What is the Meaning of Life?
Discussion #63 â€' Fojar Philosophy and Politics ForumDiscussion related to that most basic philosophical question. Keep in mind this is a discussion, not any kind of haphazard "scholarly" publication.Participants include:Kevin Olcese (Penn State)Chris Orser (Ursinus)Brian Robinson (Kutztown U.)Kyle Hartman (Penn State)Mike Baney (U. of Delaware)
Prompt
Original Topic by Kevin Olcese
For so long, men have contemplated the meaning of life. For far too long, notions have emerged on what the purpose of life is. And to this perennial question, I add my own view to the melting pot. Often it is posed to us, "What do you live for?". I can say without any restraint that I live to enjoy my life, and for no other reason, or no other person. I am not so foolish to think that my physical existence here on this earth is meaningless, and that the afterlife is where true spiritual growth begins; how can one know what lies beyond death? Blind devotion to faith is a dangerous thing. I am not trying to say there is only one plane of existence, because no man living can say so for certain. It is a mystery to be discovered after death, but I refuse to wait that long to live my life.
Every erudite indulgence, every humanistic pleasure derived, every majestic scene beheld...these are all things we can take with us, and pass on to the next generation, even after we've left the mortal world. Every book read, album listened to, movie viewed, passionate sexual encounter experienced, friendship made, or activity enjoyed...these are all things we ourselves seek out for our own desire. A wiser man than I once said: "Every time I see someone reach out for someone else, every time we appreciate and respect life, then we are in a sense making it all worthwhile." I must say that I wholeheartedly agree. The purpose of life is simply to live, unburdened and unworried by what may lie beyond this short existence we must endure, whether anything does exist beyond the mortal plane.
Our genes, given to us by our parents can tell us many things...where we came from, who our ancestors were, our predilected strengths or weaknesses, and even our potential destiny...but should we allow ourselves to be chained to the fate our genes have in store for us? We humans have the power of free will, and this is a wonderful thing to possess. Even if it should be to our own demise, humans are perhaps the only creatures who are able to defy logic and do whatever they may please. Think about it: how many animals have you seen commit suicide? It is an immensely illogical act, and their genes prevent them from acting in their own harm; In a sense, they are completely guided by their genes, and have no life they can call their own. Humans are unique in this way. My goal in life, shallow though it may be, is to pass on my genes. However, not just our genes can be passed; the information we've obtained in life can be passed on to our sons and daughters--things like culture, ideas, poetry, literature, music, speech, and all the emotions we feel....everything. When I have children, I want them to read my history and the history of the world by it's natural light...as messy and sad as that history may be. The old generation gives way to the new, and we pass the torch on to our children to carry the human race onward... The human race may not be eternal, but I believe it's worth passing on, don't you? I want my legacy to live on through the coming generations, and my genes to stay eternal, beating in the pulses of my children. I want to be remembered in history, and the best way I know how to do that is living my life in the most fantastic way I can imagine, without worrying about others views on me. Traces of our lives must be shown to our children so that we can keep the past alive...while they build the future with the stepping stones we've provided.
Discussion
[n/a]: I think life only has meaning when people live out their life in a way that makes them happy. The second someone makes decision based on say, a morality that isn't theirs, or a goal that isn't theirs, or maybe does something just because they feel they're supposed to, I think that person's life becomes meaningless. The only exception would be doing something you hate as a means to an end. For example, I despise school work, but I want to go to college, so I put up with it.
Kevin Olcese: I agree. If you're living a life you aren't satisfied with, and you make no conscious attempt to change it, then why live at all? Kinda a morbid view, I know.
Chris Orser: Lately I've been seeing humans more and more as animals. Its all about evolutionary strength; the strong prosper and the weak die out or live depressing lives. I don't want it to be that way, yet, I see a lot of evidence that supports this belief. Asking "why?" to anything simply makes you weaker, and makes life more complicated. Note that I'm exaggerating a lot.
Brian Robinson: Life is the pursuit of an unattainable dream.
Kyle Hartman: And what is that dream? And if life was so bad and meaningless, wouldn't we have all killed ourselves? And am I the only optimist about life?
Chris Orser: Meaning of life discussions often seem to end up in pessimism, probably because there's no definitive answer, and people don't like uncertainty.
Kyle Hartman): I disagree, there's an answer to everything. Maybe it's just not an answer or concept we understand. But even for impossible concepts, we have ways of decribing them. That's what math is for, good ole math.
Chris Orser: Uh oh...sounds like a new thread topic to me! Regardless of whether or not there is an answer to everything, we don't know the answer to everything, and it's that uncertainty that many people find depressing.
