Yeah.. let's laugh instead of providing arguments. — AppLeo

Good idea. Now why didn't I think of that?

Obviously people can decide for themselves about what is objective because I guess there is no objective, but it seems clear to me that there's an objective purpose to life if you care about life and happiness. — AppLeo

It might well seem clear to you, but you have failed to provide a reasonable basis for believing that there's an objective purpose. You don't really put forward an argument, you just make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose. I care about life and happiness, and I most likely share many of your values and priorities: reason being one of them. Reason helps people survive. A = A. Facts are facts. I don't believe in God either. I reject magical thinking. So bloody what? This doesn't reasonably support the belief that there's an objective purpose.

OK. Understood.

Logic and reason don’t fail, but rather the thinking subject misuses them. We are all subjective, but not entirely so.

Any conclusion of ours about reality cannot be KNOWN to be of actual reality. It very well may be, but we have no means to prove it absolutely. It’s not that we cannot perceive reality, but rather we cannot know the reality we perceive is as it really is.

he said that we cannot actually perceive reality — AppLeo

Maybe you have some references to sustain that assertion, but I present these to deny it:

“....The simple but empirically determined consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of external objects in space....”
(Which can only be given us by means of perception)

“.....For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses?.....”

“.....The postulate concerning the cognition of the reality of things requires perception, consequently conscious sensation, not indeed immediately, that is, of the object itself, whose existence is to be cognized, but still that the object have some connection with a real perception, in accordance with the analogies of experience, which exhibit all kinds of real connection in experience....”
——————————————

I personally do not hold with an objective meaning *OF* life. Meanings IN, sure. Objective purpose to....I guess. The expression of moral code and all that. Meaning OF....not required.

It might well seem clear to you, but you have failed to provide a reasonable basis for believing that there's an objective purpose. You don't really put forward an argument, you just make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose. I care about life and happiness, and I most likely share many of your values and priorities: reason being one of them. Reason helps people survive. A = A. Facts are facts. I don't believe in God either. I reject magical thinking. So bloody what? This doesn't reasonably support the belief that there's an objective purpose. — S

The purpose of life is life. Life does what it can to live. Planets get sunlight to live without thinking. Animals hunt to live based on instinct. Humans think to live.

You think to live, how do you live life without the facts? You can't pursue life if you don't use reason. That's an objective truth. How do you live without reason? You can't.

Do you think engineers consult with God to build a bridge?
You think doctors have mystical experiences on how to heal people?
You think businessmen just get lucky and have money fall into their hands?

Everything we do in life that propels us forward was started by a consciousness and one that could think and reason. It's not a matter of what you value.

So, the objective meaning of life is life. And the objective way to live life is reason. Rational self-interest. You cannot hold values outside of your rational self-interest if there is an objective meaning to life.

There is an objective meaning of life - spread your DNA (in time, not just space lol)!

Living your whole life with only pleasure would make you spoiled and not appreciate life in general. Goin through hard times make you more ”enlightened” as a person and makes you being able to reflect on your life more logically

Any conclusion of ours about reality cannot be KNOWN to be of actual reality. It very well may be, but we have no means to prove it absolutely. It’s not that we cannot perceive reality, but rather we cannot know the reality we perceive is as it really is. — Mww

How do you know a conclusion of reality cannot be known to be of actual reality if you don't know what actual reality actually is? Because you say that actual reality cannot be known.

Maybe you have some references to sustain that assertion, but I present these to deny it: — Mww

I don't know how those assertions deny that.

What if our conclusions actually are of reality and you're just being skeptical of them because you don't want to know reality; you would rather believe in something else than what is right in front of you.

My conclusion of reality says God doesn't exist because there is no proof, but I can't actually know reality, so God can still exist. What a bunch of nonsense.

I personally do not hold with an objective meaning *OF* life. Meanings IN, sure. Objective purpose to....I guess. The expression of moral code and all that. Meaning OF....not required. — Mww

I don't think the OP meant meaning of life in just that way. But what is the purpose of life? What should you do with your life? Why should you live this way?

time does not exist

Living your whole life with only pleasure would make you spoiled and not appreciate life in general. Goin through hard times make you more ”enlightened” as a person and makes you being able to reflect on your life more logically — erik2

You desctibe the physiological condition of humans only. We physically cannot experience continual ecstasy, or even mere beaming pleasure. But I see no reason to call the state of being in conitunual pleasure "spoiled". Would you create hard times , I wonder, for "enlightenment"?

erik2 has seen hard times. We have not. He has grown into an enlightened individual. We have not. Now if we could only get him to learn proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar; then we could follow him as the guru he is.

