An answer to the question, what is the meaning or purpose in my life? Is a person's life cannot have meaning or purpose independent of the species or race of which they are a member. So their purpose and meaning is equivalent to the purpose or meaning of the species or race as a whole. The purpose and meaning of the race as a whole is,
"that the answer is for humanity to secure its long term survival with a healthy social culture, which manages the planetary resources sustainably and cares for and maintains the biosphere." — Punshhh
It means I think the purpose of life is to learn to feel ever more subtly and deeply. — John
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. How could there be a "huge debate" over whether the brain gives rise to consciousness when we don't have one single case of a person without a brain being conscious, and when every person with a perfectly functioning brain are conscious. — Harry Hindu
It is you who believe in fairy tales of "spirits" and the "supernatural" (theories that can't be falsified) having the same explanatory power that scientific theories (theories that can be falsified) have. If there were a fire-breathing dragon in Ukraine, you and I could both prove or disprove it by going there and finding evidence of it's existence if not see it directly. That would be a falsifiable claim. Theories about the existence of some supernatural domain aren't. — Harry Hindu
If you are saying that you are more than your body, then the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, not mine. — Harry Hindu
Right, but what's the point of questioning the meaning of 'good' in a discussion on whether purpose is necessary or sufficient for a good life? — jkop
I was saying that purpose can not be happiness or pleasure.
— intrapersona
I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, because that seems like a trivial point. Apples can't be bananas and circles can't be squares.
My counterpoint would be that seeking to attain happiness or pleasure can be a purpose. — Sapientia
So you don't believe a more fulfilling life is better than a less fulfilling life? — John
And no, I haven't just told you that. I addressed your OP, as you encouraged me to do, and I have countered several of your points. — Sapientia
You made a false analogy, and I said as much. If your conclusion that it's absurd depends upon this false analogy, then that's good reason to reject your argument.
Can we drop this jargon of "extensions of human experience"? How about simply seeking pleasure or contentedness or happiness, for example? Why the heck would that be absurd? (And don't give me some rubbish about your pinky toe). — Sapientia
I very much doubt that most Buddhist monks, most of the time, have nothing at all to live for. They meditate for a reason, don't they? — Sapientia
That is just saying our purpose is to going on towards going on towards going on at the same time caring for our biosphere.
yes, this is what I was pointing out in my post when I categorised purpose into two kinds. This is the second category, as I wrote it;There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out). Yet you are all seeming to disregard this.
I don't really know what you are saying, I never saw a distinct classification of purposes. Nor do I see what the illusion of agency has anything to do with it. SOrry.
There is no "if" about it. There are known medical cases of hydranencephaly. Most of the brain never forms and 90% of babies self-abort when this is the case. If they make it out of the womb they die within a few years even with all the help and medical support they get and is required just to keep them alive that long. So imagine what it would be like if they didn't have any brain at all.That fact seems to go in my favor, for if there is no one without a brain at all how can they say what it is like to not have a brain and be dead? — intrapersona
LOL. You're giving me a link to a philosophy thread. How about a link to a scientific thread that shows that it is still under debate. Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking.If you dob't think there is debate about what consciousness is and if it is synonymous with brain states you can read this thread and if you are right you will find that everyone shares the same opinion to you, if you are wrong you will find that I am right in that there is a debate about such things. I just created it for you to blabber mouth your unvalidated opinion in — intrapersona
Yep. I'm wasting my time.It lies on both of our shoulders if we want to assert anything beyond what we see in the physical world. Just because they don't come back doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere else, you can't claim that. All you can claim is that they are no longer in the physical world, whatever the physical world even fricken is! which you don't know either! — intrapersona
So you say... yet by your own admission, a justification hasn't been found and is, by the plurality of truths of the living, impossible. (e.g it makes no more sense to say I live for happiness than it does my little toe). — TheWillowOfDarkness
It is not a trivial point because if you ask anyone on the street what their purpose of life is they will claim it to be pleasure: my wife, my kids, food, enjoying my work, my hobbies etc. etc. etc. — intrapersona
Happiness can be a purpose as in it can be a goal but a goal is not the same thing as a life purpose. If I have a goal to peel 50,000 apples wouldn't it be ridiculous to claim it as the sole reason for my existence? — intrapersona
Likewise it is ridiculous to claim the sole reason of your existence to seek happiness. — intrapersona
