When you say "the meaning of life is peace", do you really mean "what I want in life is peace"? I think it could be argued that life is detrimental to peace.

I think it could be argued that life is detrimental to peace. — jajsfaye

Is or can be?

I think to live in peace, or with peace, is a life where you have no debts, where your income is greater than your expenses, where you can eat as much as you want or need, where you know your future is secure.

But does that make you happy? Eating, counting your money, and relaxing?

I think you need diversions that keep your interest. Peace alone is very, very boring. It is a prerequisite to happiness, but alone, peace is boring. You need some spice: drama, if not in your life, then watching it on tv, reading it in a book, or gossipping about it with the neighbours (in a good sense); you need to dance and sing when elated, and curse smash thing around when frustrated, and make furious love (even just to yourself, if no partner) when aroused.

And most importantly you need to make sense of all this; ponder the little and big things in life, have some "alone time" to think, and sort and analyze and organize your thoughts. Some call it meditation, (it's not the transcendental kind, but the everyman's kind), some call it introspection, some call it philosophy.

It is good to have the solid ground felt under your feet, and it is good to feel the pain and hear the floor creak and the cricket crick; but if that's all you do day in and day out, it's gonna get pretty mundane, and you'll yearn for an escape.

The meaning of life is peace — PhilCF

Here we go. No, it's 42.

No. The meaning of life is peace. Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it.

This is just a complete load of rubbish.

Peace is eternal. You're judging it through the lens of Capitalism. Which is fleeting.

At the words "peace is boring" any sane man just stops reading... As did I.

Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil - Plato
There is only one good, education. And one evil, ignorance - His teacher... Socrates

No. The meaning of life is peace. — PhilCF

No, it's 42.

Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it. — PhilCF

Could you supply a quote of this confirmation?

Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it. — PhilCF

1. So whom are those major religious texts interpreted by? If not by men and / or women, children. Those parts of religious texts that are interpreted by Godzilla, The Loc Ness Monster, and Bigfoot confirm your claim. I like that.

2. Or you mean the parts that do not need interpretation? Then are you talking about the entire text, or about select parts of it?

3. I have a strong suspicion your argument falls in the category of fallacies called "appeal to authority". Plus you refer to an alleged text without the support of actual quotes.

4. If I accepted your argument on the basis of 3, then you'd necessarily need to accept my argument that peace is not happiness, or it does not lead to happiness, and every major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it.

5. Your argument (as per 3.) and mine, expressed in four, share the simple force of referring to nothing in particular, while claiming it exists.

6. You can win this argument (i.e. that my reference is not as valid as yours) easily if you show the particular texts you have had in mind when you said what I quoted by you while at the same time I can't show you my references of my claim.

Peace is eternal. — PhilCF

So is hell.

Therefore eternality is not an argument for meaning of life.

Plus life ends at one point. What do I do with the eternal peace that is left over after my life ends?

Me

you cannot control what isn't real — PhilCF

I can't control what is not real, or what is real.

Can you?

Can you control the situation in the Middle East, which is real?

Can you control climate change, which is real?

Can you control the problems borne by the population explosion?

You can control to realize where you are and to feel the ground under you. That is a control everyone should admire? Or aim at? It is precious little control. If everyone had the same control, can you envision what the world would be like? Or let's say, the good guys had no more control than what you advise, but the bad guys had guns, control lives, drive us (good guys) into slavery, rape our children, etc. etc. Take our food, our clothes, our shelters... but hey, you have the ground under you, which gives your life meaning.

If it does, good for you. I don't have any problems with that. If that's all you need to get a meaning of life, then I'm all for you to pursue that lifestyle.

1 - The original texts are the word of God. When they are then taken and used to create contemptible and abhorrent structures of control - that's the work of man.

2 - The entire texts with no additions or addendums.

3 -

on your argument falls in the category of fallacies called "appeal to authority". Plus you refer to an alleged text without — god must be atheist

You're being pedantic and trying to be clever. When you're enlightened you don't need to quote. Did Einstein quote a load of scientific bods when he upended physics with relativity? No sources - he saw a truth. And he spoke his truth.

4 - I don't accept 3, which is why your 4th point is nonsense.

5 - You're 4th and 5th points are built on a foundation of sand.

6 - I don't even know what we are talking about here.

Stop the pedantic nonsense... Stop focussing on trying to win arguments with gotcha bullet points. Philosophy is a love of wisdom, which is to say it is the pursuit of truth. You've just had the truth ripped in front of your face and you can't see it. What standard of Philosopher does that make you?

I am enlightened... With the greatest respect, you don't know what you don't know... Ask Socrates, he knew that he knew nothing, and he was leagues above this forum.

You're a religious text, major?

W

The meaning of life is peace, and the only way to attain it is to be present in every moment... every second. You look forward and feel anxiety because you cannot control what isn't real. The past is equally mythical, and yet you look back and feel shame.

