I can feel the condescension from here. — Thorongil

:)

I think my post answers these questions. I don't know what you want me to say. — Thorongil

Where do you think it answers my first question of how you think you know that life has such an end or goal towards which life strives? Obviously I saw you state that all living things strive for permanent satisfaction, but that doesn't answer my question. Nor can I see an answer for my question of why you think that it can only be described negatively; and I don't think that that's because I'm just missing it, I think that it's because it isn't there.

The following questions were just clarificatory. I was seeking confirmation that I had understood your meaning.

If this were true, then I wouldn't expect to see you desiring (in the sense of becoming attached to) anything at all. Nor would I see animals doing so. — Thorongil

But that is nonsense. As in, that simply makes no sense. We don't need to strive for permanent satisfaction in order to desire or become attached to things. In fact, a great number of us - perhaps most - do not desire permanent satisfaction, yet we nevertheless desire and become attached to things, so that disproves your theory.

And again, your presumed knowledge, especially regarding nonhuman animals, is highly questionable.

It's a hypothetical imperative (as all imperatives are, contra Kant), which therefore takes the form, if X, then Y. If you don't care about X, that's fine. — Thorongil

Okay, so one must renounce the desire for satisfaction itself in order to... what? Achieve permanent satisfaction? But that is not possible, so that would necessarily fail.

You give life the meaning

Yes, in the sense of mortality.

The most basic facts I know about myself are: I exist, and I like to be happy.

Being in existence does not require any effort on my part, but being happy does.

To me, making myself happy is the only purpose of life. The dilemma comes from trying to define happiness and identifying the means to achieve it.

Gratification makes my body happy. But if totally selfish behavior can make one happy then why did Sadam Hussein lived in constant fear for life? what is the part the giving plays in the equation of happiness? Why a mother of an infant is extremely happy, even when she is living a horribly uncomfortable life to make the child happy?

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

A priori it makes sense. A posteriori it doesn't.

For me, the meaning of life is evident from observation of life from the moment of birth, that is life is endlessly exploring, creating, and learning for it's own fulfillment. In the process it will feel and encounter many emotions that are guides in the process.

It's possible that life has several meanings.

Life is not a means to some other end.

Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one, both of you. — Doc Brown, Back to the Future 3

Any definition has to be based on the available facts. The process of defining the purpose of life has to start with most basic facts available to us. The only definite facts available to us are that I am, and I like to be happy. All other perceptions can be questioned.

The next step is what can make me happy? Our mind is an ocean of desires, with cross currents. I want to eat when I am hungry. But at the same time I see that my child is hungry, and there is very little food available. I choose to give it to my child. Life is full of such conflicts between gratification and self-giving desires. Making correct decisions causes the least amount pain for me. Spur of the moment emotions make us take wrong decisions. To follow my integrated mind gains me the most. This builds our character. Our character decides whether we move to greener pastures in life or to dry land. An angry person creates an angry world for himself, and the world created by a caring person cares for him.

Following my integrated mind (calm heart) seems to the only purpose of life.