Brian Robinson: We may not know it, but that doesn't mean we can't find out, or at least get a general idea, or a closer look at finding out.
Chris Orser: There are some things that we will probably never find out in our lifetime, and there are some things that we don't even have an idea of so we can't get a better look of them (you can't zoom in on something you can't see).
Anyway, I wasn't arguing that we couldn't better understand something, I was arguing that we can't completely understand everything, and, in the case of meaning of life, this depresses some people. I think it's somewhat understandable that some people are depressed that they are here, but they don't know, and, hence, they don't know what to do with their life (that's not my philosophy, though).
I really do think that the ideas behind philosophy and religion are really just speculation built on older speculation, which some internalize. You can't ever "know" that being stoic is better than being epicurean (though you could, perhaps, find out which one you find more appopriate). The fact that there are no definite answers, like math, is depressing to some, and religion offers an easy way out of that predicament.
Mike Baney: To backtrack a bit--Kyle said there's an answer to everything. Well, what exactly does this entail? When I started this post I thought my idea was original, but it turns out I'm stealing from Douglass Adams with the whole "what is the question". Ironically it was answered with good ol' math. Anyway, I don't think there has to be a purpose for people to live their lives in a way that satisfies them. I don't really mind "just" being here.
Kyle Hartman: To Orser: Isn't everything just speculation in the end. Even your perception about the world around you is based off of assumptions. You have to make logical reasoning just to exist. You live under certain assumptions that can't actually be made. You can't know anything for sure thats true, but you have to make certain assumptions to live. Know is just a word we use when we are as sure as can be. I would say that there are definite answers, but perhaps they are beyond our understanding. I don't think thats not a reason to ask why though.
To Mike: I literally meant everything. I think there are answers to any question you could possibly ask. The question we seem to be discussing most now though is "what is the purpose of human existance?" I think that "just" being here is a fine way to see the world provided you keep your mind open to other ideas, which I think you do for the most part. I wouldn't worry about purpose though. If we do have a purpose as I think, it's not up to you to figure out what it is. I see our purpose as something everyone fulfills just by living. They don't need to know what their purpose is because they can fulfill it just as easily without wondering. I have to ask questions, but it's not that important too, I don't think. As long as people are openminded and actually think, they can "just" live their life as far as I'm concerned.[/i]
Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:
To Orser: Isn't everything just speculation in the end. Even your perception about the world around you is based off of assumptions. You have to make logical reasoning just to exist. You live under certain assumptions that can't actually be made. You can't know anything for sure thats true, but you have to make certain assumptions to live. Know is just a word we use when we are as sure as can be. I would say that there are definite answers, but perhaps they are beyond our understanding. I don't think thats not a reason to ask why though.[/i]
I agree that we don't really know anything, and that we should ask every question that we can. But I would separate knowing that my dog's name is "ranger" from knowing whether or not their is some kind of higher power.
I still don't think that there's a concrete, definite answer to everything. For instance, what's better, Joe Frazier or Horatio Nelson? And no, I won't clarify.
Kyle Hartman: It depends how you define "better". You asked too broad of a question. The question can be answered, it's just a trillion-fold question or so. While you can seperate knowing your dog's name is Ranger from the existence of a higher power, you are only saying you are a lot more sure that your dog's name is Ranger than that there is a higher power. Humanity used to know that Earth was the center of the Universe and the world was flat. I think refusing to contemplate the concept of a higher power is just as foolish as not questioning or ignoring doubt about a higher power you were told about.
Brian Robinson: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:
And what is that dream? And if life was so bad and meaningless, wouldn't we have all killed ourselves?
First of all, who said search and pursuit is meaningless?
Secondly, the dream is that one vision, that one subconscious place in both time and space where all parts of you, body, mind, and soul, achieve 'happiness.' You may or may not consciously know what your true dream is, but in all things you say, do, think, and believe, you inevitably take a step towards that dream.
As a literary reference take for example Sam from LotR. Sam sees a vision of a massive garden where all the population are workers within it, and he is lord of the grandest. Well, he resists the ring and this vision, recognizing that it is not his true dream - as temptingly close as it is. Upon the conclusion of the series he actually does find his dream, his own personal garden, his beloved wife, and a level of peace and understanding impossible to describe. This is because no true dream can be transcribed onto paper. The novel must end at this point as there is no way to describe the true dream, and the achievement thereof is a fantasy in and of itself. After all, LotR is a fantasy work.
