To be or not to be is never the question when virtue is its own reward and wonder the beginning of wisdom, while contentment comes at no cost. — wuliheron

Why does virtue make to be or not to be not worth considering?

Why does wonder/wisdom make to be or not to be not worth considering?

Because they are so interesting, pleasurable? Interest or pleasure is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming Interest or pleasure is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience Interest or pleasure" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

Does contentment come at no cost though? Truely? The farmer has to work hard to pay his bills so that he can be content. Monks have to work for it by meditating all day. The experience of contentedness is a rare sight too, all around the world minus a few primitive tribes.

At the moment, I don't have the slightest inclination or reason not to live as long as I possibly can. It's no more in question for me, than say, as I noted in another thread, the question of "Why don't I make and always wear (in public) a hat that looks like a gigantic beach ball and that has five tiger gongs hanging off of it that I regularly strike." Most folks, including me, haven't the slightest inclination or reason to make and wear such a hat, or to even think about it in the first place. Well, that's just what the idea of there being a question whether I should continue to live is like for me. That it would even be an issue is absurd to me. — Terrapin Station

That just seems like a response ANY animal would make if they had the linguistic ability to do so.

Don't confuse your genetic predisposition for survival IN your thoughts for your personal preferences over what you find fashionable.

I live for the experience of being alive - the drama, the sadness and the happiness, because one cannot be without the other. — Harry Hindu

What is the point of an adventure if it has no point?

In other words, who wants to go to the north pole just to walk around aimlessly on an ice sheet? You go travelling on holiday to experience the different cultures, take in new sights,smells etc. all of which contribute tothe purpose of travelling.

Philosophizing about life's purpose on a bigger scale than that doesn't map down to those same categories unfortunately, and is more akin to walking around the north pole aimlessly.

Effectively your argument is "live life to experience it" but that really doesn't make sense. It is like saying cary 1000 buckets of water just because you can bro! It isn't self-validating and can not be.

Being alive is more interesting than being dead. — Harry Hindu

What the hell does that even mean?

How could you even guage or calculate with approximation if it would be more appealing if you have no idea what it is like to be dead?

That is like asking which pocket you want to choose from, in the right... would you like this plastic banana that is electrified at 250v? or in the left... would you like this something a rather with a superduper wizz bang thingamajig.

Yeah harry hindu, being alive is more interesting that being a something a rather with a superduper wizz bang thingamajig... makes total sense :-}

— Ovaloid

Nice pic, but this has nothing to do with God. Furthermore it is the person in the tree who is being irrational. It was just stated that nothing they do matters and then he claims that "the future is an adventure". What is the point of an adventure if it has no point?

In other words, who wants to go to the north pole just to walk around aimlessly on an ice sheet? You go travelling on holiday to experience the different cultures, take in new sights,smells etc. all of which contribute tothe purpose of travelling.

Philosophizing about life's purpose on a bigger scale than that doesn't map down to those same categories unfortunately, and is more akin to walking around the north pole aimlessly.

Effectively your argument is "live life to experience it" but that really doesn't make sense. It is like saying cary 1000 buckets of water just because you can bro! It isn't self-validating and can not be.

The possibility that I'll find a better purpose than this one, which will probably be the self esteem that comes from achieving difficult things. — Ovaloid

You live for self-esteem? I can't imagine a more egotistical reason for a will to live, haha. I can already imagine you on your death bed with thousands of trophies and a big plump chest with pouty looks, exclaiming to everyone "You see how good I am? You see?!?!". Then you drop dead on the floor, bahaha.

So yeah I have come to a very similar conclusion. Essentially the ethic starts with antinatalism.. a questioning of why even bring new people into existence. Antinatalism not only solves the problem of future suffering, but it puts your own into perspective too. As the already-existing people experiencing existence, we must constantly be aware of the instrumentality of things. Do not flinch from it and move away to distraction. Rather, it is okay to bitch at the situation.. Be proud to be a Philosophical Pessimist.. Most people are going to tell you to be happy in the absurdity (Camus/Nietzschean style). This is an acceptance of the situation and take the good with the bad. I say it is okay to bitch at it. Philosophical Pessimism is a philosophy of consolation. There are innumerable amounts of harm, many quite nuanced and personalized for the individual. Instrumentality is the background harm out of all of them..it is the absurd angsty feeling.. It is the knowledge that we are going in day in and day out one day rolling into the next. It is the result of a self-aware animal contemplating its own situation. You will have wants and needs that will never be satisfied.. You will have contingent harms (as defined as circumstantial harms that are unwanted/unforeseen), and you will have to contend with the pendulum swing of your own willing nature which is survival through cultural upkeep on one hand (through all the various ways you keep yourself alive and well-adjusted in your cultural setting) and boredom on the other side which, if experienced for a measure of time, will lead to ideas of ennui (world-weariness) and instrumentality (things just do to do to do).. Inevitably, we must go from boredom to entertainment-seeking in our cultural settings. — schopenhauer1

Ok, but I still don't see all of that addressing the great one word question... Why?