His spelling etc was OK I think?

is it even possible to reflect "logically" on one's life?

I'm not a genius I'm just typing from my own experiences. First of all, grammar is not an important thing. It's a norm. If I get my intention out properly that's what matters. Again when you see rich kids get what they want all the time and repeatedly experience pleasure they have no reason to think reasonable since they will get what they want either way.
Going through hard times will either break you or make you stronger. No cliche intended.
To make this happen, you need to experience both comforts and ''hard times'' otherwise your whole focus will be directed at the tough things and have no time to reflect.
Same with continual pleasure.

Spoiled kids-teenagers don't reflect on their life realistically since their only focus is on what the pretty girl they wanna bang today will dress or what Gucci clothes he should buy next to be more accepted in his friend groups.
I don't have any advanced English learned soi don't know the word to use for the ''logically reflection of one's life''
What I mean is to reflect on your life, not in the present time but in general. What can make me more enlightened as an individual and what can make me a more ''happier person''
Not thinking from others perspective, not thinking from your opinion or others.

You said Kant said we don’t actually perceive reality, and I give three examples where he says we do. Assertion properly denied....until something is presented to affirm the assertion that he said we don’t actually perceive reality.

How do you know a conclusion of reality cannot be known to be of actual reality if you don't know what actual reality actually is? Because you say that actual reality cannot be known. — AppLeo

Because we don’t have anything to compare our conclusions to.
———————————-

Major difference between being skeptical and understanding my limitations.

You see a bunch of nonsense; I see a basic logical argument.

I suppose the OP can mean lots of things to lots of people.

All those are rhetorical questions, right?

Going through hard times will either break you or make you stronger. No cliche intended.
To make this happen, you need to experience both comforts and ''hard times'' otherwise your whole focus will be directed at the tough things and have no time to reflect. — erik2

But if there are no tough times there is no need to reflect!

I shouldn’t have been a dick to you. My delusions of reference at work. You may have a point.

Okay then...

I know im just talking generally. I was stating the possible requirements.

btw is not saying that is right in any of this, i just think its an interesting subject ;)

Bummer. There I was, a die-hard Kantian, lookin’ to duke it out with a pesky Randian.

Sucks to be me.

pffff... Kant sucks.

You ask, if there were an objective meaning of life...

What would it be? — Andrew4Handel

I don't believe there is an objective meaning of life. But if there was, I think it would answer the big questions. Such as why are we here? Why are conscious. Why are we on this forum right now discussing it. It would explain explain you whole entire life and why you were placed on this earth. And not just a mechanistic historical explanation. It would be a totally different kind of explanation.

Ethically (and this is where it answers this threads questions: the objective meaning to life). Life's purpose is to live, to flourish, and to be happy. Everything has its own nature and it must do what is good for its nature. — AppLeo

What would you say the basis for the objectivity of that claim is?

The purpose of life is life. — AppLeo

That makes no sense. Perhaps try wording what you mean differently.

Life does what it can to live. Planets get sunlight to live without thinking. Animals hunt to live based on instinct. Humans think to live. — AppLeo

That's just a description, not a purpose. Perhaps try looking up the meaning of "purpose".

None of the rest of your post provides reasonable grounds for concluding that there is an objective purpose to- or meaning of- life. Remember, bald assertion is not argument. You're just doing that thing again where you make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose or meaning.

You cannot hold values outside of your rational self-interest if there is an objective meaning to life. — AppLeo

That's a non sequitur and is false in light of counterexamples. Let's say the meaning of life is to act in your own self-interest. Does that mean that I can't hold values outside of my self-interest? No. Are there real people in the real world right now who hold values outside of their self-interest? Yes, obviously so. Have you never heard of aid workers? Or have you just deceived yourself into believing that they're all just acting based on their value of self-interest?

That makes no sense. Perhaps try wording what you mean differently. — S

It makes perfect sense. Life is an end in itself.