Kyle Hartman: How is that unattainable? It seems that Sam resists the temptation and false promises of the Ring and successfully attains his dream, which is a quiet and peaceful life. I didn't say search and pursuit is meaningless, but search and pursuit for something you know you can't get too seems meaningless to me. From:
Brian Robinson (Kutztown U.) wrote:
Life is the pursuit of an unattainable dream.
I assumed you meant that you know your own dream, and spend your life trying to get something you can never have. Whats the search if you already have the dream? Maybe searching for a way to get it, but it the search proves futile if the dream is unattainable. That's why I said that life would be considered sad and meaningless, but clearly I just misunderstood what you meant.
Brian Robinson: It is merely a fantasy to actually achieve the dream. I think that most people do not consciously know what their true dream is and consequently spend many frustrating years in the pursuit, oftentimes without even knowing what they're pursuing. For the few that believe they know their dream and spend every waking moment attempting to achieve it life is even more frustrating, because what they believe is their true 'happiness' is false. The true 'happiness' is unattainable and people either: a) mask it with a simpler, false dream or b) do their best to ignore it all and live life as it is. Money, power, sex, etc all act to mask the true 'happiness, ' protecting us from a truth that is otherwise rather painful and depressing.
Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:
It depends how you define "better". You asked too broad of a question.
Like I said, I won't clarify. It's a question, and there is no "correct" answer. I'd define better, but, as this thread indicates, we don't even know what it means. In fact, we don't know that it's a word. If I were to give it a definition, ie I were to say that "better" means having a more positive effect on humanity, you would have to decide whether Napoleon winning at the Battle of Trafalgar, in the long term, be a good or bad thing, and whether or not different things would have happened without Nelson's existence (esp the butterfly effect) whereas also debating what kind of effect Frazier actually had. The Frazier question is easy, but the Nelson question certainly isn't. You might still be saying that that's too broad of a question, but I'm still saying that it's a question that's unanswerable.
I'd like to point out that I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to find answers, even to seemingly unanswerable questions, I'm just saying that not all questions are answerable. And, in all likelyhood, there are some things that we will simply never contemplate, or even contemplate contemplating about, and hence we won't be able to answer those questions. For instance, what if there's another color that we don't know about? You might answer that that's impossible, and yet, as has been pointed out, we don't really know anything.
And once again, I'd like to separate knowing my dog's name from knowing about higher powers. My dog's name is a shared assumption, that I actually personally created (or at least I think I did), that the dog is called Ranger. Not only, but the name itself is trivial, and has little affect on anyone or anything. Meanwhile, the idea of God was not created by any single man (or at least, I highly doubt it) or even a small group of people (you might say Jesus, Moses, etc, and yet somehow I think all those movements were highly influenced by older beliefs), and is, in all likelihood, very important, as "He" may very well determine our future, be very wise, etc. Also, there is nowhere near a consensus on God, whereas anyone who knows my dog knows his name.
Brian Robinson: I agree that the question is unanswerable. What I have said just describes life and "answers" the question 'What is life?' The 'why' of life is in all respects unanswerable for the same reason that people are unwilling to ask themselves the 'why' of everything beneath life. The best that one can do is propose solutions that can never be proven, and even that is at the limits of human contemplation.
Kyle Hartman: To Chris: I think a difference in the way we view logic is seperating us on this issue. The way you and I are defining question seem very different. I see a question as asking about a very specific concept. The words you say are only your attempt to communicate to me an idea. In your head, you thought up the concept of a questioning nature. (This is very hard to explain, since you all know me, just see me in person if you actually want to understand what I mean). For instance, when you said, "Are there other colors or something?", that isn't the question you asked, it's your attempt to communicate to me the concept you are questioning. The ability to ask about a specific concept, implies that their is a true answer. (I don't think that will make sense so I'll try another way.) Since you could ask the question, it has an answer, in my opinion. (Seriously, just ask in person if you actually want to know what I mean, I don't communicate concepts that well in writing.)
To Chris' final paragraph: I understand what you mean about the differentiation, but when I talk about a higher power, I didn't mean God. I think you can pretty damn sure about your dog's name because it's one of those things you have to accept in order to live life. If you're wrong, then something is probably wrong in your head, and while there is some point in questioning your own ability to question properly, it's one of the assumptions you have to make in life. Kinda like the assumption that you yourself exist. I think that the concept of a higher power can be taken down to this level. Such as by definition. Think of it backwards, rather than analyzing whether God exists about what you know about him. Think what must be true for you to exist, to accept reality, and then define God in that manner. Once again, I think you and I see the concept of words in complete different ways. Really though, it's just me I'm sure. I just see things as logically concepts rather than ideas surrounding a word. Once again, I'm better at explaining my ideas one on one.