It is technically not possible to be anywhere else other than the present - if one means to say pay attention to the immediate present, this would probably be the same as *not* living in ones mind which can recall past impressions and/or imagine future ones. Besides, the past and future reside as a part of the present. Past, present and future are not three separate things, they are all one.

You tear yourself to pieces over 2 falsehoods, and in doing so you inhibit your ability to live in the present moment. This is the only place where you can find true peace, and therefore live in accordance with your soul and God.

I find peace naturally is the default state of being - one must at least be peaceful by their own nature to start making their own immediate surroundings more peaceful, including as an example unto others. It is the ones who "believe" that peace needs to be enforced externally in accordance with a "belief"-based ideology who are the barriers to true peace, despite calling themselves the purveyors of such.

I'll insert here again: "belief" is the agency required for people to "believe" that what is, actually is not, and what is not, actually is. In this case, it takes a "believer" to "believe" war is peace. This is precisely the nature of the "believers" - always inverting everything. "Belief" is the agency required to invert anything, hence why so-called Satan *requires* "belief". If Satan requires "belief", what "God" would use the same agency as Satan for "believers" to... know God? Isn't knowing (of) God better?

I find the true basis of peace in understanding (not "belief") such that one is no longer polarized and/or "set off" by anything they do not... understand.

Every single time you have a wobble, bring yourself back to the now. What are you doing? Where are you standing? Feel the ground under your feet, and the air in your lungs. There is beauty inside a prison cell, and solace within pain.

Be present and you will find peace.

It works the other way too:

Be peaceful and you will find the present.

This forum is impossible... it's a load of guys trying to be more pedantic than the next.

I gotcha. I gotcha.

It's just an ego-fest. And the ego is blinding.

And your closing sentence is completely wrong. It is when you are truly present that you find peace. Not the other way around.

This forum is impossible... it's a load of guys trying to be more pedantic than the next.

It's just an ego-fest. And the ego is blinding.

And your closing sentence is completely wrong. It is when you are truly present that you find peace. Not the other way around.

Not intending to be mean, but I feel you are describing yourself here, given you are accusing others of being "pedantic" while attempting to correct another over an arbitrary statement.

Enmity leads to projection: it is like a mark that can be seen. It applies to people who have not themselves found peace and thus accuse others for/of their own internal 'state' of being.

Be peaceful and you will find the present. Presently, you are projecting and I think you would understand this if you were in peace. Whatever lens ones own eye has will be seen in/as others, and enmity is the trigger which reveals whatever this lens is.

On a separate but related to OP note, life has no intrinsic meaning. I find one can either choose to become something greater than they presently are, or suffer themselves while blaming others. It seems a lot choose the latter, but they don't understand they are doing it.

I am enlightened... — PhilCF

You are a joke, pal. No one here will take you seriously, so best cut your losses.

I think you'd have a hard time being more off base.

I am enlightened, meaning I see the truth, and on this forum and this thread, I speak the truth, and you're coming back with pseudo philosophical BS. How can I be egoic if I am enlightened? If you want to question the veracity of this claim, call me out on a post and let's talk.

Philosophy is a noble pursuit. It's so sad to see that a forum with this name is really just a bunch of men trying to outdo each other. Side stepping incisive statements of truth to try to score a point.

And when Socrates knew that he knew nothing, we get you making this preposterous claim: "life has no intrinsic meaning. I find one can either choose to become something greater than they presently are, or suffer themselves while blaming others. It seems a lot choose the latter, but they don't understand they are doing it." Can you please explain to me how you managed to gain a greater insight than the great Socrates?

You can slander me all you like.

"The tragedy isn't when children are afraid of the dark, but when adults are afraid of the light."

Well, this isn't a forum for preaching nonsense, so it's probably not for you.

I actually disagree with your statement that it is when you are truly present that you find peace. It's the exact opposite for me. It is when I am truly absent that I find peace, like when I play some chilled out music and escape.

You can slander me all you like. — PhilCF

But it's true that no one here will take you seriously when you say the kind of things that you've been saying. What you're saying isn't philosophy, it's crackpottery, oh enlightened one.

Every single major religious text that is not interpreted by man confirms it. — PhilCF

What religious texts are not interpreted by man? And if there is one and you've read it, how did you avoid interpreting it?

1 - The original texts are the word of God. When they are then taken and used to create contemptible and abhorrent structures of control - that's the work of man. — PhilCF

The various religious texts have quite different messages. In fact within these texts the messages are different, let along what believing in the Upanishads vs. the NT vs. the KOran leads to.

