NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like people here have discussed the afterlife for ages, but never really the point of the current life we're all (hopefully, I hope zombies can't use computers :p) living. To me, it's far more of a relevant and intriguing discussion. Please answer any or all of the questions as far as they apply to you.

What's the purpose of life? If there isn't an objective one, can you make a personal subjective goal? If you have multiple purposes (please see the poll coming up), would you prioritize any of them? Would that mean you would sacrifice one to achieve another? How strongly do you believe in the purpose? Finally, what's your reason for believing in said purpose?

Personally, I have no idea what the purpose of life is yet, but I know there is one. I can't accept that life is essentially meaningless, though it feels like it sometimes.

I hope zombies can't use computers
They don't. We vampires do, though.

Personally, I have no idea what the purpose of life is yet, but I know there is one. I can't accept that life is essentially meaningless, though it feels like it sometimes.

The purpose of life is to bitch about the purpose of life.

If there is an afterlife, then existence is infinite and whatever you do you will have to experience infinity (in the sense of experiencing everything possible over and over again). All possible meanings would be arbitrary.

If there is no afterlife and you only have this lifetime, then existence is meaningless agaist the background of infinite inexistence. Life can't have a meaning.

Hope this doesn't depress you.:)

To dance and drink and screw, because there's nothing else to do.

Purpose?

Why do people assume that life has to have a purpose to be meaningful? Just kick back and enjoy the ride, however short it may be.

there is no pre-determined meaning of life. you have no purpose handed to you by an outside authority.

life is what you decide to make it.

To achieve immortality. How? Simple. By influencing the history books. By doing something so great that even after your physical body has vanished from the earth, your name, memory and existance shall never ever be forgotten.

Allow me to explain the options slightly, just for all the subtle differences within them.

Option One means complete hedonism (thought not in the sense of immorality), where basically all you want from life is pleasure, whatever that may be for you.

Option Two means sort of what a lot of people are attempting to do nowadays through the UN, though it could be just as simple as being a fireman. You want to help people, and that is your highest and most meaningful calling in your life.

Option three means the surrendering of yourself to advancing the goals of an ideology, like a religion, political theory or whatever you like.

Option four means discovering the spiritual/mystical/ philosophical truth hidden in the illusion of reality, if you believe all that.

I think the rest are fairly self-explanatory.

To achieve immortality. How? Simple. By influencing the history books. By doing something so great that even after your physical body has vanished from the earth, your name, memory and existance shall never ever be forgotten.

Why?

To achieve immortality. How? Simple. By influencing the history books. By doing something so great that even after your physical body has vanished from the earth, your name, memory and existance shall never ever be forgotten.

I'm reminded of the Woody Allen quote "I don't want to live on through my work, I want to live on in my apartment". Being remembered doesn't make you any less dead.

I can't tell you what your purpose is. Here's mine: I'm here to be a human being and make the world a better place.

Seems like people here have discussed the afterlife for ages, but never really the point of the current life we're all (hopefully, I hope zombies can't use computers :p) living. To me, it's far more of a relevant and intriguing discussion. Please answer any or all of the questions as far as they apply to you.

What's the purpose of life? If there isn't an objective one, can you make a personal subjective goal? If you have multiple purposes (please see the poll coming up), would you prioritize any of them? Would that mean you would sacrifice one to achieve another? How strongly do you believe in the purpose? Finally, what's your reason for believing in said purpose?

Personally, I have no idea what the purpose of life is yet, but I know there is one. I can't accept that life is essentially meaningless, though it feels like it sometimes.

Heh I love this one.

Life is essentially meaningless, so you have to find your own meaning.

Well obviously. Just make sure your meaning doesn't suck!

Well obviously. Just make sure your meaning doesn't suck!

Why not? If you find meaning in 'sucking', why is that meaning any less than other meanings?

Why not? If you find meaning in 'sucking', why is that meaning any less than other meanings?
I would be very sad if I met someone who believed her meaning was to think she has no point, and that she is nothing to anyone or even herself, and that she is essentially a rock. That would be teh suxxors.

pussy. and making the place a little better than when you found it

its more or less self explanatory :)

I would be very sad if I met someone who believed her meaning was to think she has no point, and that she is nothing to anyone or even herself, and that she is essentially a rock. That would be teh suxxors.

Well good for you, what though if this person was happy with her meaning?

Well good for you, what though if this person was happy with her meaning?
Then that is most unfortunate.

Then that is most unfortunate.

Heh or not!

Then that is most unfortunate.

Well either there is a meaning and she doesn't have to want to be a rock or there is no meaning and you can spare us your value judgments:)

Well either there is a meaning and she doesn't have to want to be a rock or there is no meaning and you can spare us your value judgments:)
I agree. She shouldn't have to want to be a rock.

To help people achieve a higher quality of life and state of being, with "people" including yourself as well.

I also attribute some inherent value to the discovery and understanding of real truth, but that, I think, is secondary. And I also think it leads inevitably to the first.

The ultimate purpose of life is to continue life; to continue your species and pass on your genes.

If humanity occurred naturally then we do not have a purpose.

/thread

If humanity occurred naturally then we do not have a purpose.

/thread

[thread] I disagree.

I disagree.

Well you're wrong

If humanity occurred naturally then we do not have a purpose.

/thread

Convention is others "/thread" for you;)

If humanity occurred naturally then we do not have a purpose.

/thread

Nonsense.

All living thing's ultimate goal is to perpetuate their species.

Nonsense.

All living thing's ultimate goal is to perpetuate their species.

Nonesense. That's merely the result of natural selection. That which is genetically predisposed to reproducing is more likely to pass on its genes. You are confusing cause and effect.

If humanity occurred naturally then we do not have a purpose.

/thread
this.reopen();

Nonesense. That's merely the result of natural selection. That which is genetically predisposed to reproducing is more likely to pass on its genes. You are confusing cause and effect.

Nope.

Look at every species out there. The instinct to reproduce is one of the strongest out there.

The ultimate purpose IS to reproduce and continue the species. If some don't pursue that is their problem. Not every organism does reproduce however, but the doesn't change the fact that the ultimate purpose is to reproduce. Everything else is just a bonus!

I reckon the meaning of life cannot be laid down to one simple action, or ideology or belief.
In the same way a picture is understood by all the colours combined in a certain way, or a story by all it's pages filled, or a game with all the moves explained, life can't be attributed to one specific 'thing' as such, but to what your own life amounts to (ie how much you think you think you've achieved from your circumstances). So in a sense it can be put under 'helping others' but then it's debatable how much you should help others. I said other in your poll.

Now if you want some high and mighty being to make your life worthwile by all means you go for it, personally i don't see how even an afterlife can explain this one.
Any talk of an afterlife can make things complicated but even with an afterlife you still have to work out your purpose in that life, so really you're back to square one.
With no afterlife, well from my point of view that seems natural yet, unwholesome. I don't know how to think of non existance so i can't really comment on there being no afterlife, even if it does appear to be a valid option.

Nope.

Look at every species out there. The instinct to reproduce is one of the strongest out there.


Instinct =/= purpose.


The ultimate purpose IS to reproduce and continue the species. If some don't pursue that is their problem. Not every organism does reproduce however, but the doesn't change the fact that the ultimate purpose is to reproduce. Everything else is just a bonus!

Is there supposed to be an argument here somewhere?

Nope.

Look at every species out there. The instinct to reproduce is one of the strongest out there.

The ultimate purpose IS to reproduce and continue the species. If some don't pursue that is their problem. Not every organism does reproduce however, but the doesn't change the fact that the ultimate purpose is to reproduce. Everything else is just a bonus!

No. Slowly:

If something doesn't reproduce it doesn't pass on its genes. If something reproduces it passes on its genes.

The genes that drive towards reproduction are more likely to be recreated in the next generation.

A couple of generations later, most things are likely to have a genetical predisposition to reproduce.

Any mutation that deviates does not carry on into the next generation.

Ad infinitum.

No. Slowly:

If something doesn't reproduce it doesn't pass on its genes. If something reproduces it passes on its genes.

The genes that drive towards reproduction are more likely to be recreated in the next generation.

A couple of generations later, most things are likely to have a genetical predisposition to reproduce.

Any mutation that deviates does not carry on into the next generation.

Ad infinitum.

I realize that...

That doesn't change what I said. The purpose of life is to continue life. It is that simple.

The fact that there are some organisms that don't doesn't change the fact.

I realize that...

That doesn't change what I said. The purpose of life is to continue life. It is that simple.

The fact that there are some organisms that don't doesn't change the fact.

genetic predisposition != purpose.

Thus the purpose of life is not a fact.

The purpose of life is to continue life. It is that simple.


But you haven't made any sort of argument explaining why this is the case.

genetic predisposition != purpose.