I basically go over what you are trying to get at in these threads. You may want to check them out and if you want to discuss any of the points, especially about the idea of instrumentality, feel free to make a comment. — schopenhauer1

Thanks, I checked out all of them and found instrumentality to be the most pertinent here:

Instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice.

I also found it interesting that you claimed the lofty goal of nonexistence or a transcendental existence through ascetic practices is only a coping mechanism for the situation but never truly resolves it.

If you're alive, you have at least two choices, either to make the best of it, or to languish in one of various depressive states. — Punshhh

What does making the best of it entail? I clearly outlined in my OP

"Please note this is not a pessimistic viewpoint but a realistic one. I am not saying the glass is half empty but saying what does it matter at all?"

This about finding purpose, nothing to do with depression.

Does absolute none existence seem more appealing to you? — Punshhh

What the hell does that even mean?

How could I even guage or calculate with approximation if it would be more appealing if I have no idea what it is like?

That is like asking which pocket you want to choose from, in the right... would you like this plastic banana that is electrified at 250v? or in the left... would you like this something a rather with a superduper wizz bang thingamajig.

Indeed this seems to be a reasonable position, however it also seems to offer quite little in the way of prescriptive action. So we're left with a kind of dizzying uncertainty - do I walk my dog, do I ask that girl out, do I contemplate the nature of the divine, do I kill myself, do I watch the clock tick endlessly, do I study thermodynamics, do I vote for this guy or that guy, do I get a spray tan, do I make a smoothie, do I take a nap, do I read Hegel, do I do I do I do I do I ...

At some point in time your biological needs take over and you are forced into action, reluctancy be damned. — darthbarracuda

Biological needs can force us into action but our purpose in life still be void. Just because I don't have purpose does not mean I am a motionless knitwit who gives every reason to procrastinate. It just means that slowly I will lose interest in EVERYTHING and start to either think about spiritual reclusiveness or suicide.

Do we live for something? Does the divine give us fulfillment? Can we revolt against the absurd? All of these thoughts seem inspiring, yet oddly distant or esoteric, as if it's always the other people who have it all figured out, and we're just playing catch-up. Don't agree with So-and-So? Then read Such-and-Such, fuck So-and-So, Such-and-Such has all the answers. And on it goes.

Obviously many will disagree with me when I say this, but I don't see very many good reasons to accept that even a single person "has it all figured out." Not the egotistical pop-scientists, not the religious nuts, not the academic philosophers (who have made neuroticism a discipline), not the stoner kid down the street, not the heroic explorer or patriot, not the spiritual gurus, not you, me, or anyone else here. Hell, God Almighty probably doesn't even know what the fuck is going on.

Now this doctrine of uncertainty is ironically a rather "certain" doctrine - indeed if taken literally it would lead to a contradiction: I am positively sure that nobody, including myself, knows anything substantial (a quite substantial claim!) But it seems to me that this belief in the uncertainty is more of a gut-reaction than a crisp theoretical position - yet surely gut-reactions have some credentials in cases like this. — darthbarracuda

I think what you mean by "figured it out" is that they have found a purpose in life. IMO, I would think people can have a purpose in life and still not need to know wtf is going on, so isn't the topic of convo here about finding a purpose in life?

So maybe, just maybe (notice the uncertainty?) a point of existence can be derived from a skeptical curiosity that the doctrine of uncertainty will be falsified in the future. Prove me wrong, Universe. Show me there is an overarching purpose. I'll stick around and eat some popcorn in the meantime, entertained by the whole absurdity and metaphysical uncertainty of it all.

And when I die, if there is no meaning to be found, I'll ask the Universe to guess what finger I'm holding up. — darthbarracuda

When you say stick around, you mean 100,000 generations? And also, how is that you are entertained by whole absurdity and metaphysical uncertainty? If anything it is cold and a little frightening

Well, it's pretty useless posting 'why should I be happy' on an internet forum. It's completely up to you. That's all there is to it. — Wayfarer

Strawman if ever I saw one. I argued why happiness doesn't consist as a purpose for life. It had nothing to do whether one should or shouldn't be happy. You fool :P

:D This isn't over...

