As a truism, the fulfilment of some desire or other. This might reduce to happiness, but I don't think that this is necessarily true of everyone. For some, being happy might not even be possible, and so might not being something they even consider.

For example, I don't really think about happiness but about comfort, relaxation, and entertainment (in the sense of leisurely preoccupation). It's more about avoiding stress, boredom, and pain than about anything as positive as joy.

What,if any,is the purpose/goal a human would strive towards,in living his/her life? — hunterkf5732

Developing virtue and character - that's the only thing worth striving for. Of course that requires you engage in a multitude of other actions and behaviours.

Why do you think developing virtue and character is something worth striving for?

Sure yeah,that could be the purpose of someone's life at some particular moment.But note that these desires change all the time.

For an example you might desire now to eat an ice cream and then later desire to read Wittgenstein.

So the result of denoting these desires as the purpose of life is that you'd end up with an ever changing set of candidates for the purpose of life,which thus makes it harder to pin down a single purpose.

The natural question now is,do you think there is some unifying property that all of these human desires share?If so,then this property could easily be named the goal everyone strives towards.

The natural question now is,do you think there is some unifying property that all of these human desires share?If so,then this property could easily be named the goal everyone strives towards. — hunterkf5732

Is it to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior? I hope not, because I totally failed to do that.

How about helping to create a community pottery studio? That's a good purpose.

The particular desire might change, but the fulfilment of desire is still the persistent goal. But again, that's just a truism.

For example, I don't really think about happiness but about comfort, relaxation, and entertainment (in the sense of leisurely preoccupation). It's more about avoiding stress, boredom, and pain than about anything as positive as joy. — Michael

The sense in which I used the word ''happiness'' is described in paragraph three of the OP and it includes relaxation, comfort, etc. that you refer to.

As for people not considering happiness as an option they strive towards, this is of course what appears to be true on the surface, but then, once logically broken down, their actions could be reduced to the search for happiness (see the example in the last paragraph of the OP).

As if life is a game of fucking football. I refuse to strive, even for the ending of strife. It is enough to live. Don't forget to grit your teeth while doing it - not.

Why do you think developing virtue and character is something worth striving for? — hunterkf5732

Virtue is the only thing which is under your control. If we are to judge the excellence of a human being, then it must be judged on a scale where all responsibility falls on the person, and where external circumstances cannot intervene to favour some and not others.

Virtue is eternal. It will be with you today, and tomorrow and your whole life. Everything can be taken away from you... your children, your success, what people think of you... tomorrow you could end up in prison, and in chains. But the only thing that no dictator, no oppressor, and no circumstance can ever steal from you is your virtue. The fact that you can always refuse to engage in immorality, and persevere through strength of character to teach your fellow human beings and to care for them through your own example, just like Socrates, that is man's ultimate good. A tyrant may kill you, torture you and break your body - but he cannot take away your will unless you give it to him.

Virtue is Goodness itself for man, as man is defined by his freedom of choice, and the only real choice that man has, that is not conditioned by external circumstances, is virtue. Think about what makes people moral - taking care of others, loving others, having a good character. This is all virtue. And think about what makes people bad... bringing misery to others, using others for your own selfish reasons, and a multitude of other phenomena which characterise situations ranging from people having promiscuous sex, to people abusing others for financial gain.

And the last point if you're still not convinced... Do you have an alternative? Everything else is corruptible and perishable. What will you replace virtue with? Pleasure? And what will you do if by some change of circumstances that pleasure is taken away from you? Despair and be miserable? What if your circumstances condemn you to never experience an orgasm again... will you despair? Virtue is inner strength - nothing can take it away. If I tell you invest your money in X but in 10 years you'll lose it, what will you do? Invest it? Of course not. So if virtue isn't the answer, then certainly nothing else is even worth trying to strive for, because everything else is most certainly a losing investment. With virtue at least there's a chance, at minimum!

Is it to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior? I hope not, because I totally failed to do that. — Mongrel

What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? :)

The reason I endorse this view is that humans in general (excluding people with unusual mental disorders,etc),act in ways which could be logically dissected to demonstrate that the real purpose which lies behind them is the attainment of some form of happiness.

You exclude the very real possibility that happiness and dedication to its attainment is itself a mental illness, then? You certainly seem to be claiming that what 'humans in general' do is by definition the most rational and true expression of their purpose.

As C. S. Lewis once observed, it could be a great mistake to assume that God (and here you may substitute whatever principle you wish from Mother Nature to the selfish gene and back again) intends us to be happy. Happiness is, after all, nothing but a delusional state which denies reality and in its worst expressions (where it reaches near cultic status) actively seeks to hide reality from us all. It is no more than a permanent state of denial which seems to be a pretty poor thing to be considered the purpose or meaning of life! And that's before you even start to consider the narcissism, egoism and selfishness it tends to engender!

intends us to be happy — Barry Etheridge

That's because of the definition of happiness you have adopted. If you look at Aristotle's for example - eudaimonia in Greek - and study Ancient Greek culture you'll see for yourself a completely different way to think and perceive what happiness is.

