofglory

09-22-2008, 10:14 PM

Purpose and life. Life is the purpose of life. Sounds a little unclear. But it is true life is life's own purpose. Do not tie up life with any other purposes and do not associate it with things that do not enhance life.

When you do a job swayed by a motive that makes life miserable do not do it no matter how ideal it is. One has of course to work to sustain life and indeed we need to survive and that is altogether a different question and yet at times we we get swayed by ambitions and ambitions do not make you happy and ambition has more to do with downing or knocking down others and it boosts or inflates your egos and eccentricity. These are the reasons leading to various types of stressful conditions.

Working in reciprocation and togetherness to live together with a mutual spirit is what leads us to pacification of mind and body and harmony and understanding with all beings on the planet no matter which part of the globe we inhabit. Let us partake of every resource or harness every gift nature has endowed us with out of rationality not out of greed, out of need and not out of the motive of cut throat competition and something what we call enviousness and hatred to one another. That leads to peace of mind and of the world.