Thus the purpose of life is not a fact.

Yes, it is. Every living thing on the planet reproduces. That is the point of life. To reproduce. Why can't you get that?

Sure, there are other reasons to live, but the OP asked about the ultimate purpose. Without reproduction there wouldn't be much a point now would there?

But you haven't made any sort of argument explaining why this is the case.

Go watch some nature programs.
Go look at the behaviors of human societies all over the world. And animal behaviors.

The point is to have kids.

Yes, it is. Every living thing on the planet reproduces. That is the point of life. To reproduce. Why can't you get that?

Sure, there are other reasons to live, but the OP asked about the ultimate purpose. Without reproduction there wouldn't be much a point now would there?


Now children reapeat after me: Because something is the case does not mean it ought to be the case. You cannot jump from is to ought.;)

Hey i was thread browsing.
and it turns out it doesn't really matter what you think of life, it could end in under 3 hours from now.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556586
so if you have any further queries about the short remainder of your life, please fire away.
:)

Now children reapeat after me: Because something is the case does not mean it ought to be the case. You cannot jump from is to ought.;)

...

How can anyone disagree that continuing the species should be the priority? Seriously.

Go watch some nature programs.
Go look at the behaviors of human societies all over the world. And animal behaviors.

The point is to have kids.

All you have shown is that humans and nature have a natural inclination to reproduce, you haven't shown in anyway how this is our purpose.

...

How can anyone disagree that continuing the species should be the priority? Seriously.

Because you cannot deduce an ought from an is?

Hey i was thread browsing.
and it turns out it doesn't really matter what you think of life, it could end in under 3 hours from now.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556586
so if you have any further queries about the short remainder of your life, please fire away.
:)

Partially why I made this thread. :) A nice chance to re-evaluate.

...

How can anyone disagree that continuing the species should be the priority? Seriously.

Who gives a fuck about the species? Seriously...

Partially why I made this thread. :) A nice chance to re-evaluate.

yes the world may end, what does NSG do? oh yes argue about how you can't get an ought from an is.
oh well at least i won't see the end coming.
you reckon there is such a thing as the grim reaper?

This is weird. I was planning on posting a thread about this as soon as I got home.

Okay. Assuming that humankind as a species has some sort of creator, and that we were created with a purpose, we can assume one of two things:

1) We have fulfilled our purpose already and are now living without any purpose
2) We, as a species, have not fulfilled our purpose yet

There are other, stranger options (we've already completed our purpose and thus ceased to exist, this is all an illusion... God is dead and our purpose died with God... etc), but I'll deal only with these two.

If the first option is the case, then life no longer has meaning. End of discussion.
If the second option is the case, then we have to look at what traits humanity was given to determine what purpose we can fulfill (if you want someone to do a job, you give them the right tools).

We have the ability to analyze, rationalize, and speculate beyond the capacity of other animals. We have thoughts and feelings that overpower instinct. We form more complex ideas and create more complex tools than any other creature on Earth.

If we were created with a purpose, then we can infer that this purpose involves somehow using the gifts that only we were given.

There are many great things that only humans could have achieved- splitting the atom, genetic engineering, and space travel being a few recent examples. The meaning of life may lie farther down the line on the scientific timeline, but if any of this is true, then presumably some higher power means for us to reach it.

yes the world may end, what does NSG do? oh yes argue about how you can't get an ought from an is.
oh well at least i won't see the end coming.
you reckon there is such a thing as the grim reaper?

Suppose we'll find out 2 minutes, old chap? :D

Suppose we'll find out 2 minutes, old chap? :D

I thought it was two hours?
I don't want to die in two minutes i need a poo!
:D
http://www.lhcountdown.com/
yup two hours.

I thought it was two hours?
I don't want to die in two minutes i need a poo!
:D
http://www.lhcountdown.com/
yup two hours.

You sure about that? It says the countdown down over here... UNLESS...

IT'S ALREADY BEGUN :eek:

EDIT: Actually, their website just stopped working, so I can't confirm that, but I'm fairly certain I saw all zeros across the screen.

You realise that they're not actually going to collide any particles in it for quite a bit yet, aye?

Also - Trollgaard - you're confusing 'purpose' and 'what needs to happen for the species to simply continue'. And Ad Nihilo, anyone with common sense cares about the species because we're a part of it. What greater failure is there than extinction?

By the way, when I asked the question, I was thinking more of a personal meaning, not for everything. I doubt many you walk around "I've got to create the next generation!"

Well, I don't many of you do engage in those sort of activities, but not really for the sake of reproduction.

There are many purposes in life, but a Purpose? What do you mean?

I guess it's like asking: What is the single Road I should take? --and the obvious reply (not an answer) is: well, where do you want to go?

There are many purposes in life, but a Purpose? What do you mean?

I guess it's like asking: What is the single Road I should take? --and the obvious reply (not an answer) is: well, where do you want to go?

You can pick multiple choices in the poll, if you're not sure about having just one purpose, you know.

You realise that they're not actually going to collide any particles in it for quite a bit yet, aye?

Also - Trollgaard - you're confusing 'purpose' and 'what needs to happen for the species to simply continue'. And Ad Nihilo, anyone with common sense cares about the species because we're a part of it. What greater failure is there than extinction?

:) It was sarcasm darling. Trollgaard is a capitalist if I remember correctly - someone ideologically dedicating to screwing his fellow man over. That was my point.

I like city life, so I can't complain against the species, but what happens to the species after I die is of no consequence to me.

:) It was sarcasm darling.
In that case, I'm terribly sorry for misunderstanding you.

...

How can anyone disagree that continuing the species should be the priority? Seriously.

If the entire human race decided to discontinue procreation, on what basis would you declare them wrong? we would be the last generation of humans: so what? What makes that particularly bad? I'm not saying it isn't, just demanding an explanation.

The ultimate purpose IS to reproduce and continue the species.

You can go right ahead and prove that one. You declaring it to be so just isn't terribly convincing.

You can go right ahead and prove that one. You declaring it to be so just isn't terribly convincing.

continuing your own genetic line is the biological purpose of life, because with survival of the fittest the animals who devote the most to continuing their genes are the ones who are most likely to have their genes continued. On the other hand, while we live we might as wll come up with some purpose in life, just to pass the time.

No 'ultimate purpose' to human life in general, for we are more than simply reproduction-units and certainly aren't all striving for the same goal in our lives, though individuals may well have a purpose they devote themselves to.

continuing your own genetic line is the biological purpose of life, because with survival of the fittest the animals who devote the most to continuing their genes are the ones who are most likely to have their genes continued. On the other hand, while we live we might as wll come up with some purpose in life, just to pass the time.

That's not a purpose, that's just a state of being. It could be a sterile man could accomplish more in the way of true meaning and purpose than ten million couples popping out babies. Just stating it again and again doesn't make it true.

To live... what else is there to life?


Fuck, I´m so deep. *sarcastic tone*
:rolleyes:

If the entire human race decided to discontinue procreation, on what basis would you declare them wrong? we would be the last generation of humans: so what? What makes that particularly bad? I'm not saying it isn't, just demanding an explanation.

On every basis! It would mean everything we've accomplished would be for nothing. It would mean we failed.

How the hell could just allowing the species to die out be a good thing? It couldn't.


I would do my damnedest to make sure the species didn't die out. :)

On every basis! It would mean everything we've accomplished would be for nothing. It would mean we failed.

How the hell could just allowing the species to die out be a good thing? It couldn't.


I would do my damnedest to make sure the species didn't die out. :)

so wait, is it about accomplishing things, or continuing to exist?

Survival is inadequate.

so wait, is it about accomplishing things, or continuing to exist?

Survival is inadequate.

Survival of the species is just fine.

Life only has whatever purpose you give it.

The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is Forty-Two.

Bow to me, as you ponder the divine implications of this universal truth.

To not die.

If there is an afterlife, then existence is infinite and whatever you do you will have to experience infinity (in the sense of experiencing everything possible over and over again). All possible meanings would be arbitrary.

If there is no afterlife and you only have this lifetime, then existence is meaningless agaist the background of infinite inexistence. Life can't have a meaning.

Hope this doesn't depress you.:)

Stop defining infinity as a lot of time. Infinity is an absence of time, something we have no real way to understand. Infinity may only seem like a moment, except there I go, defining the timeless in terms of time myself. The Bible tells us little about heaven, and what it tells us is told in metaphors as though the author couldn't describe what he was seeing any other way.

If there is an afterlife, then what we are given to understand about it indicates that the quality of that afterlife (i.e. jobs in it, amount of territory to govern in it, whatever) is determined by maturity attained in this life. Therefore the purpose of this life is to #1. set things up so that you have the best possible heaven and #2. leave behind an example that makes your friends and kids and grandkids want to do the same.