Happiness is definitely one of the major players in determining a purposeful life. You're saying satisfaction and pleasure overall is life's purpose? Are you referring to hedonism perhaps?

On the contrary, I find the Greek concept just as open to the same criticisms. Being content with the way things are 'meant to be' and being the person we are 'meant to be' is every bit as much a life of denial as happy, clappy ignorance of all that assails us.

On the contrary, I find the Greek concept just as open to the same criticisms. Being content with the way things are 'meant to be' and being the person we are 'meant to be' is every bit as much a life of denial as happy, clappy ignorance of all that assails us. — Barry Etheridge

This is not the Greek view at all. You have to take yourself out of the modern consciousness - the modern way of seeing and feeling the world. You have to abandon the glasses you are seeing everything through, and take a new pair - learn to see the world as the Greeks did. Then you will understand what they meant, and then you may not want to change the glasses back ;)

In a nutshell: What, if any, is the purpose/goal a human would strive towards, in living his/her life?

My own answer to the above question would simply be happiness.

Happiness here covers a broad variety of emotions and mental states including all sorts of satisfactory, comfortable feelings from peacefulness to orgasms.

This just underlines how happiness lies at the root of our actions. What do you think? — hunter

I think you nailed. It's a "simple" idea, but so much falls out from this simple commitment. I say "commitment" because some find their happiness in the idea that their lives are about something more profound than happiness. But, yeah, I say that we pursue pleasure and avoid pain, with both understood to include sophisticated, "spiritualized" pleasure and pain.

Most of our actions are related to overcoming a certain amount of deprivation. Not all deprivation is bad, however, only the deprivation that makes us a slave to our desires. Which, coincidentally, happens to be quite a lot, but there do exist deprivational actions that are "worth it" - these are usually the actions that we have fun doing or feel a sense of moral duty to accomplish. These are the actions that don't feel like a chore to do, the actions that we straight up enjoy partaking in, the actions that we are glad we are doing and which constitute a flourishing mentality.

Speaking of accomplishment, that is exactly what Heidegger thought was the essence of action. To do is to accomplish (by means of tool-usage).

Coming from a psychological perspective, most people at most times of their lives are not critically aware of how fear and death constitute an integral part of action. Anxiety, a form of fear, is what motivates us to do many of our actions - if you do not eat, you will die, if you do not drink, you will die, if you do not get a job, you will die, if you do not pray to God, you will go the Hell, etc.

So I think people like to believe that happiness is the purpose of life. But I think this is a pipe dream that nevertheless hoodwinks people into a false sense of security.

So I think people like to believe that happiness is the purpose of life. But I think this is a pipe dream that nevertheless hoodwinks people into a false sense of security. — darth

I don't know. Thinking that the point is to be happy doesn't mean expecting or demanding to always be happy. It's just the attitude that suffering is toll one pays. Also, why seek for a sense of security? I'd call this an aspect of happiness, feeling safe. So even the desire to believe that life is about the pursuit of happiness looks itself like the pursuit of happiness. I'd even conjecture that we tend to tolerate painful "truths" only as tools for the restoration of peace. Homoestasis, return to the creative play. That seems to be the game.

One of the words I have learned on philosophy forums is 'Eudaimonia' (also a word I can never spell without looking it up) but is said to denote 'human flourishing' and to be associated with the virtue ethics associated with Aristotle. And I think it's a perfectly worthy aim - why wouldn't it be? I don't think it amounts to going everywhere with a fixed grin, but living in such a way that your well-being is optimised. You know the song - like a room without a roof.

Keeping promises.

If there is nothing you strive towards in living your life, then what stops you killing yourself?

If there is nothing you strive towards in living your life, then what stops you killing yourself? — hunterkf5732

Well I didn't quite say that. When making bread, I strive to make the best bread I can, when decorating the hall, I strive to make a good job of it. What i don't do is strive to make my life something other than my life. My goals are inside my life, not about my life. Death is the 'goal' that one cannot help reaching eventually, but I have no inclination whatever to strive to hasten it.

In a nutshell: What, if any, is the purpose/goal a human would strive towards, in living his/her life? — hunterkf5732

Humans strive-for-nothing. We are constantly turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment goals and ensuring our survival (in whatever economic/cultural context that manifests). We are doing, to do, to do. Survival and boredom are the limits of our actions, and the prime motivator behind almost all else in human affairs.

Epicurus might say we should strive for art, relations with close friends, and philosophizing with friends.

Epictetus and Seneca might say we should strive for the Stoic virtues which would be (according to Stoics) living in accordance with Natural Reason and would (as a by-product) lead to a "happier" life

Schopenhauer would say that we should strive for non-willing being by experiencing aesthetic experiences, choosing compassionate acts which are motivated towards helping the other person a, and most importantly, ascetic contemplation and renunciation of one's willing nature.

