Life has no objective meaning. Its meaning is whatever you choose to impose on it. Asking “what is the meaning of life?” is like asking “what is the meaning of banana?” or “what is the meaning of Nixon?”

Anyway, I don't know the meaning of life, but I know the purpose of human life--to transport bacteria to other planets.

Humans are derived from basic organisms who think nothing of murder, nothing of morality, nothing of rape, nothing of inclusivity, nothing of religion. What drives human beings is incomprehensibly simplistic, feral, vacuous. — whollyrolling

Simplistic, feral, vacuous? That's a more apt description of your post than of the human race. I've always found it interesting, how difficult it can be to really crushingly respond to someone without fault. It's rare to see. Your post has poor grammar throughout, you misuse words, you posit a lot of falsehood. The whole post is nothing but self-indulgent rambling.

I don't disagree that life has no objective meaning but have a little class, OP has been respectful and willing to engage in meaningful conversation.

Okay then, refer to things humans are doing to enhance the planet and enrich their own lives as well as those of other species, and explain what was achieved by causing at least several thousand species' extinction. My post very well might have poor grammar and sentence structure because I was ranting and didn't claim I was writing an essay. I posted no falsehood, and I invite you to prove it.

Prove to me that humans can even observe the morality they make up in their heads, let alone a morality greater than themselves that preserves and benefits all living things. Prove to me that humans are not automatons driven by organisms that comprise more than 80% of their own biomass. Prove to me that you've ever acted on anything but synapse and impulse and that life has meaning other than moving bacteria from Earth to another planet. That is what is evident.

Observe as in obey or adhere to, not watch, and I'm sitting here waiting, go nuts. Also, provide a list of words I misused, and my post wasn't feral or vacuous, you apparently don't understand the meaning of those words, but I'll give you simplistic.

Correct me if i'm quoting you wrong but i do not believe evolution excludes god or gods. At the minimum i think religion and devotion to something greater than ourselves is a product of evolution. Thats my opinion. Bees and Ants serve their queens and they have really small brains.

Ranting or not ranting, OP actually has better grammar than you so it makes you look stupid to insult him for his. I don't actually disagree that OP has made dubious and unsubstantiated claims but take a look in the mirror. Even if we granted a disregard for other species or the planet, that isn't even close to what you initially said and how you interpret the past is just a result of your own choices. Your perspective of humans as seeing them as no different than the mindless, unthinking organisms they evolved from is also just one option and not a particularly pragmatic or interesting one.

You're arguing morality is entirely nurtured? Do you think it's just something we made up and has no biological or evolutionary basis? That in of itself is a controversial claim and if it isn't just nurtured, people don't just "choose" to follow it, they can really only try to choose not to and I don't think they'd see that much success. Are you also arguing against free will? More controversial claims and in my estimation, this one is even more ludicrous than the first but some very intelligent people don't agree with me so let's say that has yet to be demonstrated to be a falsehood for argument's sake.

You agree there's no objective meaning and so you agree you've only interpreted the meaning of the human race as being to spread bacteria across space. That's potentially valid but there's no reason for me to care about such a shallow way of thinking. The falsehoods you posited were that your interpretations of humans are facts and that's something you're still doing. I don't actually care to debate the basis of morality, free will or the subjective meaning of human existence. I only commented on your post because someone actually praised it and I thought OP deserved for someone to show how juvenile you were actually being and are.

Where in the rule book does it state that all posts must be interesting? You're wrong about grammar, but you don't see that because you lack understanding, and that's okay.

"Morality" is a subjective extrapolation of base survival instinct, and it has been crafted throughout history in such a way as to categorize humans separately from other animals because humans don't understand the purpose of consciousness and because consciousness fears mindlessness as much as it fears death. I didn't claim that humans were no different from mindless organisms. I made a distinction between humans and the organisms they host.