Survival of the species is just fine.

I disagree.

I think there are probably things worth sacrificing that for.

Do you care to attempt to prove me wrong, or just restate your thesis again and again?

life doesn't come with a purpose. but you can give it one of your own if you feel like it.

just remember we all have to live in whatever kind of a world everything we think and act and do contributes to creating an incentive for.

=^^=
.../\...

I know "Joke Option" was meant to be just that, but I think it sums up the meaning of life better than any of the other choices.

pussy.

If that's true you're going to be very disappointed when all women become lesbians and not only can you not get any yourself, they won't let you watch.

yes, I saw the white writing. I took it out on purpose so I could reply to this.

If that's true you're going to be very disappointed when all women become lesbians and not only can you not get any yourself, they won't let you watch.

yes, I saw the white writing. I took it out on purpose so I could reply to this.

Oh, shit, shit...have they set a date?

Stop defining infinity as a lot of time. Infinity is an absence of time, something we have no real way to understand. Infinity may only seem like a moment, except there I go, defining the timeless in terms of time myself. The Bible tells us little about heaven, and what it tells us is told in metaphors as though the author couldn't describe what he was seeing any other way.

Fine, then in the absence of time you cannot have evolving/altering of any kind, so all you do is exist. Thus there is no meaning to life, but be, which can't be helped.

If there is an afterlife, then what we are given to understand about it indicates that the quality of that afterlife (i.e. jobs in it, amount of territory to govern in it, whatever) is determined by maturity attained in this life. Therefore the purpose of this life is to #1. set things up so that you have the best possible heaven and #2. leave behind an example that makes your friends and kids and grandkids want to do the same.

Contradiction much? How would all this happen in timelessness?

Seems the 'No Purpose' option is currently the majority. The second is self interested happiness.

The ultimate purpose of life is to continue life; to continue your species and pass on your genes.

Which is true, and I offten put it thusly: The porpose of life is live.

To not die.
i think most folks here are kinda screwed then?:p
To live... what else is there to life?

Fuck, I´m so deep. *sarcastic tone*
:rolleyes:

That's like saying, the purpose of death is to die, or the purpose of falling down hills is to fall.
You aren't actually answering the question. (so answer it! or i'll chase ye with rickrolls)

Seems the 'No Purpose' option is currently the majority. The second is self interested happiness.

Just goes to show, it depends on who you ask to find the answer you'll get. so it varies.
i like the no purpose people, what is this the suicide committee? really folks, give the OP a proper answer.

Seems the 'No Purpose' option is currently the majority. The second is self interested happiness.

I'd say there is no purpose in the sense of a higher goal of it all.
But we are conditioned by nature to seek happiness for ourselves, which in many cases necessitates making the world a better place for all.

That's like saying, the purpose of death is to die, or the purpose of falling down hills is to fall.
You aren't actually answering the question. (so answer it! or i'll chase ye with rickrolls)

What of course it does. Life is the porpouse of life, to live to be, to exist.

I'd say there is no purpose in the sense of a higher goal of it all.
But we are conditioned by nature to seek happiness for ourselves, which in many cases necessitates making the world a better place for all.

Or a better place for one's self.

Just goes to show, it depends on who you ask to find the answer you'll get. so it varies.
i like the no purpose people, what is this the suicide committee? really folks, give the OP a proper answer.

Suicide? Why? :confused:

I fail to see the connection there...

Or a better place for one's self.

Yep. Making it better for everyone else is usually a side effect ;)

What of course it does. Life is the porpouse of life, to live to be, to exist.

well yes, but i think when the OP made this he had more in mind than a bunch of people saying "the purpose of life is to live".
It's circular, the purpose of living is life the purpose of life is to live and so on so on....
(cool, porpouse a cross between a purpose and a house)

Suicide? Why? :confused:

I fail to see the connection there...

no purpose=death. put simply.

I mean if everyone felt no purpose in what they do and what they've done i imagine they would want to stop living.

no purpose=death. put simply.

I mean if everyone felt no purpose in what they do and what they've done i imagine they would want to stop living.

Why? Life can just be, without needing any purpose.
On the contrary, if you think life has a purpose, and you can't seem to fulfill it, then you'd start thinking about wanting to stop living.

no purpose=death. put simply.

I mean if everyone felt no purpose in what they do and what they've done i imagine they would want to stop living.

Why would no purpose = death? My life doesn't have a purpose, and last time I checked I was very much alive, thank you.

no purpose=death. put simply.

I mean if everyone felt no purpose in what they do and what they've done i imagine they would want to stop living.

I feel there is absolutely no purpose to anything I do. I'm not suicidal. Quite the contrary: I've stopped being suicidal since I've started seeing things in this light. Because as any other action, killing yourself is pointless. If it were possible, even more so when you get to die anyway in due time. I live on inertia. To will to kill yourself is an act against that inertia and requieres too much effort to be worth it. You wouldn't win anything by it, nor would you lose anything otherwise.

Life is a 0 sum game. I don't quite understand the obsession of staying on positive balance for most of the time, when you end up at the same point where you have started. I find the inescapable prospect of death very liberating in that respect.

Suicide? Why? :confused:

I fail to see the connection there...

Same here. really life has no porpuse other than to live, any other porpouse is what e give it.

Why? Life can just be, without needing any purpose.
On the contrary, if you think life has a purpose, and you can't seem to fulfill it, then you'd start thinking about wanting to stop living.

hah, well thing about life is it can be understood by previous experience of life.
From birth we are given purpose to fulfill, be it to eat to survive or even to mess about or avoid work it's still a purpose.
To not have a purpose would be quite, demoralising i think.

I'm not saying there has to be a higher purpose but if you think there should be go right ahead.
It's possible that to describe life you have to take in all your actions and achievements, the same way as you might interpret a painting or a book, you know from past experience how to appreciate a painting or read a book, in the same way life can be understood as the sum of all experience and the possible experience to add to that.

well yes, but i think when the OP made this he had more in mind than a bunch of people saying "the purpose of life is to live".
It's circular, the purpose of living is life the purpose of life is to live and so on so on....
(cool, porpouse a cross between a purpose and a house)

So? it is circular, that is life I guess. What do you understand by the question 'what is the porpose of life?' and what do you understand by the answer 'the porpose of life is to live'?

I feel there is absolutely no purpose to anything I do. I'm not suicidal. Quite the contrary: I've stopped being suicidal since I've started seeing things in this light. Because as any other action, killing yourself is pointless. If it were possible, even more so when you get to die anyway in due time. I live on inertia. To will to kill yourself is an act against that inertia and requieres too much effort to be worth it. You wouldn't win anything by it, nor would you lose anything otherwise.

Life is a 0 sum game. I don't quite understand the obsession of staying on positive balance for most of the time, when you end up at the same point where you have started. I find the inescapable prospect of death very liberating in that respect.
What makes you think there has to be one certain purpose?
how can you understand any life on it's face value?
In order to take in what life is, you have to look to previous experience to work out what happens next.
For example, you know how to understand these words by previous teaching of English, and of abstract concepts, in that experience you also pick up lots of other things which all interconnect, to create life.
what's to win or lose? life isn't a game.

Same here. really life has no porpuse other than to live, any other porpouse is what e give it.

Hmmm, next spelling suggestion: porpoise. But then it's getting a bit fishy... oh no: seamammaly! :D

Hmmm, next spelling suggestion: porpoise. But then it's getting a bit fishy... oh no: seamammaly! :D

Bwahhahaha ohh ohh you funny funny man you!:D

So? it is circular, that is life I guess. What do you understand by the question 'what is the porpose of life?' and what do you understand by the answer 'the porpose of life is to live'?

I understand by the question 'what is the porpose of life', that the person who made it is either typing fast or isn't too good at English, i also know that in order to understand those words you have to experience life, from drinking or running or writing or what have you.
You apply a meaning to certain words, the word life can be a bit illusive, from a genetic view it could be argued that life is only the need to create more people and survive.
but do you understand everything you do in a genetic manner?

Also that question, has a multitude of answers unique to each persons upbringing and how they percieve what they wish to do or understand.

I understand the answer 'the porpose of life is to live', is taken as a literal understanding of the question, in effect the person doesn't really know, but still wishes for something a solid answer one way or another.
I'm not sure life can be ascribed to one particular meaning or purpose as such, even interpreting it in a narrow way as 'there is no purpose', avoids the question itself.

Personally, I have no idea what the purpose of life is yet, but I know there is one. I can't accept that life is essentially meaningless, though it feels like it sometimes.

Why does life have to have a purpose?

Why does life have to have a purpose?

Dunno. Some people seem to be having difficulties getting their head around the idea that there might be none, and life still goes on...