To Brian: I agree that any answers can never be proven, but I think you just have to accept some level of uncertainty in life.
Chris Orser: Backtracking to um...well, the title, the meaning of life is happiness. Think about everything that you want to obtain. Why do you want to obtain those things? I think you'll find that, in every case, you want to obtain something FOR something else, e.g. some Asian kid wants to be a doctor. Why? Well, because he wants to make his parents proud (obviously, most people aren't this simple). Why does he want to make his parents proud? Because their approval makes him happy. Happiness stands as its own concept of "being happy", but it can also consist of things like self-satisfaction, feeling good, that sort of thing. Happiness is the only end; everything else is just a means (means vary widely from person to person). My professor told me this, and I agreed with him after reading this bitch of a 30 page packet, so my argument is (hopefully) far from the end of it's evolution.
Brian Robinson: Well, life is in fact a means, technically everything you do is a means. Anything that has a beginning and has an end must have a means in-between, even if it is as short as a few minutes. I think happiness is a reason for the means and a viable answer for 'what is life?' That is, the 'what' of life is the pursuit of happiness. The 'why, ' however is not answered by the pursuit or means of achieving happiness. The 'why' asks why do we even seek happiness in the first place. The 'why' asks why are we here existing in search of an arbitrary happiness. That I believe is the real question to answer, not the 'what' of life.
Chris Orser: Ok, I can see where you're coming from there. Of course, you could say that the "why" of each person's life is to pursue happiness. It doesn't explain "why" we were created, or why we are here, but happiness (and the evasion of unhappiness) could probably explain every action of every human being ever (taking into account the irrationality of people at times). We seek happiness because it's good! Why do we seek good? Because it's good. I could go on, but I'd essentially be restating the same thing over and over. Life is attracted to "good" things. The rationality there is that "good" is "good".
From what I've learned, NOTHING can answer why we're here. Other than religion and spirituality, of course.
Kyle Hartman): I agree that happiness is the reason we do everything, but it isn't really a meaning to life. You could argue the purpose or meaning behind every action is happiness, which I agree with, but it still doesn't answer "what is the point/purpose/meaning behind our existence?" As you said, nothing can probably answer that, not for sure anyway. I haven't added anything yet, so I'll just say that maybe good for goodness sake is enough. It makes sense that what we all feel compelled to do as good is our purpose because it makes us happy. I guess you could say happiness is the ends, but "good" was the reason. There's no way to prove anything like that, but if someone/something designed us, whether God or Evolution or Aliens or whatever, it did a really bad job if our purpose was something other doing good because that's what makes us happy the most in my opinion.
Chris Orser: Ok, I can't really disagree there, except that you could say that happiness=good, and good=happiness. I'd actually use pretty much what you just said to support that.
We certainly have evolved to seek happiness, and, considering that all humans evolved, maybe that is the "why?" of life. Maybe it's our birthright and destiny to seek happiness, a birthright endowed by our creator (evolution).
I can accept this conclusion, though I'm sure there's some piece of evidence I'm not thinking of. The point is, unless you're determined to think that there is a god or a deeper meaning, I don't see why this explanation wouldn't be acceptable. I don't think that the determination to reach a certain conclusion is logical or scientific, nor intelligent.
Kyle Hartman: Finally, some common ground in this area. I did have to think about what I was writing to make it acceptable though, I had hoped you would agree with that.
Brian Robinson: Chris Orser (Ursinus) wrote:
I don't think that the determination to reach a certain conclusion is logical or scientific, nor intelligent.
Absolutely. This is why Adam's answer to the meaning of life (42) is so satirical and absurd. There is no concrete answer. Rather it's all a matter of perspective from what you've been raised with to believe or have developed yourself along the way.
Certainly mankind is inclined to seek happiness, and I would agree that the pursuit thereof is the 'what' of life. Now, saying that the 'why' of life is essentially an instinct to pursue what makes us happy does not sit well with me. It basically just sounds like a more complex version of survival of the fittest to me. Animals instinctively seek to survive, and it sounds like humans not only live to survive but live so that our minds are in the most pleasing state of mind. Happiness itself, to me, is more of a temporary feeling, one that fluctuates. Instead, I think it is the search for 'true happiness' that is a desire shared by all people. As a state of mind set above the level of typical thought and consciousness, 'true happiness, ' simply put, "makes more sense." Otherwise you're saying: 'Why do people exist and live? To be happy.'
Also, inputing (happiness = good), the answer, 'to do good, ' is again a more complex statement of survival of the fittest, something I don't think is entirely explanatory because of the degree of difference between man and animal.
