Well, even someone saying 'Is everything futile?' has its own self-refuting consequence, when it causes you to bring it to the debating table, doesn't it?

Well, even someone saying 'Is everything futile?' has its own self-refuting consequence, when it causes you to bring it to the debating table, doesn't it? — mcdoodle

Not if everything actually is futile, because then it would be futile to ask "is it all futile?"

You'd answer yes if you don't find anything useful and you don't believe that anything has a point.

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No."

Futile relative to what?

Suppose I decide to pursue one of two goals.
To spin gold from straw
Or
To get a glass of water from the tap

Obviously one of these goals is less futile than the other.

The Borg is a just a commune of analytical philosophers. Resistance is futile.

Was this a serious proposal ("Everything is futile.") or more along the lines of sarcasm ("Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.")?

The author of Ecclesiastes thought everything was pretty much futile, and he was being quite serious, as far as I can tell.

I think it's helpful to recognize that whether you think life is "futile" or not, any response to the question is fundamentally a belief. Whether you come to a conclusion through a series of propositions, or through an experience, an emotional response, or whatever it is, we never apprehend a full knowledge of whether life has purpose. We momentarily forget the exact propositions, the experience fades, the emotions go back and forth, etc. Belief is the gap between the idea and our consciousness. I think it's good to recognize this in the climate of thought we live in, at least in the West.

if everything actually is futile, ... then it would be futile to ask "is it all futile?" — intrapersona

So the question is not genuine.

You'd answer yes if you don't find anything useful and you don't believe that anything has a point.

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No." — Terrapin Station

That is like saying:

"You'd answer yes if you think God exists

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No, god doesn't exist.""

Futile relative to what?

Suppose I decide to pursue one of two goals.
To spin gold from straw
Or
To get a glass of water from the tap

Obviously one of these goals is less futile than the other. — m-theory

So then futility is just about purposes and uses of things like turning on the tap = hydration = useful for survival.

I guess if someone says "is everything futile?" they are talking about the whole of human life in the universe and whether it amounts to anything? So you ask relative to what? Relative to the situation where human life is meaningful or valuable in a purposive sense.

So if I paraphrase to help you understand what you should of implicitly understood already. Is human life like trying to spin gold from straw? or is it like trying to get a glass of water from a tap?

Was this a serious proposal ("Everything is futile.") or more along the lines of sarcasm ("Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.")?

The author of Ecclesiastes thought everything was pretty much futile, and he was being quite serious, as far as I can tell. — Bitter Crank

Yes and I don't think I can refute ecclesiastes in the smallest, but this was a passing comment made in seriousness that led from sarcasm.

Say you put effort in to life and got something out of it, is not what you get out of it futile still? IE all our pleasures etc? How do you define what futility is here as m-theory was saying, what is the actual reference point?

That is not my issue though, just because some people find no teleological purpose that justifies their own existence, this does not mean that it is futile for me to form and realize my own goals for my own existence.

I don't feel any obligation to justify my own existence, or human existence, or the entirety of all existence.
At least not to anyone but myself.

Just because I don't justify these things to you does not mean I lead a futile life, for it is not for you to judge my life's futility or fruitfulness for me.

Perhaps your's is a fate of futility, but I am content that mine is not.

I think it's helpful to recognize that whether you think life is "futile" or not, any response to the question is fundamentally a belief. Whether you come to a conclusion through a series of propositions, or through an experience, an emotional response, or whatever it is, we never apprehend a full knowledge of whether life has purpose. We momentarily forget the exact propositions, the experience fades, the emotions go back and forth, etc. Belief is the gap between the idea and our consciousness. I think it's good to recognize this in the climate of thought we live in, at least in the West. — Noble Dust

Good point, but I wasn't looking for a belief on whether life has value or not. I was after a philosophical response that may deny the validity of even asking that question in the first place, much like what m-theory said "futile in reference to what".

Philosophy can give us a logical answer that can escape the need for belief. IE Pascals wager: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/826/decisions-we-have-to-make/p1

That is not my issue though, just because some people find no teleological purpose that justifies their own existence, this does not mean that it is futile for me to form and realize my own goals for my own existence.

I don't feel any obligation to justify my own existence, or human existence, or the entirety of all existence.
At least not to anyone but myself.

Just because I don't justify these things to you does not mean I lead a futile life, for it is not for you to judge my life's futility or fruitfulness for me.

Perhaps your's is a fate of futility, but I am content that mine is not. — m-theory

So if I said to you that I don't need to prove to you that I am a pink fairy that looks like a unicorn, what does that give me in assurity that your belief isn't incorrect.

Likewise, if you think your life is not futile because you form and realize your own goals does that make them not futile in an objective sense? All you have is a self-assured belief that your goals give your life value and therefore are not futile.

This isn't about justifying an individual life to others... It is about finding out whether ALL of human life is completely pointless.

If an individual says "my life has value", how are we to know that is true? Just because it is true to him? I am talking about collective value, not the subjective valuation of ones own existence.

This isn't about justifying and individual life to others... It is about finding out whether ALL of human life is completely pointless. — intrapersona

Again relative to what?
Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the value of all of human life?
Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if humanity is worthy pursuit?

If an individual says "my life has value", how are we to know that is true? Just because it is true to him? I am talking about collective value, not the subjective valuation of ones own existence. — intrapersona

Assume it is not true, as long as you are not actively trying to prevent me from being content why should I care what you believe?

Intrapersona

So if I said to you that I don't need to prove to you that I am a pink fairy that looks like a unicorn ... — intrapersona

I sort of assumed you were. I wasn't willing to stoop to saying you looked like a unicorn.

if everything actually is futile, ... then it would be futile to ask "is it all futile?"
— intrapersona
So the question is not genuine. — jkop

The pink fairy needs to attend to this point. If everything is futile, then discussing futility is... futile.