I understand by the question 'what is the porpose of life', that the person who made it is either typing fast or isn't too good at English, i also know that in order to understand those words you have to experience life, from drinking or running or writing or what have you.
You apply a meaning to certain words, the word life can be a bit illusive, from a genetic view it could be argued that life is only the need to create more people and survive.
but do you understand everything you do in a genetic manner?

Also that question, has a multitude of answers unique to each persons upbringing and how they percieve what they wish to do or understand.

I understand the answer 'the porpose of life is to live', is taken as a literal understanding of the question, in effect the person doesn't really know, but still wishes for something a solid answer one way or another.
I'm not sure life can be ascribed to one particular meaning or purpose as such, even interpreting it in a narrow way as 'there is no purpose', avoids the question itself.

Ahh so then when you see the question you are thinking human life, or the individuals life in particular?

I see it as meaning the process of life, all life, and so I answer, to live.

All other answers are self imposed, not that that detracts from them in any way, thats jut the way it is.

Dunno. Some people seem to be having difficulties getting their head around the idea that there might be none, and life still goes on...
rar, bow to my logic. i've already explained my reasons, explain yours.

Ahh so then when you see the question you are thinking human life, or the individuals life in particular?

I see it as meaning the process of life, all life, and so I answer, to live.

All other answers are self imposed, not that that detracts from them in any way, thats jut the way it is.

I see it as a mixture of everything i suppose, that's why there can't be one single purpose anymore than there isn't a purpose.

It's not possible to have no purpose, you're creating it by even typing on a keyboard, by thinking and feeling, to exist in itself defies any un-purpose.

It's not possible to have no purpose, you're creating it by even typing on a keyboard, by thinking and feeling, to exist in itself defies any un-purpose.

Thats the point, the only porpose to life is life, anything else is a made up porpose.

What's the porpose of life for a lizard?

In response to quite a lot of remarks I've read in the thread:

1) Life does not come with a "purpose," just like it doesn't come with an instruction manual.

2) Can you attach a personal purpose to life? Sure, you can do anything you want. Knock yourself out.

3) If the "purpose" of life is to avoid death, then we are all doomed to fail. Avoiding death is an exercise in futility. Death is inevitable, and therefore, it's not even worth thinking about because there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Including it in your plans is pointless.

4) Saying that the purpose of life is to keep the species going is related to the death-avoidance thing and is just as futile. No matter what you do, no matter how many babies you pump out, how can you possibly think you are guaranteeing the future existence of the species? You don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. The planet's climate could change drastically enough to kill us all = extinction. Or that big asteroid could finally arrive = extinction. Someday, far in the future, our sun will burn out = extinction. Even if we crank out enough humans to crowd the universe, what if someday it turns out that the theorists who think the universe will end somehow are right? I guess we'll end with it, won't we?

There is no "existence of the species." There is only the existence of individuals, and the continuation of an individual cannot be guaranteed because the end of the individual already is.

5) How can anyone say that to die is to fail? Fail at what? What were we supposed to be doing that would have caused us not to die? And who is it who is judging "success" or "failure"? Show me the panel of judges keeping score. If we "succeed," what do we get for it? This doesn't make any sense.

Death is not failure any more than birth is success. It's not something you do. It's just what happens. You got born. Someday you'll die. Those are the first and last pages of the story of you. The rest of it, you have to make up, because nobody else cares enough to do it for you.

6) Some people have expressed the notion that they would find it depressing if other people are content not to look for purpose in life or content with the inevitability of death. I am completely mystified by that viewpoint. I don't understand it at all. How can what other poeple think affect how you feel or think? Is it not enough to drive yourself according to some "purpose"? Do you need others to chase your dream, too?

rar, bow to my logic. i've already explained my reasons, explain yours.
From what I've read, your reasons seem to be based solely on your own personal preferences, which of course, are utterly meaningless to anyone but you. Therefore, they fail as a logical argument for why others should agree with you.


I see it as a mixture of everything i suppose, that's why there can't be one single purpose anymore than there isn't a purpose.

It's not possible to have no purpose, you're creating it by even typing on a keyboard, by thinking and feeling, to exist in itself defies any un-purpose.
I think you're being a little fast and loose with your use of the word "purpose."

I'm working on a story in one scene of which a character is carrying a chair along a road. Another character asks him why, and he says, "Why, to change its location, of course." Now, in the plot, he actually has another, larger reason for moving the chair, but if we are going to parse things down to the most "micro" level possible, then yes, the purpose of moving a chair is to change its location. But that really tells us nothing -- or at least nothing of interest or import -- about why the action was done.

The purpose of trimming your nails is to make them shorter. The purpose of eating food is to stop being hungry. The purpose of pissing is to relieve pressure in the bladder. The purpose of farting is to relieve pressure in the gut. Do any of these actually amount to a "purpose" that people need to think about? Do any of them matter? Doesn't your whole argument boil down to "there is no purpose worth worrying over"?

Interest is in the middle of things. At the extremes of "micro" and "macro," things become irrelevant to our daily conscious existence and, therefore, uninteresting. If a "purpose" is too minute or too broad, either way, it may as well not exist for all the impact it has on our awareness.

life isn't a game.

You've obviously been playing wrong, then.

Dammit! I rolled snake-eyes!

*poof*

That's like saying, the purpose of death is to die, or the purpose of falling down hills is to fall.
You aren't actually answering the question. (so answer it! or i'll chase ye with rickrolls)

Remit to the small text on my post, mate.

And I answered the question in my own way. What other purpose is there to life than to live? Hm?

Beware Mad Hatter. I still have Bear Grillys in my power. Don't force me to strangle it! And damn those rickrolls!!!!

Remit to the small text on my post, mate.

And I answered the question in my own way. What other purpose is there to life than to live? Hm?

Beware Mad Hatter. I still have Bear Grillys in my power. Don't force me to strangle it! And damn those rickrolls!!!!

To die?
You can't get out of this life alive...

To die?
You can't get out of this life alive...

That's the final outcome. But life is to be lived. It's as simple as that.

I'd say my purpose here is to do what G-d wishes of me. He set me up to pursue science, so that's what I will do with my life.

That's the final outcome. But life is to be lived. It's as simple as that.

Actually, that's my thoughts as well, I just couldn't resist being a smart-ass.

life has no purpose per se (well... maybe its purpose is to reproduce)
but anyways that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make the best out of it, so i vote for personal happiness (well reproducing seems quite the best we can ultimately do out if it)

Remit to the small text on my post, mate.
And I answered the question in my own way. What other purpose is there to life than to live? Hm?
Beware Mad Hatter. I still have Bear Grillys in my power. Don't force me to strangle it! And damn those rickrolls!!!!
well it doesn't necessarily have to be rickrolls, it could be... (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9-yHo8ECEPc)
Well, just to live in life is already assumed in existance, so why can't there be something more than just living?

MuravyetsFrom what I've read, your reasons seem to be based solely on your own personal preferences, which of course, are utterly meaningless to anyone but you. Therefore, they fail as a logical argument for why others should agree with you.
Well, i wasn't specifically making an argument, i was more trying to shuffle my thoughts about. I suppose it could be seen as an argument.
and actually i was referring to the culmination of all experience, not just my own.

I think you're being a little fast and loose with your use of the word "purpose."
Them's fightin words mate.
well you thought wrong didn't you?

I'm working on a story in one scene of which a character is carrying a chair along a road. Another character asks him why, and he says, "Why, to change its location, of course." Now, in the plot, he actually has another, larger reason for moving the chair, but if we are going to parse things down to the most "micro" level possible, then yes, the purpose of moving a chair is to change its location. But that really tells us nothing -- or at least nothing of interest or import -- about why the action was done.
okay, so you're saying that if you look at things in detail there appears to be no purpose right?
perhaps you're right, i prefer looking at things from a macro approach, and take in everything.

The purpose of trimming your nails is to make them shorter. The purpose of eating food is to stop being hungry. The purpose of pissing is to relieve pressure in the bladder. The purpose of farting is to relieve pressure in the gut. Do any of these actually amount to a "purpose" that people need to think about? Do any of them matter? Doesn't your whole argument boil down to "there is no purpose worth worrying over"?
Well actually there could be a greater reason for trimming your nails, say it's part of a routine or a habit, also with food it's possible to eat to excess, the purpose of pissing, well you're right there.
I don't know where you got the idea that the purpose isn't worth worrying over, sure they matter they matter to keep our existance going, to give us things to do, to experience things.