I am enlightened,

Clearly, you are not. An enlightened being doesn't claim they are enlightened and/or wear it as a badge - that's rather a way to tell one is not enlightened.

meaning I see the truth,

Clearly, you do not. I pointed it to you: you are projecting your own nature as if owing to others. This is the same thing as the "Biblical" mark of Cain: to till from ones own soil. Do not till from your own soil, dump it on others and then call them nothing but soil mounds.

and on this forum and this thread, I speak the truth,

Clearly, this is what you "believe". Some "beliefs" are rotten to the core. It has to do with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you eat, you are marked for death. There is another tree entirely whose fruits are ever-yielding and do not run the risk of being spoiled. I imagine this is the tree you are looking for: nothing but truths, truths and more truths.

and you're coming back with pseudo philosophical BS.

Could this be projection?

How can I be egoic if I am enlightened? If you want to question the veracity of this claim, call me out on a post and let's talk.

You can claim to be enlightened while not actually being enlightened. That is a thing.

Philosophy is a noble pursuit. It's so sad to see that a forum with this name is really just a bunch of men trying to outdo each other. Side stepping incisive statements of truth to try to score a point.

It's definitely present, but that is what the conscience is for. Rather than reacting, just filter out what is not needed. I myself find there are plenty of people on here I would thoroughly enjoy having a discussion with. I prefer people who disagree with me, and can do so without throwing a tantrum, because I think contrasting views can yield much in the way of pushing boundaries. I don't like boundaries.

And when Socrates knew that he knew nothing, we get you making this preposterous claim: "life has no intrinsic meaning. I find one can either choose to become something greater than they presently are, or suffer themselves while blaming others. It seems a lot choose the latter, but they don't understand they are doing it." Can you please explain to me how you managed to gain a greater insight than the great Socrates?

Well first, knowing that one knows not is in my name - a gnostic (what I know, I know) agnostic (what I do not know, I do not know). Knowing one knows not is the condition necessary to "know" anything, which is not particularly wise, only humble.

An example of the inverse of this would be a person claiming to be "enlightened" while accusing others of what they are themselves doing.

By the way, just the Torah alone has 4 independent source authors: J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor) thus, unfortunately, is not only "interpreted" by man... it is written and compiled by man. This might be a place to start with regards to your "enlightenment" by knowing what the Bible actually is and where it came from.

If you would like to discuss the book of Genesis, I have read it in Hebrew as I have spent much time learning the 'form' which gives rise to the 22 Hebrew letters. When viewed from 22 different angles, the 22 letters are derived such that a passage is actually a physical form which rotates from position to position.

I am enlightened, meaning I see the truth, and on this forum and this thread, I speak the truth, and you're coming back with pseudo philosophical BS. How can I be egoic if I am enlightened? If you want to question the veracity of this claim, call me out on a post and let's talk. — PhilCF

At least you're not engaging in the "ego-fest."

Philosophy is a noble pursuit. It's so sad to see that a forum with this name is really just a bunch of men trying to outdo each other. — PhilCF

There are women on the forum as well. I am not consumed by competitiveness. I love the rational and polite exchange of ideas and the entire process of two or more individuals attempting to come to an understanding of each other, and thus to a broader perspective on their own ideas.

This forum is no exception as far as aggression, one-upmanship, insecurity, and plain meanness go. Trolling has become the rule rather than the exception for many people online.

Trolling has become the rule rather than the exception for many people online. — uncanni

This should just be the slogan of all forums and comment sections. Instead of engaging in a respectful way, it is easy to simply antagonize and patronize for a lot of people who use these forums. People haven't learned how to disagree in a thoughtful manner. Thoughtful to them equates to patronizing. When I engage in it, it is usually because patronizing and antagonizing language is the only one they speak, so apparently that is how they listen.

Seriously, this makes me so sad: there is very little affection and joy going on here. When I first came here, a little over three weeks ago, I felt like I'd been thrust back into the most hostile, competetive grad school environment that one could imagine.

I seek intellectual generosity and inquiry. Everyone here should realize that this kind of correspondence requires a sustained effort and strong concentration skills to stay focused and really get our points across to each other. It's as if we are engaged in writing a kind of essay together, in creating something that reveals to all of us that we know and understand a little bit more than we did an hour or two ago.

Fortunately, trolling isn't a contagious disease, although it does weary one...

Yep this forum, even in it's original incarnation was never one that promoted healthy exchange. It's as if people here equate dbaggery with superior argumentation. There are exceptions but mainly demeaning antagonism is the norm sadly. People haven't grown from their college or grad pretentions perhaps. Dont know. That being said, this forums format and varying topics, along with some very good posts makes this better than others in the realm of philosophy.

was never one that promoted healthy exchange — schopenhauer1

That is a sad statement, indeed. The moderators, in allowing the tone to be set in such a way, perpetuate the kind of academic cruelty that never should be allowed. I'm an academician and I've seen more than my share of pathetic Ph.Ds try to compensate for their sense of worthlessness or low self esteem by acting sadistically towards others.

I just posted a new topic on Bakhtin's concept of dialogism; I'll be interested to know what you think.

I'm not letting a few warty, bilious, infantile trolls chase me away. I just wish they would play nice.