I don't believe that we made up morality. I believe that morality is an automatic process within us that has many biological and evolutionary bases. I am arguing against free will, yes. The existence of free will has not been proven or disproven, but because we are conscious, we have a psychological inclination toward accepting the existence of free will--it confirms our biases. Considering that thoughts happen at a physical level independently from consciousness before they become comprehensible to the mind, it shouldn't be controversial to say that they are automatic processes. What makes this controversial is a strong desire for it to be untrue. It is evidence against free will.

"Meaning" is the wrong word--purpose, which suggests merely utility, is more accurate. Again, that one has "no reason to care about shallow thinking" doesn't make a thing true or untrue, but it's more likely to skew one's thinking toward a desired result than toward a true result. You continually mentioned in your post that I'm positing falsehoods, but you haven't substantiated this claim.

None of what I said is "juvenile"--to claim that someone's stance or phrasing is "juvenile" in this case only serves to dismiss you from further addressing a topic which you've already expressed an unwillingness to discuss. No one "praised" my comments.

You're not juvenile because of your beliefs, you are juvenile because instead of just ignoring a thread that you didn't like, you replied with an edgy rant.

"Morality" is a subjective extrapolation of base survival instinct, and it has been crafted throughout history in such a way as to categorize humans separately from other animals because humans don't understand the purpose of consciousness and because consciousness fears mindlessness as much as it fears death. — whollyrolling

So you're not positing falsehoods but you feel it's fair to say the primary objective for humans in "crafting their morality" is to provide evidence for categorical separation from animals because (all humans) don't understand the purpose of consciousness? First of all, that's an interpretation and it's clearly not the stated aim of the people living in any period of history. Secondly, it's an incredibly baseless interpretation, now you might not mind that but think back to your criticism of OP, it doesn't make sense.

As for free will, I don't like discussing it with people who think it doesn't exist. It's a silly view.

Actually discussing anything with people who confuse interpretations with facts is unappealing. Preaching for self-awareness from someone who denies free will might be pointless but you are literally talking here of an interpretation of the meaning or purpose, your choice, being for the human race to spread bacteria across space as something that can be true/false.

I don't want to go back and forth on this, I don't need any justification to stop talking to you, there's no face to save here and even if there was, I wouldn't be worried. You want to debate free will and morality then go make a thread, such threads are always popular.

You're misconstruing my post again, and yours is so poorly written that I'm unclear what you're attempting to communicate. This thread is about the "meaning of life", which appears in its title. Free will is directly related to intrinsic meaning. As you wisely stated though, we don't have exactly the same view, so there's nothing to be gained from this conversation.

You're misconstruing my post again, and yours is so poorly written that I'm unclear what you're attempting to communicate — whollyrolling

Spare me.

Darwin's discovery of evolution — Chris Liu

So every life should strive for ever better form of continuation in order to achieve the goal of perdure, forever. That's the only meaning of life, if any. — Chris Liu

What philosophical tradition these thoughts are related or belongs to?
Has anyone proposed similar ideas to the public? Who if yes?
What flaws do you see in this essay? — Chris Liu

Broadly speaking, as pointed out, what you are trying to do is to deduce the meaning of life from a description of its natural history and dynamics - an ought from an is. Hume argued persuasively that the is-ought gap is unbridgeable (this is sometimes referred to as Hume's law), and his argument has impressed many since, but not everyone. Some, like the pop-philosopher Sam Harris, simply don't know better, but as naturalistic philosophy has become more popular in the latter half of the 20th century there have been conscious attempts at eroding the walls between nature and those domains that have traditionally been thought to be separate: epistemology and axiology (value and ethics) - and, for that matter, eroding the walls between epistemology and axiology as well.

If you want to learn more about this, look into naturalized epistemology and ethics.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Based on my knowledge of Hume's is-ought problem and the Naturalistic Fallacy, I think what I'm trying to do here is to respond the is-ought problem by deriving an ought from the fact that the universe tends to keep those who try the best to continue than those who don't.

Here is how:
There are those who don't try the best. It's OK to them and the universe. However, only those who do will be left in the universe in the long run. In other words, it's an objective moral goal of the lives in the universe ("ought") enforced by natural selection, which is a fact ("is"). Thus, from this point, the "ought" realm is bridged to the "is" realm.