I wish you a meaningless sleep

Which is why you aren't going to get one from the universe. — Bitter Crank

haha, but the fact that answers EXIST in the universe already shows that the universe contains answers and therefore meaning.

Careful, careful: you are undermining your own capacity to create meaning. Your choice to call it an illogical thought-trap is dead end, — Bitter Crank

Well as of yet you haven't shown me how that can be true. I spelled out why love,compassion, joy etc. aren't viable products of purpose.

It is as irrational as to say that I am living for my right pinky toe.

One expects answers from a meaningless universe? — Bitter Crank

Proof that it is meaningless? What is an answer if the universe has no meaning? Answer necessitates meaning.

An absence of purpose and meaning leaves you free to author your own purpose and meaning. — Bitter Crank

But how does such a thing go?

It seems that whatever the mind can formulate as a purpose is just an illogical thought-trap as per our previous discussion.

If you believe there is no purpose in life, and that everything we do is ultimately (or even immediately) a stupid waste of time, then that is how you will see it. I'm not saying you do believe that. It's just that we have to be careful how we talk to ourselves. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but I haven't concluded that yet. I am in despair over not being able to find any good reason at all. Only fools jump to conclusions without evidence like that (atheists, christians, etc.)

Whenever you raise the question, "What's the point of doing this, anyway?" you can always come up with a negative answer. (Not you personally, people in general, I mean.) — Bitter Crank

The problem is that there is not an answer at all let alone a negative one.

I wish it were the scientology was right and Xeno has created farms on planets to reap soul juice. At least then I would know why I am here... jk

Trust me, suffering isn't going to vanish.

"alleviate suffering in the world" is a worthy purpose. There are additional worthy purposes. Creating joy. Giving and receiving love (which one is more difficult? That's a long discussion.) Growing roses (figuratively, if not literally). Learning. Creating new knowledge. Making art. Making the world a better place for yourself and others. Giving assistance. All sorts of things. It's a very long list.

So, if you were to decide to "make art" for instance, would that solve all your problems? Of course not. — Bitter Crank

Of course it won't vanish, that is why I said hypothetically.

I was trying to show you that if there was no suffering then there still wouldn't be a purpose. You are saying a worthy purpose is to "heal the world" but what will it be once the world is healed? To keep healing it more? And then what? Just to keep healing and healing and healing as long as humans exist?

That just doesn't seem logical. We are animals at base level. All animals share this in common.

"What is a man. If his chief good and market of his time. Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more." -Hamlet

The World is loaded with uncongenial conditions and repetitions of bad experiences that definitely lead us to being fed up at times. That's a given. I don't at all deny that. — Bitter Crank

I meant not frustrated or having one's patience tested but rather a repetitive series of events that keep causing one to question what the purpose of doing anything actually is.

I mean I give my effort, and it is a struggle at times but why am I doing it again? Just to keep doing it?

One way to put a more positive spin on this would be to say, would you rather that someone or something decided what your purpose is, or would you rather be in a position where no such determination has been made and you therefore can feel free to decide for yourself what you want it to be. — sender

I can't even imagine what such a purpose would be? Are you thinking something along the lines of the pharaohs and the slaves?

The problem is more one of what can purpose be? I just can't imagine what it would be apart from love, compassion, beauty, joy. Which to me, seem like neutral aspects of the human experience of which we can not claim to be a purpose for existence (as mentioned in the OP)

Not primarily. Though, getting out of a cold, raw wind is a real pleasure. No, more like love, warmth, good routines, giving, receiving, comfort, nurture... Being taken care of when you are sick isn't a "pleasure", it's a comfort. Getting rid of a bad headache isn't a pleasure, it's a relief. Giving kind attention to an unhappy child isn't a pleasure, it's nurture. — Bitter Crank

So you're saying that the reason to live should be to alleviate suffering in the world.

I agree partially but... Hypothetically, if all the suffering were to vanish tomorrow... what would be the purpose then?

The same imagination, intellect, ingenuity, persistence, and so on that led you to "Why even live at all" is capable of far more. — Bitter Crank

I think it needs not imagination, intellect, ingenuity, persistence to reach being fed up with the world, it just takes uncongenial conditions and repetition, then even the stupidest crack, in fact there normally the first to crack.

Your "imagination and ingenuity" are ready, at your service. So... make an answer to your question, 'why even live at all' and make it 'good' — Bitter Crank

How is imagination and ingenuity going to trully relinquish existential despair? Seems like just another fancy gadget of the brain to trick itself into not thinking about how empty and absurd this place is.

For instance a monkey is captive in a zoo and treated quite un-naturally until one day a worker at the zoo notices the monkey and it uses it's ingenuity and imagination and plays with the worker, the worker then offers him shelter and gives him pleasure. Fact is, the monkey is in the freakin zoo no matter what gadgets he has.