There are small/weak purposes like instinct and mowing the lawn and then there are grandiose purpose like why humans even exist at all. It is absurd and foolish to claim small/weak purposes as grandiose ones (which is what my OP pointed out) — intrapersona
Is "several" a hyperbole? Because I only made 2 points in my OP and I don't ever remember being told how they were flawed in truth (of which I would like). — intrapersona
You claim it is false but don't provide any reasoning as to why. — intrapersona
No. — intrapersona
It is by NOT wanting to attain, achieve that they find their success, their "nirvana". It comes when they give up completely. They enter in to deep portions of the human psyche well beyond what you and I experience and are able to do things like set themselves on fire and not flinch a muscle. — intrapersona
Vanity is excessive pride. What's excessive about it?its wrong because It is vain — intrapersona
There's no such thing as objective achievement?and illusory — intrapersona
It's hard to know how I would feel in such a circumstance because I've never been in one but it's possible that I feel neither happy nor sad ( about that particular thing). And I could still compare myself to a previous state.But just think about if you had no one else to compare yourself to, and it was only you in existence? Of which standards would you set yourself up against? How would you know if you did well and could therefore be proud of yourself? It seems you NEED others to feel good about yourself, just not directly need them to see how good you are as you say, — intrapersona
If there is still experiences after "death" then there was no death. You are still alive and having experiences. How would you even know you "died"? What would death mean if you continue to exist? What use would a body have?That fact seems to go in my favor, for if there is no one without a brain at all how can they say what it is like to not have a brain and be dead? Therefore, how can you claim what death is like? Which you seem to do. — intrapersona
Would you also call the effiel tower part of you because it inhabits the same material you are made from? Or shares the atmosphere around you? — intrapersona
That which you can not control in your mind is not you, that which IS you is that which you are aware of and in control of. YOU don't beat your heart, your brain does it for you. YOU don't flinch at the faintist hint of harm but your brain does. catch my drift? — intrapersona
That suggests then that you are complacent with your experience of the world and what you know of it. — intrapersona
So you are saying our existence is ultimately absurd and we just give ourselves small purposes to take our mind of that fact. There could never be an ultimate goal because it is absurd. Where is your proof that there isn't a cosmic/universal purpose though? For all we know, there could be. — intrapersona
That suggests that all other animals have consciousness, since they display signs of fear (neurologically too) — intrapersona
But you are conflating the two categories which results in the confusion. As I said, in order to consider the purpose of the agency, or process resulting in the existence of the existence we find ourselves in, we can only coherently address it in reference to that agency, or process. But unfortunately we can't do this because we are in ignorance of what, or who it is. End of story. — Punshhh
"The illusion of agency" is an unwarranted assumption. Determinism hasn't been proved to be the case, it is merely speculation. — Punshhh
So, do you agree that purpose is generated by agency and that there is no purpose in the absence of agency? — Punshhh
Yes, I see this, but in terms or agency this is irrelevant, we can be unconscious agents and still have agency. For example by consciously planning a strategy and practicing and learning it repeatedly, leading to it being undertaken unconsciously at a later time. Also agency doesn't require "free will", I suggest that all cellular and multi-cellular organisms have agency and most of them don't have "free will".I wouldn't call the libet experiment "speculation". It indicates our actions are driven by unconscious decisions and that we percieve them as conscious by mistake.
I understand what Willow is saying here, however I think that it is more a comment about having a respect and a sense of reverence for the living of life in the here and now, as opposed to ignoring the present in favour of some imagined future moment. I don't think it is actually a commenting on purpose itself.There could be purpose both ways. If it was created by agency then it would be akin to what willowofdarkness says "To think in terms of living for a purpose is to consider life meaningless. As if life was nothing, with meaning only to be found in escaping it to some notion of purpose."
Yes, I see this, but in terms or agency this is irrelevant, we can be unconscious agents and still have agency. — Punshhh
I suggest that all cellular and multi-cellular organisms have agency and most of them don't have "free will".By agency I mean a self organising system which develops a complex strategic action as a response to the environment. — Punshhh
I understand what Willow is saying here, however I think that it is more a comment about having a respect and a sense of reverence for the living of life in the here and now, as opposed to ignoring the present in favour of some imagined future moment. I don't think it is actually a commenting on purpose itself. — Punshhh
But as I said, I don't think we can know the purpose in the absence of a knowledge of the purposes entertained by the agency which brought us into existence to begin with. — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.