Chris Orser: You can say that "pleasure" means fleeting happiness, while "happiness" means a state of mind, largely determined by the amount of pleasure in life as well as natural disposition.
I'm not sure if you understood what I said about looking for a "certain answer", but I could be wrong. A good example of what I'm trying to communicate is intelligent design, where they already know what they're trying to improve, and their "science" is essentially filling in the holes of their "theory". ("I like using quotation marks"). It just seems to me that too many people are determined to prove that their is a god, that it corresponds with what they believe in, and that that god can and will explain everything, including the meaning of life. I'd actually like to go on, but I don't think that it would add anything to this conversation.
Brian Robinson: Yea, intelligent design falls into the same catagory. It too attempts to formulate a specific answer for an unspecific question, which I think 'what is the meaning of life' is definitely unspecific. "42" is obviously more absurd than intelligent design, I was just exaggerating my point.
Kyle Hartman: I think what Chris and I agreed on was more along the lines of a universal understanding. We don't know any answers, but it doesn't matter because we know what we have to do anyway. If we all just want to be happy, or 'truly' happy, than our purpose can be defined just with the vague concept of 'good'. Maybe it's our way of having a word to describe something more complex than we all understand. I mean, when you think about, good is somewhat complicated and vague, yet very easy to understand, and better, we seem to know when we do good vs. bad. Good makes most people feel happy, and we all seem to understand that people who do bad things and don't think they are bad have been currupted. Like insane murderers. I think a line is crossed when people stop take cultural or traditional values and warp them into a belief that it's good cause it makes you and people you know happy.
Brian Robinson: Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:
We don't know any answers, but it doesn't matter because we know what we have to do anyway.
Kyle Hartman (Penn State) wrote:
If we all just want to be happy, or 'truly' happy, than our purpose can be defined just with the vague concept of 'good'.
How does this apply to those outside of a concept of good? Since it's more a matter of perspective and opinion, from where and how is good derived?
Chris Orser: "I think, therefore I am"
From the beginning, the only understanding we will ever have is subjective. To answer your question, ideas of goodness are purely subjective. Why is something good? Because we think it's good, and because we think it's good not because of what it can lead to, but because we (though, since it's subjective, I might be the more appropriate pronoun) think it is good in and of itself.
I still think you're searching too much for a specific answer to a specific question.
Kyle Hartman: Ultimately you could try to argue for or against absolute morality, as thats the only way it wouldn't be subjective if we want to do that. We all don't think the same things are right or wrong, but for the most part we see things similarly. I think we should just try to do good, and (part of my sense of whats good), try to understand other people and what they think is good, that way we can all get along better. I don't think we need to or even can all agree on whats good, but we could at least start by seeing where everyone is coming from. I just mean, I don't think we can judge another person's notion of what is good, challenge it of course, but judging something you don't understand is dumb, and we all do it.
Brian Robinson: I just don't see how, say, walking an elderly woman across the street or donating some money to a local charity can somehow sum up someone's purpose in life. I agree that, in general, people are predisposed to doing good, probably originating from a religious sense that good reaps rewards. Perhaps in that sense people feel that their purpose is to serve (God, Allah, etc), which links rather closely with doing good. Doing good is a matter of beliefs and values, perspectives (man I sound like a broken record now).
'Doing good' could very well be what someone believes is their 'purpose, ' but this makes me ask, 'what came first: life or religion?'
Kyle Hartman: I hate to sound overly confident on that question, so just take it as in my opinion, but life came before religion. Religion is the invention of mankind to search for a deeper meaning (among other things, but this is what we are discussing now). We also didn't say that small charitable acts are someones purpose, their purpose is 'good'. Good is almost a greater sense of just what makes you happy. Why?, because thats what we are supposed to do, if it isn't true, then we are supposed to be unhappy, or relatively neutral, and some creator, natural, supernatural, or aliens really messed up our wiring. I guess you could also argue, we do good in order to help each other survive and thats why it came about in evolution sense, so our purpose could also be to survive, but to me survival seems 'good', so i think good is a nice broad descriptor. I think the reason it makes the most sense to me is that, it's not some big secret, and if anything it seems to obvious. I also think it makes sense that we should know and want to do what we are supposed to do for our purpose, it wouldn't make sense that it's some great secret.
Chris Orser: The goal isn't to walk an old lady across the street, the goal is (figuratively speaking) to walk the lady across the street a thousand times. It's these little goods that make people happy, and make you a valued community member. Over time, they tend to repay your goodness with goodness of their own.
