They can be a source of meaning, or better, they are the meaning. The purpose is to learn to see more and more in them, appreciate them more and work with them in a better, less self-oriented way. If you take the dead view of analysis, they will appear as nothing to you on account of a bogus absolutist fantasy; because you will be demanding more than what is given, which is to say more than you are ready to receive.

It is simply a hopeless artificial situation to be putting yourself in of looking at life from the perspective of this deadening analysis; it is just not capable of leading to anything but nihilism and despair. There is nothing imperative or absolutely true in such a lifeless picture; it is something we do to ourselves, and not something inevitably done to us by life. — John

I understand what you are saying John, but I just can't see how it relates to the OP:

"There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!
Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness 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 happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

I just don't see how you can view others as the central focal point of the meaning and purpose in your life? Whence came this meaning in other people?

If I put away my deadening analysis of life and my struggle to find purpose then all I am left with is an ignorant human who goes around attaching itself to any fruitless desire and then claiming it to be the absolute source of purpose in their life (doesn't soun too far from some of the replies on here, including yours ((no offense)) :D ).

For example, some people find their pet worth living or dying for. But living for a pet is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good life. You could live and love your pet (or whatever) and find it just as significant, and your life just as meaningful, without the melodramatic act of ascribing all your life's worth on it. — jkop

True but you didn't define "You could live and love your pet (or whatever) and find it just as significant, and your life just as meaningful"

the whole purpose is define how that occurs.

What I live for encompasses innumerable things and activities, and is about contentedness, joy, and motivation, amongst other things. If these things were absent or unobtainable, then yes, I might conclude that I had nothing to live for. That's not melodramatic, it's reasonable. — Sapientia

Did you read my OP, if you can please respond to that as it is directly relevant to what you claim to be purpose in life:

"There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!
Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness 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 happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe"."

Your problem is asking the question in the first place. Like the person who equates life only with happiness, you view living as a question of living "for a purpose." Lots of things happen in your life, but you only come away saying: "Is that it? I can't live just those small moments and be satisfied. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You imply that being "satisfied" quenches your need for a purpose in life.

Your OP says nothing about much of anything, >:O

"I'm afraid." Gee, that's great, man. Okay, what now? Who cares?

What's the purpose that will satisfy me?" What you seem to want (a purpose) is the very thing you deny is so (human life is just many different finite states) — TheWillowOfDarkness

How am I denying that a purpose is so? Or claiming that a purpose will lead me to satisfaction? A purpose will lead me to living a fulfilling life, is a fulfilling life one that is necessarily satisfactory?

Your OP says nothing about much of anything, >:O

"I'm afraid." Gee, that's great, man. Okay, what now? Who cares? — Heister Eggcart

Then obviously you didn't read it thoroughly enough, it said a great many things... it is just the illiterate people who are unable to spell out what it actually ISN'T saying because they want to come across as vindictive or sneering.

The only thing you say explicitly is that you live because you're afraid to die. Why is that? If you can't answer, then this excuse is as "irrational" as any other you machine gun mention.

This is the nihilism of purpose. An understanding which rejects the meaning of living a finite life for the notion some purpose must enter in from the outside and make things matter. With respect to living, it's self-defeating. It turns fulfilment and worth into an impossibility for your own life. Only the reductive fiction (purpose) can be worth anything. Life is just a nothingness to be ignored or miserably wallow in. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I understand this. At the end of it all though all that can be concluded is "Life is just a nothingness to be ignored or miserably wallow in"

So therefore, why live? Like I said in my OP, the only conclusion I can make is that it is because I don't want to die, like all other animals.

The only thing you say explicitly is that you live because you're afraid to die. Why is that? If you can't answer, then this excuse is as "irrational" as any other you machine gun mention. — Heister Eggcart

No it isn't, I said that claiming happiness to be the sense of purpose in ones life is absurd. There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!

Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness 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 happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

If you didn't see that then your are blind.

That's what you don't think. What you do think is..."It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." More simply put, your claim amounts to, "I live because I'm afraid," which in your eyes is a rational claim. Why?

I don't think I understand that comment. "A genetic predisposition for survival in your thoughts" is confusing to me. And then I don't get how "your personal preferences over what you find fashionable" fits into the context of either my or your comment. — Terrapin Station

So, in your thoughts (mainly if not completely unconscious) are programs that operate for survival. If someone puts something close to your eye you will blink, etc. Likewise if u are on the edge of a cliff you will be scared to go over. So in your thoughts, there is a predisposition for the genetics to play a role in maintaining the thoughts to keep the organism surviving.

You are claiming that it is YOU who is choosing not to live "I don't have the slightest inclination or reason not to live as long as I possibly can." when in reality it IS YOUR SURVIVAL MECHANISM and not your personality, or your preferences over what you find fashionable (not talking about clothing here). For instance, I find oranges more fashionable to me than apples.

