The Purpose of Life

Even though I won't be able to cite many important philosophers, unlike some of my more learned friends, here is my two cents as well (OK, maybe only one :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy H

It’s a common attitude, but it only displays a COMPLETE lack of knowledge as to the academic history of the world. Do you realize that every hard science we have was born out of philosophy

---

Very good point. Unfortunately, many people (including myself) are happy at things at their face value at times.

I am not sure if anyone could lead a life without a purpose. Whether it is a desirable one or not, we all have a purpose. We get up in the mornings for a reason. We may not like it;we might resent/regret/hate it but we do. In the great scheme of things, our purpose and existence might seem insignificant and even trivial but the sand grain does not stop existing because of its size and if it finds its way into your shoes, it might feel like it is much bigger than its actual size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helga

It's tragic to end your life this way. I don't see the reason why you should live when this is the end.

---

I agree with Jeremy here that there is more to our existence than our physical capabilities. I am not sure how close you are with the elderly you work with but I am sure if you ask them whether life is worth living, they would say 'yes'. One would expect their answer to be 'no', knowing where and how they will end up. That would bring up the question of who we are... Are we our physical existence or our knowledge and memories? I would like to go for the latter. A good book is still a good book even though the cover is damaged and torn into pieces. I would much rather have the good book with old cover than a trashy/worthless one with a pretty, new cover ;)

Jeremy H said:

<For Russel, what you are seeing is most definently not the end.>

Russell was an atheist. Death for him was certainly the end.

The question of life's purpose, has always been a favourite question for the religious. This is because there is no real answer to the q

Huh,

I am not sure that the face of God being evident in all things is the same thing as holism... maybe it is. For instance Christianity teaches things along the lines that all things point to God (based on certain bible verses,) but could hardly be considered a holist doctrine.

I guess the difference is a holist would say god is everything, which is not the same as saying he is in everything, or that he is evidenced in all things.

Ouch how embracing.

I was not trying to talk about Bertrand Russell... so sorry. I was talking about Rick Warren, the author of the book which spawned the discussion. I am soooo sorry, and you are absolutely right.

I live in the states, and so i will claim senility based on sleep depravation, since it was the middle of the night/morning when I posted that.

sorry again, I will fix it.

Jeremy H said:

<For Russel, what you are seeing is most definently not the end.>

Russell was an atheist. Death for him was certainly the end.

The question of life's purpose, has always been a favourite question for the religious. This is because there is no real answer to the question, and therefore the questioner can play upon the desires of his or her audience for meaning.

We are creatures that require meaning, purpose, justification. We thrive on the idea of life beyond life, because it gives a purpose to our deeds and our beliefs. But we have absolutely no reason to believe in a universal purpose to life. There are plenty of should's and ought's about it, and we can help our fellow creatures, both human and non-human, and this may make us feel a whole lot better about life, but purpose? I'm afraid there is no PURPOSE in big important letters. It is good to help others. It is good to live healthily, both physically and mentally. It may even be good to leave something that represents us behind when we expire. Life is for living. And maybe we should just live life as best we can. What is best will always be an individual, personal decision.

You say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy H

In my opinion, a person will not be content without a purpose.

---

But also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy H

The thing is, is man has these dual characteristics that war inside him. he both needs a purpose, and resist being conformed completely to any purpose.

---

This latter is more to the point I think. Discussions of the meaning of life routinely skip over the fact that meaning can be oppressive. Too much is as bad as too little. Similarly, one single driving purpose would be monotonous and unfulfilling - unless of course, it was ultimately fulfilled, which would leave you once again without a purpose. Again - purposes are ephemeral and provisional. They alternate with and result from lack of purpose.

Quote:

---

What is best will always be an individual, personal decision.

---

I both agree and disagree with this statement.

If you mean that it is something we have to decide for ourselves, then yes I agree.

BUT if you are implying that the reality of what is best is changed by the "personal decision we make," then I most definitely disagree. There is a truth value to all things, and it cannot be effected by merely deciding it is a certain way. If a thing is right, then it is right regardless of how we feel about it.

Like I said, we believe all things based on faith, but we are either right or wrong in our beliefs (or some degree of both.)

Julian Barbour, a physicist from Cambridge, has developed this theory that past, present and future are forever existent. He says that time is like a block, say a cube, and that time-present is that frame that moves through the cube, and that time-past is all that is behind the frame and time-future is all that is before the frame. But he stresses that the cube itself exists through all time, so that at any time-present, both time-past and time-future are 'alive' or functional, but not operative. That is to say, we have no way, currently, of accessing the past or the future.

I remember one physicist, I think it might have been John Barrow, talking on the BBC about the loss of his mother who he dearly loved. He consoled himself with the thought that she had just moved from time-present to time-past and still 'existed' in a kind of parallel universe. Or something like that.

Quote:

---

That is to say, we have no way, currently, of accessing the past or the future.

---

I agree with that to a large extent. I mean think of how fallible memory is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Julian Barbour, a physicist from Cambridge, has developed this theory that past, present and future are forever existent.

---

This sounds very similar to Kant's concept of the ideality of time and space. Unfortunately, I only know it from secondary sources - Schopenhauer and Ernst Schroedinger, so may get it wrong, but as I understand it, we have no way of knowing that our perception of time and space is anything more than a product of our particular type of mind. Not much is said subsequent to that about space by either referrer, but if time does not exist, the idea of death becomes fairly meaningless. Schopenhauer uses this as a jumping off point for a disquisition on his belief in reincarnation. Schroedinger begins by saying the theory is impossible to prove or disprove and would be less interesting if it was provable one way or another, but then enjoys its strong echo and apparent validation in post Newtonian physics.

<There is a truth value to all things,>

I would say there are statistical probabilities to all things. Whether this equates to your truth value I don't know. I would also say that nothing is 100% certain, or at least, nothing can be shown to be 100% certain.

Truth I have always considered a very tricky concept. I mean, truth, to be really true, should be 100% certain, shouldn't it? beyond any possible doubt. I just don't think anything is like that.

To paraphrase Russell, there is no logical argument against the idea that the world was made yesterday with all the ingredients needed to give it the idea that it had a very ancient history. You could update that 'yesterday' to this second that will pass now.

It would seem that nothing is certain beyond doubt.

<This sounds very similar to Kant's concept of the ideality of time and space.>

I think Kant is a very interesting philosopher. From what I recall of him, he said that time and space were both intuitions of the mind. Kant believed that we need to possess the intuitions of time and space before we can perceive objects, or understand our perceptions of objects. For example, we cannot conceive of an object without reference to space or time; therefore, we must have an intuition of space or time in order to perceive objects. That's quite a revolutionary and profound idea in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

From what I recall of him, he said that time and space were both intuitions of the mind. Kant believed that we need to possess the intuitions of time and space before we can perceive objects, or understand our perceptions of objects. For example, we cannot conceive of an object without reference to space or time; therefore, we must have an intuition of space or time in order to perceive objects. That's quite a revolutionary and profound idea in my opinion.

---

Yes, well I was slightly upset by it at first, which is often a good sign.

I think the purpose of life is to discover your abilities and develop them to the full extent.....that will make you happy.. ;)

Call me simple, but the general purpose of life to me seems happiness; what alternates proves the differences between others in their search for happiness - Aristotle called it the perfection of virtue, Buddha called it love, Plato called it the divine Good, Lao Tzu called it harmony . . .

On a side note, one of my personal favorite quotes from Samuel Taylor Coleridge: "Happiness is the end of virtue, and truth is knowledge of the means."