The act itself doesn't have to be good, just the consequence of the act. For instance, winning the Super Bowl. It's hard to call that a morally good act (not that's it morally bad), but it makes you happy for the accomplishment itself, plus, if you enjoyed the journey accomplishment, that's yet another good. In this case, the fans are happy to watch a good team play, and even the opposing players are happy to have participated in a good game (hopefully, at least). So it's a good thing.
Brian Robinson: Chris Orser wrote:
The act itself doesn't have to be good, just the consequence of the act. For instance, winning the Super Bowl. It's hard to call that a morally good act (not that's it morally bad), but it makes you happy for the accomplishment itself, plus, if you enjoyed the journey accomplishment, that's yet another good. In this case, the fans are happy to watch a good team play, and even the opposing players are happy to have participated in a good game (hopefully, at least). So it's a good thing.
Thank you, that helps prove my point. Nobody is born with the purpose to watch football, play football, or play anything for that matter. The significance of life is not 'to play (anything).' The significance of life is not to accomplish anything set by society - sport championships, prizes, titles, etc. All of these things might make someone feel 'good, ' but feeling and emotion is temporary and fleeting. Accomplishments within society are valid only to society. Time diminishes all of them, and certainly time has yet to remove our purpose - we're still here after all.
Brian Robinson: To Kyle:
The question of 'What came first: religion of life?' referred to religion as in a creator figure and the values set by said figure. I apologize, I wasn't clear on that. So perhaps a better question would be, 'What came first: the God figure or life?'
Also, I still don't think that survival alone accounts for our purpose. Since humans are still 'in the same boat' as animals (after all, we did evolve from them) it seems likely that we would at least share that inherent struggle to survive. That I agree with. However, I do not think that this accounts for the purpose of humans alone because of our differences.
Kyle Hartman wrote:
because (good) is what we are supposed to do
... says religion, a varied creation of our own doing
Kyle Hartman wrote:
if it isn't true, then we are supposed to be unhappy, or relatively neutral
as long as 'doing good' was supposed to be true in the first place, also, I believe the state of unhappiness to be something of society's doing (yet another varied creation of our own doing). I'm pretty sure a small nomadic tribe would never even question the state of happiness in the first place, only survival. As for a neutral state, well, yes, that's what mankind started with.
I suppose I would say that life as a whole has no real signficance or meaning. Society has a way of giving people a purpose by effectively rewarding those who succeed at playing the social game. When looking past society (this includes religion and religious principles - i.e 'doing good') there really is no significance, which makes me wonder how/why philosophy even began in the first place. Because, most people's dreams are of achieving and 'doing good' to be rewarded within society's shell. I know I've always dreamt of being free of society and of my own accord, at which point, to me, my purpose is find a purpose.
Kyle Hartman: To be free of society is to be free of your very humanity. Society is what we want it to be, we invented and still invent it to this day. If you want to be free, then just start with nothing right now. Don't do anything for any societal reason. I think you will find yourself with nothing to do. I agree that society gives us a purpose, but i also believe that society is who we are, it is all of us. By escaping society, I think you have the potential to lose our purpose. I don't even think we have a purpose as a sole individual, think about how empty life would be by yourself.
Chris Orser: Brian Robinson (Kutztown U.) wrote:
Thank you, that helps prove my point.
...
'What came first: the God figure or life?'
A) My argument was that what the accomplishment is doesn't matter, so much as that it makes you and other's happy.
B) To me, you're essentially asking "are the major religions of the world false?", seeing as every religion that I know of believes God created humans. To me, that's a more important question. To the Existentialist, btw, the only way that there is meaning is if there is a god, as he is the only one who could "give essence before existence".
I think society is not "us". Society is "the powerful", and their traditionalist beliefs. Thank god for the printing press (and it's descendants) and the media, which gives common people a chance to formulate their own ideas beyond "i want food". Nonetheless, I still believe it's mostly the people in power who shape our beliefs, and what we believe to be our purpose. No, society is not us, it us the traditions of our ancestors combined with the ideas of the powerful combined with the ideas of the many, with the common people shaping less than the majority of society. At the very least, it is disproportional.
Chris Orser: With that said, society is not completely responsible for unhappiness. Many people who disdain society are happy, or at least content, like Houser. Really, though, it depends on how you define society. Do you define it as "the common behavior of mainstream individuals", or do you define it as "behavior between humans". I define it as the first; I believe that much of the unhappiness caused by society is the differences between a given person and society. Beating this society-caused unhappiness is not impossible, though, you just have to find other people that you can either a) accept and have a lot in common with or b) tolerate, respect, and relate to. Society (our society, anyway. I can't speak for other societies) is far from perfect, and it alienates many individuals, but it could be a hell of a lot worse.