Interest is in the middle of things. At the extremes of "micro" and "macro," things become irrelevant to our daily conscious existence and, therefore, uninteresting. If a "purpose" is too minute or too broad, either way, it may as well not exist for all the impact it has on our awareness.
I don't see how taking the extremes makes other things appear irrelevant.
So what's your take on the purpose of life then? i would be interested to know.
Thats the point, the only porpose to life is life, anything else is a made up porpose.

What's the porpose of life for a lizard?
no, because that's back to circular "the purpose of life is life", so this life has the purpose of life?" buh?
I don't know because i'm not a lizard, i could take a guess though.
Maybe mr lizard wants to make lots more lizards, or maybe he dreams of greater things.
You've obviously been playing wrong, then.

Dammit! I rolled snake-eyes!

*poof*
Here borrow my loaded dice then you never have to worry about rolling snake-eyes again.

http://www.theporpoisepage.com/

I'm sorry, I don't know what made me do it. Please, don't hurt me.

<snip>

I don't see how taking the extremes makes other things appear irrelevant.
So what's your take on the purpose of life then? i would be interested to know.

<snip>

I'm starting to wonder if the purpose of life isn't to actually read the threads we post in -- how sad that so few people will ever fulfill that purpose. I already stated my view on the OP question just one page previous to this one, to wit:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13694452&postcount=102

I'm starting to wonder if the purpose of life isn't to actually read the threads we post in -- how sad that so few people will ever fulfill that purpose. I already stated my view on the OP question just one page previous to this one, to wit:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13694452&postcount=102

I read your response actually (don't get prickly with me), i didn't get much from it.
"life doesn't come with a purpose", so what? are we not allowed to make one up?

I read your response actually (don't get prickly with me), i didn't get much from it.
"life doesn't come with a purpose", so what? are we not allowed to make one up?

The rest of us are, just you're not MHiJ...
:p

Actually, that's my thoughts as well, I just couldn't resist being a smart-ass.

:fluffle:

I read your response actually (don't get prickly with me), i didn't get much from it.
"life doesn't come with a purpose", so what? are we not allowed to make one up?
Would you like me to come to your house and read each word to you slowly?

In the SECOND paragraph of my post, I said that people can make up a purpose if they want to. Geez, man. Oy. I'm tired now.

Would you like me to come to your house and read each word to you slowly?

In the SECOND paragraph of my post, I said that people can make up a purpose if they want to. Geez, man. Oy. I'm tired now.

yes, that doesn't really get me or as far as i'm concerned anyone else anywhere. it's like saying oh i think something else, and you can think what you want i don't care.

As i've said before the purpose could be from previ...you know what why don't you read over the thread too you arrogant [insert threat here] and [insert more dangerous threat here].
you really wouldn't want to come to my flat, not that i'd let you mind, but there's just nothing here that'd interest you (well unless you happen to like loud music).

The rest of us are, just you're not MHiJ...
:p

ah yes, well i wonder what that would be?
i'm thinking cake (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KjGfgV7rJHI) could be another reason to live.

ah yes, well i wonder what that would be?
i'm thinking cake (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KjGfgV7rJHI) could be another reason to live.

I like sex as a reason to live...

yes, that doesn't really get me or as far as i'm concerned anyone else anywhere. it's like saying oh i think something else, and you can think what you want i don't care.
Yeah, that's exactly what it's like, and why is that a problem? Why do I have to get you or anyone else anywhere?

You asked my opinion and that is it -- I don't think life has or needs a purpose, but it doesn't bother me if other people think differently.

As i've said before the purpose could be from previ...you know what why don't you read over the thread too you arrogant [insert threat here] and [insert more dangerous threat here].
you really wouldn't want to come to my flat, not that i'd let you mind, but there's just nothing here that'd interest you (well unless you happen to like loud music).
Meow, hiss, whatever.

continuing your own genetic line is the biological purpose of life,
Reproduction is one of the defining characteristics of life. That doesn't make it any more of a purpose than excretion or growth.
because with survival of the fittest the animals who devote the most to continuing their genes are the ones who are most likely to have their genes continued.

The harder I try to pass my genes on the more likely it will be that my genes will be passed on. But the harder I try to accumulate a huge collection of mouse pads the more likely it will be that I'll accumulate a huge collection of mouse pads. So is accumulating mouse pads my purpose in life?

Hmm, lots of argument. It appears to me that you are fighting over whether or not there should be a purpose when you haven't seemed to elaborate on the larger implications of your positions. If life doesn't have a purpose, I'd think an obvious question would be to why continue living. Is it the fear of death? Protection for our loved ones? An attempt to live forever and do the impossible? Unless you satisfied with this life, which most people are not. Is it because you want to get somewhere? Ambition? Glory?

Also, seems my position is the least one picked. :) By the way, I do not feel that life can't be purposeless partially because it honestly seems like a waste of time, if not. The other part is intuition. Not really a part of logical debate, but that's just how I feel. A pointless life, to me, would be more horrible than a painful death, because then all the suffering and happiness in the world is moot, as tragically, nothing would really matter. I would accept the idea of purpose in any form, even if that purpose is to inspire someone else to do something great and be forgotten myself. I never meant purpose as a divinely guided plan for the universe.

Hmm, lots of argument. It appears to me that you are fighting over whether or not there should be a purpose when you haven't seemed to elaborate on the larger implications of your positions. If life doesn't have a purpose, I'd think an obvious question would be to why continue living.
Why not?

Is it the fear of death?
Nope. What point is there in fearing death? To me, fearing death is like fearing one's nose.

Protection for our loved ones?
I like my loved ones very much, but I am not aware that they are under any more danger in the world than I am or that they are any less able to fend for themselves than I am.

An attempt to live forever and do the impossible?
Nope. If I wanted that, I'd eat healthier and exercise more.

Unless you satisfied with this life, which most people are not.
I'm in the minority. I am completely satisfied with this life. All of its ups and downs, even the darkest moments of my life -- looking back, I wouldn't trade a single one of them, not for anything. I am very content with the path I've followed so far, even though I have not yet achieved most of my goals. And if I die tonight, without having accomplished those goals -- so what? That's not a problem.

Is it because you want to get somewhere?
I go places.

Ambition?
Ambition is an amusing pastime. I enjoy chasing mine.

Glory?

The esteem of others is a cheap rip-off. Not worth getting.

The harder I try to pass my genes on the more likely it will be that my genes will be passed on. But the harder I try to accumulate a huge collection of mouse pads the more likely it will be that I'll accumulate a huge collection of mouse pads. So is accumulating mouse pads my purpose in life?

If that's what you want it to be, sure.

Life has a purpose, but I'm not sure what it is. Otherwise you get this:

If there is no afterlife and you only have this lifetime, then existence is meaningless agaist the background of infinite inexistence. Life can't have a meaning.

And Ad Nihilo, anyone with common sense cares about the species because we're a part of it. What greater failure is there than extinction?If all humanity can do is fail, then ceasing to fail is not a failure.

I feel there is absolutely no purpose to anything I do. I'm not suicidal. Quite the contrary: I've stopped being suicidal since I've started seeing things in this light. Because as any other action, killing yourself is pointless. If it were possible, even more so when you get to die anyway in due time. I live on inertia. To will to kill yourself is an act against that inertia and requieres too much effort to be worth it. You wouldn't win anything by it, nor would you lose anything otherwise.

Life is a 0 sum game. I don't quite understand the obsession of staying on positive balance for most of the time, when you end up at the same point where you have started. I find the inescapable prospect of death very liberating in that respect.If death is liberating, then the point of killing yourself would be to liberate yourself.

Why does life have to have a purpose?Because otherwise there's no point.

Because otherwise there's no point.

To reiterate/rephrase...

Why does there have to be some point to living?

I fail to see the necessity of some greater meaning...

Life has a purpose, but I'm not sure what it is. Otherwise you get this:



If all humanity can do is fail, then ceasing to fail is not a failure.
Unless you fail at it?

If death is liberating, then the point of killing yourself would be to liberate yourself.
I believe that is the point of suicide, partially at least, isn't it?

Because otherwise there's no point.
Why does there need to be a point to life?

Unless you fail at it?True, but in that specific case we were talking about the extinction of humanity because people weren't reproducing. If people do reproduce, ah, well.

I believe that is the point of suicide, partially at least, isn't it?Right, so I thought Ad Nihilo was contradicting himself.

Why does there need to be a point to life?

To reiterate/rephrase...

Why does there have to be some point to living?

I fail to see the necessity of some greater meaning...Because the end of a pointless activity is not a cause for concern.

Because the end of a pointless activity is not a cause for concern.

And?

I can't answer the question. I don't know what "purpose" means in this context.

If there is a "purpose" to life, what does it signify?

And?And this means we would have no reason to be concerned about if we or anyone else dies, be it from natural causes, accidents, suicide, or murder.

I can't answer the question. I don't know what "purpose" means in this context.