That's what you don't think. What you do think is..."It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." More simply put, your claim amounts to, "I live because I'm afraid," which in your eyes is a rational claim. Why? — Heister Eggcart

I didn't say it was rational, I see it is what ALL animals on earth share instinctively and unconsciously. In fact that would be considered pre-rational and a matter of scientific fact.

All other so called purposes of popular fashion have been considered to be absurd.

I disagree. We were born into existence, and it does contain harms and it contains a structure which we did not create. We all cope, that's just a truism, but that does not mean "and then it was good." — schopenhauer1

Bravo, on point!

I didn't say it was rational — intrapersona

Yes you did - "It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." If it's irrational to be afraid of dying, then how do you find it possible to rationally think otherwise?

In fact that would be considered pre-rational and a matter of scientific fact. — intrapersona

How do you know that the chipmunk fears death if it is not a thinking, rational being?

This is correct, nothing does resolve the situation. You are stuck here until you're not. You will run into harm, you will create your own harm, you will find survival within your culture, you will experience boredom unless you create some sort of entertainment situation. — schopenhauer1

Then it seems that we are getting the short end of the stick. Like we are thrown in to a prison... Like we are actors out on loan with no recompense

Yes you did - "It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." If it's irrational to be afraid of dying, then how do you find it possible to rationally think otherwise? — Heister Eggcart

You misinterpreted this. I rationally concluded............ the the only rational conclusion is.......... that all animals have an IRRATIONAL fear of death.

How do you know that the chipmunk fears death if it is not a thinking, rational being? — Heister Eggcart

Haha, seriously? I would think you would know better than to try and argue something like that. Just bring a flame thrower to it's lips... are you now going to argue that it will come closer and try to kiss the flame? right, keep going heister... keep going... haha

I say neither, because ascribing life's worth on something else is neither sufficient nor necessary to make it better. — jkop

Yes, and indeed is absurd as my OP points out.

I rationally concluded............ the the only rational conclusion is — intrapersona

Whelp, you've already failed at being rational, here. Whoops.

that all animals have an IRRATIONAL fear of death. — intrapersona

I don't fear death.

Haha, seriously? I would think you would know better than to try and argue something like that. Just bring a flame thrower to it's lips... are you now going to argue that it will come closer and try to kiss the flame? right, keep going heister... keep going... haha — intrapersona

Haha, yes, haha. I'm arguing that. Fear is a concept of and from the mind. Nothing more.

I don't fear death. — Heister Eggcart

Who are YOU though? Do you also claim to have free will and have proof for it too?

Do you not get scared if someone holds a gun to your head? Maybe you're not afraid of the concept of the death which is something quite different. Your heart rate would increase if there is a gun to your head or if you or on a cliff face about to fall off. Fact is, your subconscious impulses run the show and it is like try to claim you aren't afraid of blinking when someone throws something at your eye. Just because you aren't screaming "nooo please i don't wanna die" doesn't mean your biological brain is unaffected by stimuli that indicate the certain demise of it's organism.

Anyway please keep this on subject.

Who are YOU though? — intrapersona

A conscious being.

Do you also claim to have free will and have proof for it too? — intrapersona

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but no.

Do you not get scared if someone holds a gun to your head? Maybe your not afraid of the concept of the death. — intrapersona

No, I already told you. I do not fear death. Not fearing death does not mean I do not value my life.

Anyway please keep this on subject. — intrapersona

You're telling yourself this, right..?

You are impossible to do philosophy with. Not only are you subject to bigotry (not being able to see the other person's point of view because of your own desire to be right/close mindedness) but you constantly fail to elaborate on anything you are retorting. By proof of this, I suspect an inflamed comment in retaliation, if not then I will respond to your off topics 'personal' statements that are brief and are without explanation or reasoning.

Lol, What happens when the fetish goes stale?

It really doesn't though if you read my OP, fetish is like right pinky toe — intrapersona

It feels as though you have set up the problem so that no answer can ever be acceptable. Re the OP, everything is an "extension of the human experience".

Still, a healthy fetish can make you forget your ennui, if only for a little while.

We don't really live for any particular reason. That we continue to live is more a side effect of satisfying our competing needs and desires (eg food water warmth). Living is the default state, so you don't need to come up with a reason to live, because it happens regardless. Your reasons have no bearing on whether you live or not. Let's say you decide your reason to live is to experience pleasure. If you change or stop this reason you don't just drop dead automatically.

A more relevant question is whether there is any reason to commit suicide. But even then, you don't just die when you come up with a reason(s), and you can suicide without a reason anyway.

Living is the default state, so you don't need a reason for it. Although a lot of people do seem to find it psychologically gratifying to feel as if they're living for some grand meaning or purpose. But then the question is not what's my reason for living, but rather what reason should I posit (for living) in order to psychologically gratify myself (and not, to actually live, because that happens anyway).

if only for a little while. — Real Gone Cat

That is the issue. How can transitory pleasure be a purpose if it is without meaning and doesn't stay consistent?