Philosophy was started by people who refused to accept that life is meaningless. I suggest you read some more Sartre; he seemed like a relatively happy guy who was also an Atheist.
The fact is, nothing says anything. You have complete freedom. And while you could be saddened by the fact that you have no destiny or inherent meaning, you could also embrace your freedom and use it to pursue your goals. How do you choose your goal? Whatever you really, really want to do. I bet there's something. And you know what? I bet that, even if it's only subconsciously, you view that goal as something that will make you HAPPY.
On good: I don't think it necessarily needs a dictionary definition. You know what red is without defining it. Similarly, you can know good when you see/feel it. I think that when you see/feel happiness, you see/feel goodness (most of the time, anyway).
Brian Robinson: Well, goodness is always in the eye of the beholder. So, saying that good is what it is to each individual, that is, giving it each and every definition to each and every scenario, then the act of doing good will make that individual happy or at least happier, right? My argument here all along is that good has only the definition that religion applies to it, which religion in and of itself already forces a purpose on those whom follow it anyway. I myself must disagree with that answer because I don't believe in today's religions and consequently, my idea of goodness is vastly different. Theoretically, I could shape my idea of goodness until it did in fact become my purpose in life, but for me, those two ideals, goodness and purpose, do not intersect.
In my argument that society gives you a purpose I essentially say that religion = society, or at least, that society is very very heavily based on religion. At this point the above paragraph is the same argument. Yes, from my perspective, mankind made religion and thus mankind made society, and the purpose that society gives you is a manmade one. In this sense, society is a manifestation of people's longings to have a concrete purpose, not one that is of searching and seeking. Thus I say that society's purpose is a compromise to our search for the meaning of life. Thus I say that, as of the present, life has no inherent meaning. Thus I say that 'speculationism' applies to all of us, if only fully manifested in a few individuals. Thus I say that 'speculationism' is a true inner conflict for the future.
Chris Orser: In your first paragraph, it seemed like you strangely changed the topic and failed to address my argument at all.
"So, saying that good is what it is to each individual, that is, giving it each and every definition to each and every scenario, then the act of doing good will make that individual happy or at least happier, right? My argument here all along is that good has only the definition that religion applies to it, which religion in and of itself already forces a purpose on those whom follow it anyway."
The first sentence is true (imo), and is what I've been saying. Religion does not necessarily have anything to do with acts making individuals happy. I feel that they do have an often insidious influence on society, but that doesn't have anything to do with refuting the idea that happiness is good. If your argument is that this is a religious idea, well, my argument is that I'm an Atheist and I still believe it.
Kyle Hartman: Which goes very nicely with my argument that we all believe the same thing anyway whether religious or not. That's completely off topic, so don't address it please. On society, I define society more along the lines of how we work and interact together and what comes out of that. I think of society as how you would describe humanity if you had to describe us all, not necessarily the average one of us, but either way the powerful do exert more influence on others behavior than the poor in many ways, and that is a problem with society that we must change. I don't think we should turn from society because it's messed up sometimes because to me that means not interacting with certain others. For all the problems society has, I think we can fix it, but since that would take a long time and probably fail we should do it the 'Max Power' way (Simpsons).
To Brian: I think some societies are getting close to simply being defined by religion, but certainly not ours. In my opiniion, our society does listen to the church, but many if not the vast majority only go to church cause they are supposed to, and only listen cause they are supposed to. We aren't really that spiritual of a society, I would say our society could be defined closer by looking at money and greed. In the middle east, or other very spiritual areas, it might be more accurate to describe society in terms of their religion, but I don't know if you said it already, but how do you define society, since Chris and mine ideas are pretty different, I think we should know what each of us is talking about when they say society.
Brian Robinson: Ok, rather than continue to formulate opinionated contradictions I will just plain answer what I feel the 'meaning of life' is in as clear a manner as possible. Yes, this borders on the society thread, but I'm leaving it here.
The following is my opinion on 'what is the meaning of life'
Life does not have a meaning, it has many meanings. Mankind came to exist through the process of evolution of our ancestral species, separating ourselves from other life forms by the unheard of ability to socialize on a deep and continuous basis. You could be really smart, but if you never met another individual in your life you would have a rather limited and likely wrongfully skewed view on life, the universe, and everything.