If there is a "purpose" to life, what does it signify?

Exactly - I have purpose in going to the shops of a morning, to buy some milk perhaps. I have purpose in interacting with family and friends.

What's my purpose?

It depends so much on time and context - do I have a predetermined reason for being alive.

No, doesn't mean I don't have purpose.

And this means we would have no reason to be concerned about if we or anyone else dies, be it from natural causes, accidents, suicide, or murder.

So we agree then...

So we agree then...So then you think laws against murder should be overturned?

The thing is, purpose implies intent, intent implies an intender. Thus purpose implies a creator, because the creator of life is whom intended what life should do. If there is no creator, then human life can not not have an intended course if there is no intender, thus there is no purpose.

So then you think laws against murder should be overturned?

No, laws against murder aren't valid only if each person has some greater purpose. Just because my life has no meaning in the big picture does not give someone else free reign to cut it short.

When someone dies, it is ridiculous to think that the world has somehow lost something important.

So we agree then...

Are you seriously not concerned when someone dies?

When someone dies, it is ridiculous to think that the world has somehow lost something important.

Now that's a depressing view to hold.

Are you seriously not concerned when someone dies?

Depending upon whether or not they are someone that is important to me personally, the answer is yes.
To try and clear that up a little, if the person who has died is not someone I care deeply about, I am not concerned.

Depending upon whether or not they are someone that is important to me personally, the answer is yes.
To try and clear that up a little, if the person who has died is not someone I care deeply about, I am not concerned.

But do you acknowledge that it is a concerning thing, even if you are not concerned yourself? I think that was JB's point.

Now that's a depressing view to hold.

Why? What meaning to life in general does one person hold? Would the world miss you if you died? I think not.

But do you acknowledge that it is a concerning thing, even if you are not concerned yourself? I think that was JB's point.

Not really, no.

No, laws against murder aren't valid only if each person has some greater purpose. Just because my life has no meaning in the big picture does not give someone else free reign to cut it short.Well, sure, there could be a meaning, purpose, and point to your life in the small picture. However, you denied there was any such a thing at all.

Well, sure, there could be a meaning, purpose, and point to your life in the small picture. However, you denied there was any such a thing at all.

I did? Please quote me where I said life cannot have any meaning.

Would the world miss you if you died? I think not.

Define the world. People will surely miss a person who dies if they are close to him, but do you actually lack the emotion called empathy? When you see someone murdered, even if you do not know them, do you not care at all?

I did? Please quote me where I said life cannot have any meaning.

Here:

To reiterate/rephrase...

Why does there have to be some point to living?

I fail to see the necessity of some greater meaning...

Here:

You need to work on reading comprehension.

"I fail to see the necessity of some greater meaning." ≠ "life cannot have any meaning."

When you see someone murdered, even if you do not know them, do you not care at all?

No, not really.
I feel sorry for the friends and family of the deceased, but that, to me is not the same thing.

You need to work on reading comprehension.

"I fail to see the necessity of some greater meaning." ≠ "life cannot have any meaning."Um, you didn't exactly specify what difference, if any, there is between "meaning" and "greater meaning".

My life has only what purpose I give it. For me that's to enjoy it while doing no harm to others. Doing them good makes me feel good and helps offset whatever inadvertent harm I make do during my time in the world. So I try to do a little good. I think we all should.

Doing them good makes me feel good

Double meaning?

Are you seriously not concerned when someone dies?
I'm just picking out this one question to stand in for the entire conversation of the last two pages, so please take this to include all.

I have several problems with the implied proposition that people dying is, in and of itself, a bad thing or a "failure." I will do my best to express them clearly:

1) As I said in my very first post in the thread, death is inevitable. It is also natural. It is nothing more than a process of change, and without change there would be no life for us to be arguing over the purpose of. Every single living being in the universe will die, and new living beings will take its place. This is absolutely guaranteed, because things coming together and then coming apart, and then coming together again in new configurations is what this universe does. Temporariness is the inherent and inescapable nature of the universe and everything in it, including us.

2) Given that death is an inherent and integral aspect of life, I cannot comprehend how any person with a grasp of reality can think of death as a "failure" or something to be avoided in order to give meaning or purpose or other kind of validation to life. To me, that sounds like you think the only way to validate your existence is by denying one of the most significant parts of it.

3) Also considering that death is not within our control and that it is inevitable for all living things, I also cannot help but think that anti-death arguments or philosophies sound like just so much crazy-talk. Like I said, fearing death is like fearing one's nose -- it makes as much sense. Now that I think of it, I guess there's a deeper meaning to the old expression about "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." To reject death is to reject a vital aspect of life, and I personally do not see how rejecting life gives purpose to life. Also, to define one's life by a futile and doomed desire to avoid the unavoidable doesn't seem to be giving life much of a "purpose," either.

4) This "people dying is bad" argument also relies on a false -- and pejorative -- dichotomy. Dyakovo and I both say that we do not think that the deaths of individuals make much difference to the world, and I also personally do not consider death a tragedy. It is you and Jello Biafra who make the leap from that to accusations that we do not care about other people or that we think murder should be permitted in society. Your notion just does not follow from our notion, however. Not thinking that death is a bad thing does not mean that we don't think that suffering is a bad thing, or that hostility is a bad thing, or that the destabilization of society is a bad thing. All of those affect the living, not the dead. Once we die, all those things will cease to be relevant to us, and we will cease to be relevant to the living who are still affected by them. Questions about death and questions about empathy or concern for others are entirely different and unrelated to each other.

For instance, I oppose the death penalty, but not because I think it is bad for convicts to die. Rather it is because I think executing the death penalty has a bad effect on the living, and it is for their sake that I oppose it. To those who are killed by it, it means nothing, because they are dead, and being dead, they either care about other things or about nothing -- depending on your beliefs about death.

5) So in direct answer to the quoted question, am I concerned when someone dies? Yes, but not for their death. If they suffered before they died, that concerns me. If others suffer a set-back in their lives because of that person's death (the loss of a loved one or of an income-earner or caregiver), then I feel concern for that. But why should I feel concern over the fact that they are dead? They entered this world in their time, and they left it in their time, just like you and I and everybody else did and will. Perhaps the manner of their leaving could have been more pleasant, or the timing more convenient for others, but why should death be seen as any more of an upset than birth?

6) In all, I see your implication that our lack of concern over death somehow means that we don't value life in some way as nothing more than a projection of your own bias about life -- a bias which makes absolutely no sense to me, either philosophically or pragmatically.

No, not really.
I feel sorry for the friends and family of the deceased, but that, to me is not the same thing.

What if the person didn't have any friends or family, and you saw him get brutally murdered, you wouldn't care?

Double meaning?Absolutely.

What if the person didn't have any friends or family, and you saw him get brutally murdered, you wouldn't care?
1) Even if he did have friends and family, what would that have to do with Dyakovo's response to seeing him be brutally murdered?

2) For myself, not being upset at the reality of a person being dead does not mean that I would not be upset at the reality of a LIVING PERSON GETTING HURT.

My concern for the victim of an attack is active while the victim is still alive and suffering from the attack. If I can stop the attack, and stop his present suffering, I will do whatever I have to. As soon as the victim is dead, however, his suffering is over, and all my concern switches from him to the rest of society, which is still alive and may suffer from the existence of a living murderer in its midst because that murderer had damaged the living by (a) undermining the stability of society by his act of violence and (b) posing a potential on-going threat of more violence. But as to the person he killed, what can I possibly do for him now that he's dead? Why should his state of deadness concern me more than the future state of happiness or suffering of those who are still living?

4) This "people dying is bad" argument also relies on a false -- and pejorative -- dichotomy. Dyakovo and I both say that we do not think that the deaths of individuals make much difference to the world, and I also personally do not consider death a tragedy. It is you and Jello Biafra who make the leap from that to accusations that we do not care about other people or that we think murder should be permitted in society. Your notion just does not follow from our notion, however.My argument was not that death was bad, or that it wasn't. My argument was that if life has no purpose, then there's no reason to care about death.

There is nothing about the question "does life have a purpose?" that implies that there must be some greater meaning to the world about each one of us. It could be that our purpose has something to do with affecting the lives of the few people around us and that's it. To deny that life has any purpose or point at all does literally mean that both the people around us and the world at large have no reason to care if our lives end; such is the logical conclusion of the statement.

Edit: Unless of course, you do care about the ceasing of pointless activities.

Not thinking that death is a bad thing does not mean that we don't think that suffering is a bad thing, or that hostility is a bad thing, or that the destabilization of society is a bad thing. All of those affect the living, not the dead. Once we die, all those things will cease to be relevant to us, and we will cease to be relevant to the living who are still affected by them. Questions about death and questions about empathy or concern for others are entirely different and unrelated to each other.Does the death of a person not affect the people around them and make them suffer? If so, then wouldn't that mean that death is a bad thing?