Camus/Nietzsche might say that we should live our life as if at every moment we were to do an action again, it would be something we would choose over and over again. Life has much suffering, but we can make it a tragic-comedy of the absurd by our self-awareness of the situation.

schopenhauer1 (I) would say that we should be willing to look at boredom straight on, the striving-for-nothing core of our being, understand its implications- we are doing to keep alive and not feel existential boredom. It is all instrumental. Every action of maintenance, every action of survival, every action of entertainment. It is ok to bitch, it is good to rebel against the situation. Contra amor fati, one can feel jaded, bitter, slighted, and the like. Most philosophies, want you to subdue these feelings- as long as you somehow find something in the moment that can entertain you for that day, you may forget the instrumentality, but it always comes back. No one wants to think that while they are immersed in a moment of "flow" (being on the surface of things), or a day of entertainment (social relations/games/revelry/media/substances and the like).

We are constantly turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment goals and ensuring our survival (in whatever economic/cultural context that manifests — schopenhauer1

Only in modern society - very important.

Only in modern society - very important. — Agustino

Even if that was the case, it ain't going back any time soon. There can be an argument that we were too preoccupied with survival lifestyle where the paramount need was to understand how to live immersed in a particular natural setting in a tribal context. Thus, the instrumentality that was always there was just never realized. Perhaps that could be the way it was "meant to be" in terms of the setting for our original evolutionary needs, but for contingent reasons of much of humanity's cultural lifestyle shift to agriculture and thus civilization, we can thus realize this.

Even if that was the case, it ain't going back any time soon. There can be an argument that we were too preoccupied with survival lifestyle where the paramount need was to understand how to live immersed in a particular natural setting in a tribal context. Thus, the instrumentality that was always there was just never realized. Perhaps that could be the way it was "meant to be" in terms of the setting for our original evolutionary needs, but for contingent reasons of much of humanity's cultural lifestyle shift to agriculture and thus civilization, we can thus realize this. — schopenhauer1

I meant to tell you that this framework through which you see the world - this framework through which you look at, feel and perceive the world, namely "turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment, ensuring survival", this is a modern framework. Your way of experiencing the world is therefore alien to most people who have lived until today. They didn't feel this way about the world, they didn't think about it in these terms, they didn't relate to it through these categories. It's the difference between an anxious person looking at a spider, and one who has no fear looking at the same spider. The two experiences are completely alien from each other, and very often the one having no fear can't understand the one being anxious, and the one being anxious can't understand the one having no fear.

I don't know. Thinking that the point is to be happy doesn't mean expecting or demanding to always be happy. It's just the attitude that suffering is toll one pays. Also, why seek for a sense of security? I'd call this an aspect of happiness, feeling safe. So even the desire to believe that life is about the pursuit of happiness looks itself like the pursuit of happiness. I'd even conjecture that we tend to tolerate painful "truths" only as tools for the restoration of peace. Homoestasis, return to the creative play. That seems to be the game. — Hoo

The point I was getting at is that the human psyche's stability during episodes of trauma is primarily held together by hope. Hope for a better future, hope for a happy future. People will delude themselves their entire lives, believing that if they just run a mile a day, or go Paleo, or convert to such-and-such religion, or meditate three times a day, or get organized with their ergonomic crap, that then they will finally be happy. It's never quite accomplished, though.

I meant to tell you that this framework through which you see the world - this framework through which you look at, feel and perceive the world, namely "turning our boredom into pleasure and entertainment, ensuring survival", this is a modern framework. Your way of experiencing the world is therefore alien to most people who have lived until today. They didn't feel this way about the world, they didn't think about it in these terms, they didn't relate to it through these categories. It's the difference between an anxious person looking at a spider, and one who has no fear looking at the same spider. The two experiences are completely alien from each other, and very often the one having no fear can't understand the one being anxious, and the one being anxious can't understand the one having no fear. — Agustino

I just explained how this shift of framework can happen. This is a tacit agreement, but with explanation. Why would you then proceed to elaborate as if I did not address this in my last post?

I wouldn't risk the gall of pretending to know the answer to that question. If there even is one.

I just explained how this shift of framework can happen. — schopenhauer1

No - you described a change in material conditions, and not a change in consciousness, which is what I am referring to. There is a change in consciousness that occurred between modernity and before, which is not economic but spiritual in nature. I disagree for example that the Ancients were too preoccupied with their survival. That was important - surely - but it wasn't the main thing that drove them. You're still looking at the Ancients from your modern consciousness - they would not have felt like you would. Furthermore the experience of boredom was rare - boredom requires a stronger separation of self and world than was available to the Ancient consciousness. For example, Epicurus sitting in his garden, he didn't seem to be bored, and yet most of his time was leisure, ie doing nothing. Epicurean writings on boredom are extremely rare. People just didn't have that trouble as much. You try doing that today, and you will get bored. Not because the activity is boring but because your consciousness has changed. This is a spiritual change that has occurred, independently of the material changes, and I argue that this spiritual change is negative.