By effectively communicating with one another mankind naturally organized together (being the highly highly social creatures we are). These organizations then attempted to tackle common problems to mankind as a whole, everything from survival to philosophical questioning of the world. As we are aware of in present day, religions appeared to be the most common and accepted answer to the latter of these. Varying means of organization (from feudalist society to early democratic society (the Greeks)) answered the first.
Shifting back to the matter at hand, religion tackled 'what is the meaning of life' using varying 'methods' from the existence of God(s) to focusing on the internal (balancing karma and darma). People flocked to these answers because they offered appealing rewards and/or provided "followable" answers that could satisfy the question, even if it relies entirely on a rather obscure concept, faith. Because of this, religions cannot be either proven or disproven, thus as far as an 'answer' is concerned, they are not valid.
Brian Robinson: Thus I believe the answers (and I do mean answers) are something lost to the epic number of years that life has lived on the earth. If you exclude those that are devoutly religious, the answers are an individuals best attempt at making sense of the past using the resources that they have available to them (i.e education). Though you could even argue that religion falls within this same catagory.
Yes, my answer to the question is entirely vague. Why? Because there is no answer. There are only answers that we do not have the resources to prove true. To every beginning there is an end. I believe the meaning of life is the origin of life (and existence). The reason I say that life has no real meaning is because the origin of existence itself doesn't exist, that is, the origin of life cannot be known to us unless there is an ending, at which point life and existence no longer exists. (I hope that is understandable enough)
Yes, life does have a meaning(s), but as far as our lives are concerned, we are living our lives and generations will continue to do so. I admit that my 'belief' in the soul is just like faith in religion in that it attempts to say that there is more to this life than living it. I can't lost hope in that or I might lose hope in life. But life is to be lived, by whatever section in the continuum of time we are given.
Kyle Hartman: Why do you think the origin of the existence of life would hold any real answers? Chemical compunds form bonds in such a way that carbon likes to form chains and organic compounds, and then eventually proteins are created because of the properties of the elements and those same compounds. It's not luck that it works out, it's math and physics. The attractions of charged particles, the polarity of water. Given, literally forever, how could life not come about, it's statistically impossible. Even something with the smallest chance will happen eventually. Why would there be a beggining or an end either? That alone is an interesting concept, I think the reason we see things as starting and ending is because we die. Thats just my opinion though.
Chris Orser: I think his reasoning is that he can't accept that life is as simple as that, and so he chooses to look for other answers. Though I disagree with that line of thought, I can't exactly disprove what he believes, so I can see where he's coming from.
My reasoning is that the world is what it is, and the only meaning in life is what we give it. Happiness fits into that line of thinking, for me at least, as it's an internal thing (not that it's confined to me, but that it's an experience people feel inside, not an external entity/thing) to strive for. Of course, from that angle, you could believe anything you want and it would have meaning to you, even if what you believe in is irrational.
Kevin Olcese: I feel that people mostly just don't want to be forgotten and lost forever in the tomes of history. We want people to speak our names in generations to come, in any form whatsoever.
Kyle Hartman: Way too many names in way too much time. No matter what you will be forgotten eventually. The best way to be remembered is to make a whole lot of people really really afraid for their lives. People generally remember that better than helping people.
Chris Orser: Being remembered forever isn't going to happen (well, you never know, but can we really assume otherwise?). Is it a valid goal to be remembered for a while after your death? If so, how many people/how much time make it valid, or do those qualifiers not matter?
Brian Robinson: Yea, well, your chances of achieving the extraordinary are always slim because of enormity, but you still have to try, otherwise you have no chance versus at least a candlelight's ray of hope.
Kyle Hartman: I don't know why you think it's so important to be remembered. I honestly don't care, I want to make a difference, which we all do, but names are meaningless. If someone knows my name in the future, they don't know me, just what I did, and we all do so very much in our lives anyway. I would just be happy with good solid impact on those I meet around me. Names are pointless, titles fleeting, and Metal Gear Solid controls your brains.
Brian Robinson: I think of 'being remembered' as a side-effect of 'making a difference.' You can't think of 'being remembered' in a large-scale historicial point of view. Rather, you have to think of it on more of a local scale. Otherwise your attempting to link individual achievement to beyond-global reaches. Let's just say you have to keep things in perspective. It's a rather pleasant feeling knowing you've made a difference because you know that you are and potentially will be remembered for doing so.
Chris Orser: I agree, I was also thinking that being remembered doesn't necessarily have to mean being remembered on the global scale, and you're probably only going to be remembered if you made some sort of difference, even if that difference is something simple like having kids or being a nice guy; of course, you could also be remembered for being a jackass. I'd like to be remembered, but I don't think it's the meaning of life, at least not the ONLY meaning of life.