My argument was not that death was bad, or that it wasn't. My argument was that if life has no purpose, then there's no reason to care about death.

There is nothing about the question "does life have a purpose?" that implies that there must be some greater meaning to the world about each one of us. It could be that our purpose has something to do with affecting the lives of the few people around us and that's it. To deny that life has any purpose or point at all does literally mean that both the people around us and the world at large have no reason to care if our lives end; such is the logical conclusion of the statement.

Edit: Unless of course, you do care about the ceasing of pointless activities.
Right, exactly. In my view, they DON'T have any reason to care about our lives ending.

If they care, it is by choice. They care because they want to, because they perceive some kind of benefit from caring. But it is purely personal preference -- they choose whose deaths to care about and why in the same way they choose what to study in school or what style of shoes to wear each year. In reality, life would not work significantly differently if they didn't care, and this is borne out by the fact that all of us go through life utterly not caring about -- not even aware of -- millions of people dying every day. The fact that life carries on so well without us caring about such things indicates that caring about such things may not be the "purpose" of life.

So if we can all carry on in whatever degree of happiness we may individually attain without giving a single thought to all the people who may have died in the time it took me to type that paragraph, tell me precisely again why we need to debate the pointlessness of it all?

Does the death of a person not affect the people around them and make them suffer? If so, then wouldn't that mean that death is a bad thing?
No. Death is neutral. Death is no more positive or negative than birth or breathing or eating or any other organic function. What is bad is the disruption that the death causes to the lives of others, but even that disruption is temporary and will sort itself out in time, by necessity, because the practical demands of life are endless and unrelenting. We just don't get to sit and wallow in grief for very long before we have to get back to the business of being alive -- the peeing and the eating and the sleeping and the getting dressed/undressed/dressed again, etc, etc, etc. If people react badly to a death, that reaction belongs to the living. It has nothing to do with death and is not death's fault. The living could choose to react in an entirely different way.

The death of a person is like a rock thrown into a pond. It sends out ripples across the whole surface, but the farther from the event, the less the ripple is felt, and no matter how big the rock and huge and reverberating the ripples, in very little time, the water settles back to smoothness.

1) As I said in my very first post in the thread, death is inevitable. It is also natural. It is nothing more than a process of change, and without change there would be no life for us to be arguing over the purpose of. Every single living being in the universe will die, and new living beings will take its place. This is absolutely guaranteed, because things coming together and then coming apart, and then coming together again in new configurations is what this universe does. Temporariness is the inherent and inescapable nature of the universe and everything in it, including us.


Yeah, but who said this is a good thing? A lot of people find the idea that are life is only temporary a distressing thing.


2) Given that death is an inherent and integral aspect of life, I cannot comprehend how any person with a grasp of reality can think of death as a "failure" or something to be avoided in order to give meaning or purpose or other kind of validation to life.

Well I don't since I don't think life has a purpose.


3) Also considering that death is not within our control and that it is inevitable for all living things, I also cannot help but think that anti-death arguments or philosophies sound like just so much crazy-talk. Like I said, fearing death is like fearing one's nose -- it makes as much sense.

Just because something is inevitable and natural does not make it a thing not to care about. The idea that you will eventually lose all consciousness and never get to enjoy life again is a scary thought for many people, even if it is guaranteed.


Also, to define one's life by a futile and doomed desire to avoid the unavoidable doesn't seem to be giving life much of a "purpose," either.


Agreed.


It is you and Jello Biafra who make the leap from that to accusations that we do not care about other people or that we think murder should be permitted in society.

I didn't make such an accusation.


Your notion just does not follow from our notion, however. Not thinking that death is a bad thing does not mean that we don't think that suffering is a bad thing, or that hostility is a bad thing, or that the destabilization of society is a bad thing. All of those affect the living, not the dead. Once we die, all those things will cease to be relevant to us, and we will cease to be relevant to the living who are still affected by them. Questions about death and questions about empathy or concern for others are entirely different and unrelated to each other.


Most people do not want death, they want to continue living life, so is it really that irrational to feel sad at the fact that they are no longer able to experience life?


5) So in direct answer to the quoted question, am I concerned when someone dies? Yes, but not for their death. If they suffered before they died, that concerns me. If others suffer a set-back in their lives because of that person's death (the loss of a loved one or of an income-earner or caregiver), then I feel concern for that. But why should I feel concern over the fact that they are dead? They entered this world in their time, and they left it in their time, just like you and I and everybody else did and will. Perhaps the manner of their leaving could have been more pleasant, or the timing more convenient for others, but why should death be seen as any more of an upset than birth?


Obviously it depends largely on how old they are. If it's a 90 year old who's experienced a lot out of life, it's not going to matter, but if it's a young boy who's going to miss out on many things, never be able to get a family or a future etc... then it is distressing.


6) In all, I see your implication that our lack of concern over death somehow means that we don't value life in some way

I never said that.

Yeah, but who said this is a good thing? A lot of people find the idea that are life is only temporary a distressing thing.
That's their problem. If they can think of a way around it, good luck to them.


Well I don't since I don't think life has a purpose.
Okay.


Just because something is inevitable and natural does not make it a thing not to care about. The idea that you will eventually lose all consciousness and never get to enjoy life again is a scary thought for many people, even if it is guaranteed.
Again, their problem and good luck to them finding a way out of it.


Agreed.
:)


I didn't make such an accusation.
That was the way I read your questions and comments to Dyakovo.


Most people do not want death, they want to continue living life, so is it really that irrational to feel sad at the fact that they are no longer able to experience life?
In my personal opinion, yes, it is a bit irrational. Not very, but a little. But that is just my personal opinion and is relevant only to me.

Obviously it depends largely on how old they are. If it's a 90 year old who's experienced a lot out of life, it's not going to matter, but if it's a young boy who's going to miss out on many things, never be able to get a family or a future etc... then it is distressing.
Why?

Like the sad imaginings you mention above, these are just a projection of one's own desires onto someone else -- and on the basis of what? What guarantee do we have that the dead young person would have experienced any of those things you consider good -- or experienced them as good things -- if only they had not died for another 50 years?

I may feel sorry for the person who is feeling bad about the death, but I just can't bring myself to mourn for things or events that never happened.

I never said that.
My post was conflating your posts and Jello's together a bit, so I'm sorry for any confusion, but I personally did read that message in the comments on this particular sub-topic.

/snipBut if this is the case, then why is it a bad thing to intentionally end someone's life?

Edit: You did say: "If they suffered before they died, that concerns me. If others suffer a set-back in their lives because of that person's death (the loss of a loved one or of an income-earner or caregiver), then I feel concern for that."

But I mean if these things don't happen?

The purpose of your life is to live. Hot damn, the world is awesome, you've got a couple of years to rock the place and you've got to do it if you want to make your life worth it.

Um, you didn't exactly specify what difference, if any, there is between "meaning" and "greater meaning".

None

Words, words, words...

Sorry :D It's actually very interesting to read what you guys are discussing. I never thought this would reach 11 pages. Yay.

It seems what a lot of people are differing on is the very value of life, because that is what dictates the strength or lack thereof of the purpose in life. Does it have any value? Is life inherently full of misery or happiness? Or perhaps a balance of both? Thus, does death matter? We all know it's coming, yet we wish to postpone it. Does that suggest a natural 'sense' (not the best word, but I suppose that's what I can use) of purpose in the average human? If the world is good essentially, is the purpose to live as long as possible and avoid death? Or is it the converse, to escape the misery of life as quickly as possible (not necessarily through suicide)?

I personally agree with the Buddhist perception of life; Life has its ups and downs, but in the end, you're basically having mostly periods of mediocrity or misery with occasional highs of joy that return you to the monotony of the normal world (Not the greatest summary of the concept of Samsara, but it'll do, I hope :) ). I think this is universal for everyone, as I do not believe there are people who are happy or even content with everything 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even if they lead financially or socially successful lives.

Perhaps its not life itself that is the problem, but human beings. Is it because of our natural propensity for greed, cynicism, aggression and all the negative qualities that many others or we ourselves may posses that tends to ruin the supposed natural contentedness we have?

Furthermore, is the antithesis of life (death... just in case :p) a less pleasing alternative? Could you truly say you wouldn't care if you lived or died? Why?

What if the person didn't have any friends or family, and you saw him get brutally murdered, you wouldn't care?

Not really, that is not however to say that I think that the murder should go unpunished.

Hmm, lots of argument. It appears to me that you are fighting over whether or not there should be a purpose when you haven't seemed to elaborate on the larger implications of your positions. If life doesn't have a purpose, I'd think an obvious question would be to why continue living.