You'd answer yes if you think God exists — intrapersona

To the question of? (Whether God exists?)

I'm giving the definition of "futile." What is "God exists" (or "God") the definition of?

The pink fairy needs to attend to this point. If everything is futile, then discussing futility is... futile. — Bitter Crank

Yes but how do you prove that?

To the question of? (Whether God exists?)

I'm giving the definition of "futile." What is "God exists" (or "God") the definition of? — Terrapin Station

You said

"You'd answer yes if you don't find anything useful and you don't believe that anything has a point.

You'd answer no otherwise.

So "No.""

When you say "so no" are you saying from your perspective or absolutely, that is completely unclear... did you fail to see that?

Isn't "if everything is futile, discussing how futile everything is... is futile" a tautology?

If you say "all men are liars" why should I believe you? there isn't any way out of such statements.

Again relative to what?
Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the value of all of human life?
Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if humanity is worthy pursuit? — m-theory

So when someone says to me "everything is futile really isn't it?" I am meant to say "futile to whom?" because no one can speak for anyone else.

Seems valid but when you think of it, we haven't actually proved that it all is actually NOT futile. All we have said is that saying it is all futile is not a valid claim because worth is determined subjectively by each individual. And to say one person's valuation of existent things are worthless in totality wouldn't be justified.

So we are all just sniffing our butts thinking "this smells lovely" and no one can prove otherwise. Because the moment someone tries to tell you that your butt stinks then you get a hoard of replies saying

"stinky relative to what?"

"Am I to imagine some cosmic being that judges the stinkiness of my butt?"

"Do I take a consensus of the living and ask them to decide if my butt stinks?"

I think you get my point...

Isn't "if everything is futile, discussing how futile everything is... is futile" a tautology?

If you say "all men are liars" why should I believe you? — Bitter Crank

But we don't know for certain that it IS futile yet, so why deny even talking about when it is only a possibility of it being so.

That would be like not flipping a coin to save your life when one side of the coin means certain death. "No coin toss for me please, it has death on one side" even though your are going to die if you don't flip it.

When you say "so no" are you saying from your perspective or absolutely, that is completely unclear... did you fail to see that? — intrapersona

Yes. I failed to see that you were saying that that was unclear to you.

I'm saying from my perspective, and in my view this is necessarily from individuals' perspectives.

I find things useful. I feel there are points to various things.

Yes. I failed to see that you were saying that that was unclear to you.

I'm saying from my perspective, and in my view this is necessarily from individuals' perspectives.

I did things useful. I feel there are points to various things. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I'm a pink fairy and my butt stinks but I can't tell that it does therefore I live life for the smell of my own bumhole.

And maybe you're 13?

And maybe you're 13? — Terrapin Station

No, if you read the thread it actually all adds up to a very pertinent point displaying the knottedness of where the conversation is at this point.

So when someone says to me "everything is futile really isn't it?" I am meant to say "futile to whom?" because no one can speak for anyone else. — intrapersona

That is what I did when I encountered the question, but do as you like.

Seems valid but when you think of it, we haven't actually proved that it all is actually NOT futile. All we have said is that saying it is all futile is not a valid claim because worth is determined subjectively be each individual. And who is to say one person's valuation of existent things are worthless in totality wouldn't be justified. — intrapersona

So let us assume, objectively, that everything is futile.
Why should I care subjectively?
And what does mean if it is an objective fact that I don't care that everything is futile because I am content?

So we are all just sniffing our butts thinking "this smells lovely" and no one can prove otherwise. Because the moment someone tries to tell you that your butt stinks then you get a hoard of replies saying — intrapersona

No one has proven that objectively everything is futile either.
Just because you or friend think this is some pressing dilemma I should be concerned in the offhand chance that it might be true?

You expressed an opinion, "everything is futile" I gave you mine.
You asked a question "have you ever considered the possibility that everything actually is futile" yes I have.
I pointed out that some things are decidedly less futile than other things.

What I intended for you to ask yourself is how futile is it for you to pursue the goal of trying to prove everything is futile?
How important is it for you to realize that goal?
Are there other goals that you have that are equally or more important that are less futile that you can pursue?

I have asked myself these things already.

No — intrapersona

I'd probably be more likely to buy a bridge from you at this point than to believe that denial.

Why should I care subjectively?
And what does mean if it is an objective fact that I don't care that everything is futile because I am content? — m-theory

As long as you acknowledge that you are content with the futility of everything, then it is fine. if you however have fooled yourself into thinking your life has worth or value in some way (butt doesn't stink) then that is a problem and that seems to be what most people are doing, at least unconsciously as a survival instinct incorporated in to rationality as the pursuit of happiness.

Lets say that everything wasn't futile though, would that make their own value systems that they cooked up any more/less valid?

On a further note, there are ways to measure objectivity right? Atom smashers, chemistry experiments, psychological case studies on behaviourism... so why can't we measure futility in the universe? because it seems to be a man-made concept that is derived from THE INABILITY TO PERCEIVE a purpose to the universe or their existence... so if they can't perceive, it does it exist? I don't think so... much in the same way that if you don't see a tree it doesn't exist. Sort of like atheism but for universal purpose, lol. We give life to things by our perception of them. So that is an argument in favor for futility as being objective in some sense, how about in opposition?

I'd probably be more likely to buy a bridge from you at this point than to believe that denial. — Terrapin Station

Just cause you don't have a sense of humour, you nihilist.