Purpose would be a goal, something that isn't impossible to answer. Imagine if you knew a cosmic meaning of why we exist in galaxies and that in 300,000,000,000,000 years time our efforts as a species paid off and you knew what it was. Wouldn't complacency over run everything you did in life?

"John why r u doing that u silly billy?@?1?! Don't u see that u r wasting all ur time n efortz?"

"oh ya, but this is for tha singularity in billions of years time so no prob ya kno?"

We don't really live for any particular reason. That we continue to live is more a side effect of satisfying our competing needs and desires (eg food water warmth). Living is the default state, so you don't need to come up with a reason to live, because it happens regardless. Your reasons have no bearing on whether you live or not. Let's say you decide your reason to live is to experience pleasure. If you change or stop this reason you don't just drop dead automatically.

A more relevant question is whether there is any reason to commit suicide. But even then, you don't just die when you come up with a reason(s), and you can suicide without a reason anyway.

Living is the default state, so you don't need a reason for it. Although a lot of people do seem to find it psychologically gratifying to feel as if they're living for some grand meaning or purpose. But then the question is not what's my reason for living, but rather what reason should I posit (for living) in order to psychologically gratify myself (and not, to actually live, because that happens anyway). — dukkha

That is a very sound conception of how purpose is usually implemented in human life.

It is in accordance with what I said in my OP about how animals have no purpose in life other than to survive and not die because they are afraid to die.

I would like to add that having pleasure as a reason to live is absurd, as I pointed out in my OP.

It seems you are saying that purpose is just a mechanism to gratify ones self, to make one feel as if their life has value when it really doesn't. Is this correct? So when people say "my life is worth living", in reality they are fooling themselves. Correct?

That is the issue. How can transitory pleasure be a purpose if it is without meaning and doesn't stay consistent? — intrapersona

I look at it like, purposes only apply to individual ends and aims. I eat because it am hungry, find warmth because I'm cold, do activities because I'm bored, drink because I'm an alcoholic :), drive my car because I want to go somewhere, etc. I don't think you can combine all these separate purposes for separate actions, under an overall umbrella purpose. So that you eat because you're hungry, and drink because you're thirsty, and yet you both eat and drink because of a larger overall purpose like say living for god, experiencing pleasure, improving the world, whatever purpose you pick. It's like doing something for one reason, and yet you're *really* doing something for another reason.

You are impossible to do philosophy with. — intrapersona

Oh, so you're "doing" philosophy and not me, eh? Given your appeal to science here earlier, and the quote from Marx on your bio, I'm actually more inclined to think that you are not "doing" philosophy. This cop out of yours is rather uninspired, frankly. C'mon.

Not only are you subject to bigotry (not being able to see the other person's point of view because of your own desire to be right/close mindedness) — intrapersona

Your viewpoint is an impenetrable and irrational drivel. If this makes me a bigot in your eyes, then I'm okay with that.

By proof of this, I — intrapersona

Herein lies your problem, sweetie pie. You're trying to necessarily prove that your experience is the same for everyone else. If you think you've rationally thought through something, well then that's great! Doing so, however, doesn't mean your rationale is the truth, or is reflective of others' experiences.

It is in accordance with what I said in my OP about how animals have no purpose in life other than to survive and not die because they are afraid to die. — intrapersona

Aaaaaand you're still fumbling over this, >:O

It does not logically follow in any way that because animals strive for survival most of the time, that such is directly a result of their fearing death.

How can transitory pleasure be a purpose if it is without meaning and doesn't stay consistent? — intrapersona

I do not think you understand the nature of a fetish. A true fetish (and not just an affectation) is decidedly not transitory.

Try it. What do you have to lose? (Apparently your life is meaningless anyway.)

You are claiming that it is YOU who is choosing not to live "I don't have the slightest inclination or reason not to live as long as I possibly can." when in reality it IS YOUR SURVIVAL MECHANISM and not your personality, or your preferences over what you find fashionable (not talking about clothing here). — intrapersona

Hmmm, okay--still not sure I get that, though. For one, it doesn't make any sense to me to suppose that "I" am somehow different than something like a "survival mechanism" built into me. "I" am simply the totality of my body, and in terms of consciousness, including personality, particular brain states (which are dynamic). Something like a "survival mechanism" would also be just a factor of how my body, including my brain, happens to be constructed/happens to function, hence that "survival mechanism" would be identical to (a part of) me.

When I say that "I don't have the slightest inclination . . ." I'm simply noting that thoughts questioning whether I should continue to live don't at all occur to me, and when someone like yourself suggests that they should, it just strikes me as absurd to even consider that it would be a worthwhile thing to ponder. I'm not making any claims re why I'm that way beyond noting that that's how my body, including my brain, happen to work.