Don't know if anyone has proposed a similar thing.

What is the meaning of them and what should they do to fulfill that? This question is important since it guides everyone's everyday behavior. — Chris Liu

But what if the answer to your question is that there is no meaning or purpose in life, other than that which you bring with you, or otherwise acquire. It's all up to you? There is no guide to everyday behaviour that you can lean on.... :chin:

"ain't no mercy, got that purple lambourghini lurkin'/don't you know that p***y worth it?"

--Rick Ross

In other words, it's an objective moral goal of the universe ("ought") enforced by natural selection, which is a fact ("is"). Thus, from this point, the "ought" realm is bridged to the "is" realm. — Chris Liu

You say "in other words," but what you write then in no way follows from what came before. First, you make this bizarre attribution of moral agency to the universe without explaining how the universe could be a moral agent. Second, you do nothing to meet Hume's challenge - you just double down on your assertion that an ought follows from an is. And finally, you still have to make the leap from the alleged moral goal of the universe (?!) to that of an individual person living in that universe.

Sorry about the term "objective moral goal of the universe". Maybe changing it into "objective moral goal of the lives in the universe" could make it clearer?

Interesting to read and yes like me, you also need to work on your writting, but for those who are thinking about your language is just pure >>>>> you can fill in the gap with your own vocabulary.

To me we shouldn't be pinned on a word rather get the idea of a sentence, if you are one of those who are looking for needles in haystack then, hey.....what can we do about that....

To me there is much more meaning to life just to breath. Breathing and similarly others are just conditions. Living and being alive and life itself is knowledge, the more you have the better person you are and the less you have the more troubles you will face. Educating oneself is a good way to earn appreciation not only for yourself but for those who are interacting with you. We can all start discussions on things that we think are correct or have an idea about it, but topics like "Meaning of Life" will have 7 billions meaning or equal to the world population whatever that is now. If you ask a new born baby, he/she will have also a definition to the meaning of life if they could speak. But if you are answering the meaning of life with just its conditions then to me you are making the question more problematic.

Each living being dies, and that's a fundamental discontinuity in life. Evolution, which is a changing of the existing forms of life, as time passes, is dependent on this fundamental discontinuity. So your assumption of continuity is discordant with this fundamental principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Continuation" in the essay does not mean continuation of an individual. It means the continuation of "forms of continuation" (e.g. a sexually reproducing species) as a whole.

The word "continuation" may be confusing. I just can not find a better word.

Thank you. I think I'll continue attacking on the problem of objective moral goal. Though I may fail, I'll try my best, since I feel that I thought something and if the objective moral goal exists it could prevent us from lost in the world that is changing faster and faster.

Agree, the world with its ideas in place or going to be in placed are so vast that computers fail to full incorporate. Minds should not be used as memory drives as they have been used so far, instead use them as machines to enhance ones knowledge......

Your question is not the meaning of life, but the meaning of being. — Herve

That's true.

The meaning of life is meaningless...

It can all be summed up into one word: death.

The meaning of being is eternity. When you say "I am", you mean you are eternal. When you say "I live", you mean that you are not dead. So the question is what will stay when your life will be over? You can think it is important, maybe Tutankhamun or Aristotle thought it was important, or that it is not because something will stay anyway. What will stay always come from what you have done. So "to be" is to do what you know to do and you can do it only when you live.

I think, concerning the meaning of life, becoming is more fundamental than being.

Correct me if i'm quoting you wrong but i do not believe evolution excludes god or gods. — christian2017

Evolution does not excludes god or gods. It excludes gods from the account of life's meaning.

But what if the answer to your question is that there is no meaning or purpose in life, other than that which you bring with you, or otherwise acquire. It's all up to you? There is no guide to everyday behaviour that you can lean on.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

That's true. If that is the case, it would be more difficult for more people to reach agreement on some topics to unite these people and generate more power and we probably would resort to inherited psychological mechanisms which was developed for the primitive times.