That just a description, not a purpose. Perhaps try looking up the meaning of "purpose". — S

No that is the purpose. Your purpose is to live. My purpose is to live. That's everyone's purpose. No one's objective purpose is death or destruction.

None of the rest of your post provides reasonable grounds for concluding that there is an objective purpose to- or meaning of- life. Remember, bald assertion is not argument. You're just doing that thing again where you make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose or meaning. — S

You keep saying that but you don't explain why it's a bald assertion, so I don't care. And OP didn't specifically mean meaning. They meant what is the right purpose or philosophy.

That's a non sequitur and is false in light of counterexamples. Let's say the meaning of life is to act in your own self-interest. Does that mean that I can't hold values outside of my self-interest? No. Are there real people in the real world right now who hold values outside of their self-interest? Yes, obviously so. Have you never heard of aid workers? Or have you just deceived yourself into believing that they're all just acting based on their value of self-interest? — S

You can hold values outside your rational self-interest obviously. But that's why people's lives suck because they aren't valuing what's important to their life. They're valuing things at the expense of themselves. Which goes against the whole point of life, which is to live for yourself. Life is an end of itself, not something to be justified by other means.

It makes perfect sense. Life is an end in itself. — AppLeo

It makes more sense wording it that way, but very far from perfect. To make sense of valuing life, there must be something about life that one finds valuable, but that then becomes the reason and not life in and of itself.

No that is the purpose. Your purpose is to live. My purpose is to live. That's everyone's purpose. No one's objective purpose is death or destruction. — AppLeo

Where's the supporting argument for these claims? One that concludes with these claims. I would be interested to see whether you can put together a logically valid argument.

Our drive for survival is descriptive by default. If you're going to make an additional claim that it's our purpose to survive, then you have a burden to back that up.

You keep saying that but you don't explain why it's a bald assertion, so I don't care. And OP didn't specifically mean meaning. They meant what is the right purpose or philosophy. — AppLeo

If I'm mistaken in my assessment, then it shouldn't be too difficult to show me where I'm mistaken. Just quote yourself where you think that you've presented a supporting argument. I am not seeing one. As I said, I just see a number of logically disconnected statements sitting next to a bald assertion. That they're in close proximity to each other doesn't mean that they logically relate in the relevant way. A logically valid argument is what I'm after.

And whether it's meaning or purpose or value or whatever, my beef is with the claim that it's objective. How so? You never really explain that. You just assert that it's such-and-such. When you attempt to explain it, you just end up talking about descriptive facts without demonstrating how they validly lead to the relevant conclusion.

You can hold values outside your rational self-interest obviously. But that's why people's lives suck because they aren't valuing what's important to their life. They're valuing things at the expense of themselves. Which goes against the whole point of life, which is to live for yourself. Life is an end of itself, not something to be justified by other means. — AppLeo

But that's just your opinion. You haven't given me any reasonable basis for thinking that it's anything more than that. I translate the above along the lines, "I think that the lives of these other people with different values to me suck! I think that other things are more important!". If only you'd recognise that that's all these comments from you amount to... but you're stuck in your blinkers.

Alright, there is no objective purpose to life. I’m wrong.

I think the purpose of life is life, but it doesn’t make it objective. It’s my own subjective interpretation.

Is that humility coming from a Randian? There may be hope for you yet! :)

“....The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love, his friendship, his esteem-except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread-a man of justice....”
(“John Galt”, in Rand, 1957)

Please, someone inform the used car salesman, the pension fund schemer, the Manila street-side vendor of ill-disguised monkey meat.......you are examples of the highest moral respect delegated by your fellow man.

Or.....how to put lipstick on a pig and think it worthy of your daughter’s 16th birthday present.

Please, someone inform the used car salesman, the pension fund schemer, the Manila street-side vendor of ill-disguised monkey meat.......you are examples of the highest moral respect delegated by your fellow man. — Mww

I think you're missing the point of what she's trying to say.

Traders are individuals who recognize property rights. Individuals are responsible and independent. People who are not traders don't value property rights. Instead of being a free man of trade, you are a master or a slave. You use and abuse and people use and abuse you.

A doctor, businessman, and an engineer are also examples of traders. I can see why you would purposely leave them out to make what Rand was saying as a bad thing.

I'm not a randian. I'm an Objectivist.