We can seek existential shelter by dint of our imagination and ingenuity, which we almost invariably succeed in doing. — Bitter Crank

Are you speaking of pleasure?

After his talk, an audience member asked him how he coped with the stress and traumatic memories. He said that he felt he owed a debt to all the people that had helped him, many of whom had died. — Wayfarer

I see what your saying and have considered taking back my job as a carer but then I think "why am I helping them?" helping them for what? To achieve their purpose? Which is to help others to help others to help others. Seems a bit cyclic and pointless doesn't it?

I mean in a sense I am really asking why even live at all?

Awareness and consciousness are not the same things. We might not believe a dog is conscious in any human sense of the word, but certainly they are aware and have their own standards for beauty which can be considered merely an appreciation for symmetry. A healthy dog, for example, has better bilateral symmetry making them a more attractive mate. — wuliheron

You are speaking of self-awareness. Consciousness is the same as awareness. That is why they call it SELF-awareness otherwise they would just call it awareness, which they don't.

Beauty is intrinsic to nature and doesn't require consciousness to appreciate. For example, every classic work of art and music are based on fractal dragon equations. Symmetry is important and, for example, an animal's ability to detect bilateral symmetry is a way for them to assess the genetic fitness of potential mates. Hence, the reason even the smallest amongst us can appreciate beauty and music doth have charms to sooth the savage beast. — wuliheron

Beauty can't exist without an experiencer to experience it. Art, music and fractal dragon equations are all just data in the great objective whatever.

We are making it too EGO-centristic - stating that if there is no observer then beauty doesn't exist - this is a very very vain statement.
It makes us very self-important ( without me or my act of observation that which is being observed does not exist - REALLY?) — Benjamin Dovano

That is unsubstantiated claim, you have no evidence for it. Akin to saying something like God exists without proof.

All you can prove is that you perceive beauty from your brain thanks to descartes infallible cogito ergo sum.

And it is not ego-centric at all, I know what you are saying but ego-centrism is about someone trying to be better than someone else or something else or excessively self-concerned. Right here, we are just stating facts in a passive way.

" without me or my act of observation that which is being observed does not exist - REALLY?" is a different argument and has to do with observer effect among many other things.

Whether or not it is just data out there (sense data) or whether the hidden order is inherently beautiful, WE will never know if we continue to stay in our modes of subjectivity.

Sorry bro, but these are the facts... :(

but the beauty is still there, regardless of the observer.
Beauty is eternal as where the observer is not, it lives a limited amount of time. — Benjamin Dovano

How can you prove that? You are using your mind to percieve beauty, it is a construct of the mind. Even if it DID exist objectively, you could never prove it existed... just like you could never prove an objective set of morals existed.

The visual centers of the brain are responsible for both our appreciation of beauty, mathematics, and our tool making capacity as well because its all based on pattern matching. — wuliheron

I guess that is why I thank my visual centres when I listen to music huh? :-}

Beauty is an emergent phenomenon which next generation computers will soon be capable of leveraging beyond your wildest imagination — wuliheron

Assuming they can create self-awareness to perceive the beauty. That still is an assumption.

If there were no observers, would it still be beautiful? Well, who would be there to judge?

I think he meant semantically it wasn't very coherent or explicit

Sometimes though it makes sense when you write it but people lack the ability to write coherently in usual ways we are used to. I don't like it when it happens but it happens with some people, especially non-native speakers of english and partially dyslexic

However this does not mean that our consciousness(or self awareness) will also be back. It's a subject where I can't wrap my head around it. — Katiego

Why not? If consciousness stems from matter then it would be identical. If matter stems from consciousness then I could imagine you might be correct, but possibly not also.

If you imagine two identical universes co existing alongside one another. And there is two you's existing in them, are you the same person?

Do we have an ethical priority to help those in need? — darthbarracuda

Ask Ayn Rand... acording to her, selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice

If that's what the dictionary says, then the dictionary is an ass.*** — Bitter Crank

Cambridge: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life

Merriam: person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Wiki: The English noun bigot is a term of abuse aimed at a prejudiced or closed-minded person

Me: A bigot is a prejudiced or more aptly a closed-minded person who is convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and against those who hold different opinions.

Sound pretty similar to me.

using terms of reference that derive their whole sense from a context that assumes a reality, in a claim that purports to be skeptical about that whole reality (global skepticism), is to be inconsistent. — John

Why is it inconsistent? Just because the terms use the context of an assumed reality that can be doubted?

Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

But keep going until it is simple enough for my simple mind to understand ;)