Because life is often enjoyable, and when it isn't at least has the potential to become enjoyable again.

The purpose of life is to bitch about the purpose of life.

Word.

By doing something so great that even after your physical body has vanished from the earth, your name, memory and existance shall never ever be forgotten.Like pissing off everyone who subscribes to a particular political philosophy, as many as you possibly can?
The Red Arrow ftw.

NoneSo if there's no greater meaning to life, and 'greater meaning' is the same as 'meaning', there is no meaning to life.

I had an epiphany today!:eek:

I have come to realize that the true meaning of life is:

NSG

:eek:

I don't know and I don't wanna know. It's easier just live and let it be.

But if this is the case, then why is it a bad thing to intentionally end someone's life?

Edit: You did say: "If they suffered before they died, that concerns me. If others suffer a set-back in their lives because of that person's death (the loss of a loved one or of an income-earner or caregiver), then I feel concern for that."

But I mean if these things don't happen?
1) It is not always a bad thing to intentionally end someone's life, just as it is not always a bad thing to intentionally end one's own life. I happen to be one of those people who believes that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal. And the reason I oppose the death penalty is not because of the death part of it.

2) When intentionally ending someone's life is a bad thing is when you impose your will over another person's. Murder is the deliberate killing of someone who does not want to die. Death itself may not be a tragedy for the person who dies, but nevertheless, their life belongs to them and them alone, and they have the sole and exclusive right to dispose of it at will. I don't think that killing a person is bad because of the death involved. I think it is bad because of the disrespect and mistreatment of the living that is involved in it.

1) It is not always a bad thing to intentionally end someone's life, just as it is not always a bad thing to intentionally end one's own life. I happen to be one of those people who believes that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal. And the reason I oppose the death penalty is not because of the death part of it.

2) When intentionally ending someone's life is a bad thing is when you impose your will over another person's. Murder is the deliberate killing of someone who does not want to die. Death itself may not be a tragedy for the person who dies, but nevertheless, their life belongs to them and them alone, and they have the sole and exclusive right to dispose of it at will. I don't think that killing a person is bad because of the death involved. I think it is bad because of the disrespect and mistreatment of the living that is involved in it.I don't disagree with either of these statements.
However, if life is pointless, then why is it bad to disrespect it?

I don't disagree with either of these statements.
However, if life is pointless, then why is it bad to disrespect it?
1) Who said anything about disrespecting life? I'm talking about disrespecting people, and what is bad about that usually makes itself evident at or near the time you do it.

2) Why do you need to have a point in life in order to be pleasant to the people around you? What I mean is, why are manners dependent on life having a point?

If all of life is pointless, then everything we do is pointless, yet we do stuff anyway. So obviously, we don't need there to be a point to our activities. Therefore, we don't need there to be a point to being pleasant to others.

1) Who said anything about disrespecting life? I'm talking about disrespecting people, and what is bad about that usually makes itself evident at or near the time you do it.I don't see how a person is separable from a person's life; while we are much more than simply living things, we would be who were are if we weren't living.

2) Why do you need to have a point in life in order to be pleasant to the people around you? What I mean is, why are manners dependent on life having a point?If life doesn't have a point, then how can it matter how we treat other people? They'd be inseparable from a rock or an ant.

If all of life is pointless, then everything we do is pointless, yet we do stuff anyway. So obviously, we don't need there to be a point to our activities. Therefore, we don't need there to be a point to being pleasant to others.Sure, we don't need life to have a point in order to do something, but it means that there's no difference between doing something, doing something else, doing nothing at all, or ceasing to exist.

I don't see how a person is separable from a person's life; while we are much more than simply living things, we would be who were are if we weren't living.
"Life" is a broad concept that covers the whole of life in the universe. "People" are just a subset of it. Are you talking about "life" having a point/no point, or about the lives of people having a point/no point?

If life doesn't have a point, then how can it matter how we treat other people? They'd be inseparable from a rock or an ant.
It matters pragmatically. The rock and the ant are unlikely to retaliate against you -- unless you count it if the person you dissed hits you with a rock that has an ant on it and the ant gets in your eye as a result.

EDIT: By the way, I should note for the record that, as an animist, I do see little to no difference between a person and a rock and an ant. I treat all the same -- with respect and consideration.

Sure, we don't need life to have a point in order to do something, but it means that there's no difference between doing something, doing something else, doing nothing at all, or ceasing to exist.
Right.

Except for superficial differences, of course. No qualitative difference between doing something and doing nothing, doing one thing and doing another, living or dying. They tend to make surprisingly little difference in our own lives, and they make no difference at all to the world.

Therefore, the only real, concrete, inescapable reason to do anything that is not reflexive (reflexive like breathing, sleeping and pissing) is because we want to.

"Life" is a broad concept that covers the whole of life in the universe. "People" are just a subset of it. Are you talking about "life" having a point/no point, or about the lives of people having a point/no point?I was thinking of the life of people - I suppose other life might have the same point as human life does, or some other purpose, or none at all, but specifically I mean the life of a person.

It matters pragmatically. The rock and the ant are unlikely to retaliate against you -- unless you count it if the person you dissed hits you with a rock that has an ant on it and the ant gets in your eye as a result.Fair enough. But if the person I've mistreated doesn't retaliate against me, have I done wrong?

EDIT: By the way, I should note for the record that, as an animist, I do see little to no difference between a person and a rock and an ant. I treat all the same -- with respect and consideration.Oh, I don't go around stepping on ants intentionally, but I'm less likely to be concerned if I accidentally step on an ant than if I accidentally step on a person.

Right.

Except for superficial differences, of course. No qualitative difference between doing something and doing nothing, doing one thing and doing another, living or dying. They tend to make surprisingly little difference in our own lives, and they make no difference at all to the world.

Therefore, the only real, concrete, inescapable reason to do anything that is not reflexive (reflexive like breathing, sleeping and pissing) is because we want to.I might not be making myself clear, and I'm not sure if I can, but I'll try once more time.

If there's no qualitative difference in our actions, then does that mean there's no qualitative difference between killing someone (if we're not caught or suspected) and not killing them at all?

I was thinking of the life of people - I suppose other life might have the same point as human life does, or some other purpose, or none at all, but specifically I mean the life of a person.
Okay, I just wanted to be clear what you meant when you said "life." I was using it in the broader sense. And no, I don't think there is or needs to be a point to the life of a person.

Fair enough. But if the person I've mistreated doesn't retaliate against me, have I done wrong?
That is entirely up to you. That is determined exclusively by your beliefs, your ethics, and your conscience (such as it may be).

Of course, other people may have a different opinion, and treat you according to their opinion rather than yours, but that brings us back to pragmatic considerations.

Oh, I don't go around stepping on ants intentionally, but I'm less likely to be concerned if I accidentally step on an ant than if I accidentally step on a person.
I actually feel worse because my misstep will do far less harm to a person than to an ant. And when I do step on ants by accident, I apologize to their little ghosts, just like I apologize when I step on a person's toe.

I might not be making myself clear, and I'm not sure if I can, but I'll try once more time.

If there's no qualitative difference in our actions, then does that mean there's no qualitative difference between killing someone (if we're not caught or suspected) and not killing them at all?
There are some philosophies that would say no, there is no qualitative difference.

I, however, hold to a combination of pragmatism and the "because I want to" belief system that I mentioned. There are pragmatic considerations that directly affect my personal well-being that make me think I should not kill people. These considerations are not just the obvious legal ones and apply even if I would not be caught or suspected.

In addition, I want to live a certain way and develop myself into a certain kind of person, and killing people goes against that. So I will not do it. By choice. It is not what I want.

Okay, I just wanted to be clear what you meant when you said "life." I was using it in the broader sense. And no, I don't think there is or needs to be a point to the life of a person.


That is entirely up to you. That is determined exclusively by your beliefs, your ethics, and your conscience (such as it may be).

Of course, other people may have a different opinion, and treat you according to their opinion rather than yours, but that brings us back to pragmatic considerations.


I actually feel worse because my misstep will do far less harm to a person than to an ant. And when I do step on ants by accident, I apologize to their little ghosts, just like I apologize when I step on a person's toe.


There are some philosophies that would say no, there is no qualitative difference.

I, however, hold to a combination of pragmatism and the "because I want to" belief system that I mentioned. There are pragmatic considerations that directly affect my personal well-being that make me think I should not kill people. These considerations are not just the obvious legal ones and apply even if I would not be caught or suspected.

In addition, I want to live a certain way and develop myself into a certain kind of person, and killing people goes against that. So I will not do it. By choice. It is not what I want.Okay, fair enough. I don't agree, but I can see how someone would have the opinions and draw the conclusions that you have.