Meaning of Life

George Fisher

I’m confused. What is life? Why is life? Where did it come from. Are we special?

Is there a God? What is God? Why is God?

Such questions! Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me? Would it make any difference if I did not exist?

I am an American citizen. Americans are taught from birth that they are unique and special. This dammed “Rugged Individualism”. Where has it gotten us? Oriental societies are more accepting of the idea of being part of the milieu of life.

I will try to offer my humble thoughts on some of these questions.

What is Life?

The biologists have their definition of life which I will not dispute. For most of us life is what is active, eating and reproducing on the earth. Scientists for years have tried to explain the existence of life on earth as just a complex chemical reaction that burst forth from the base elements on the earth. I have a little problem with that explanation. How do you get from a bunch of chemicals to a living reproducing thing that life is. The chemicals involved in life are so complex it is hard to imagine them becoming life by chance. Maybe we are only truly interested in human life.

Most religions attempt to answer the question of human life. Probably the Catholic Church is the best at offering a simple solution. “God Made us to love and serve him”. What the heck does that mean. What could little old me do that would be meaningful to a God? Why would a God want 8 billion of us?

How about in Islam? In Islam, “He created people out of love for the purpose of sharing love. People were created to love God and each other. Additionally, when God created people, he gave them good work to do so that they might experience God's goodness and reflect his image in the way they care for the world and for each other.”1 This sounds a lot like the Christian answer.

What do the Hindus think? “For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself”2. This makes a little more sense. We are just a piece of an infinite God. He did not have to make us for some reason.

My background is in science and mathematics, so I tend to take a systematic approach to these questions. When I look around at the apparent reality that we have, I ask myself what is special? What is unique? To me the one thing that rises above the ordinary interactions of matter is life. Life does not seem to follow the rules of the physical universe. There is something in life that is different. Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.

So, what does this mean? For me life is the part of a God that we can see. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say life is God, but it definitely is a visible expression of a God if such a thing exists. You might even go one step further and say that existence is an expression of God.

So, what is this God? I literally can not know. As a little spec of matter in the universe it is impossible for me to know. It would be like asking one cell in your body, what you are. There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all. Do I have any meaning or responsibility within this milieu?

It is interesting. I just read an article about scientists musing about a new force of nature that drives the existence of life. Entropy would seem to deny life, but this new force can work against entropy and bring about the creation of complex systems that lead to life. Sound a little bit like a God. Heaven forbid that they should use that word.

Obviously, life exists so where do we fit in this collection of living things? We would of course want to say that we are at the top of the evolution of life. We may be. Maybe it is like Teilhard DeJardin says that we are just one step on the evolution of life toward goodness or being with God. Are we really that special. What is unique about man that he should be so special?

Part of answering this last question is, do I have free will? There are scientists out there now who are claiming we do not have free will. They argue that all that I am is determined at birth or by our experiences growing up. Our life is determined. If I am just a creature like a goat or an ant, I should just try to survive and hope I don’t get eaten. If I have a free will, I then have responsibilities. Personally, I do think we have free will withing certain limits. People do on occasion choose courses of action that are outside of their experience. Now I have to ask; “What does it mean to have responsibilities?” Responsibilities to who or what.

This begs the question; do we have a responsibility to the one who created us if there is such a being? This is a tough question. If there is such a being we should consider that question. If there is a God, what do we owe him? Most religions advocate prostrating yourself before him and begging him to forgive us and for him to love us. I suspect this comes from the image of God as a father. As children we are always asking for forgiveness and love from our father. Even though this is common in most religions I have trouble picturing God as a father figure. What God really wants, who knows. If he has in some sense created us then we owe him felty and respect but I don’t know how you love an idea.

Probably one of the most important of these responsibilities is to yourself. I must try to be the best of what I can be. What is the best of me? That is a tough question. If I exist, then I must have some basic attributes that are part of my nature. So, I should behave in accordance with that nature. The catch here is, what is my nature? That has been a question asked for at least the last 10,000 years. Maybe longer. In some sense this is a circular argument. In a way, we are asking again, who made us. I think though that we can offer some observations about who we are without generating too many arguments. We are social animals that depend on one another for our wellbeing. We value honesty, cooperation, charity, intelligence and most of all love. I think we can look at these characteristics and decide if someone is a good person and living according to his/her nature.

Given this; what is a bad person. Well, a bad person is simply someone who fails in one of these characteristics. What should we do with a bad person? Of course, we should try to help him become a good person. Should we condemn him because he/she is bad? If anything, life has taught us that, it is really easy to fail on one of these characteristics. Here is where love comes in. Through love we should help one another rise above each of these failures of character.

Now you are going to say, some people are defective and are not capable of correcting these character flaws. Have they chosen this or has life been determined by their DNA and upbringing to be as they are. Do they have the ability to change. Within our living today I don’t think it is possible to definitively determine their personal responsibility for their behavior. Again, this is where love comes in. If we are not able to correctly judge them we cannot punish them. But we have a responsibility to guide these people into an environment where they are not a danger to themselves or others and if possible, work toward correcting their inherent flaws.

Do we have other responsibilities because of our free will? I think one of those responsibilities is to seek knowledge of the world. Knowledge of the world leads to improvement in the human condition. This knowledge of the world has enabled us to evolve over time and to adapt to all the different environments we encounter. Knowledge of the world has led to a better understanding of the nature of man which then enables us to have these philosophical discussions and live a better life.

Well, where are we? Have I made any progress on the big questions? Probably not. Writing essays like this though does help one to clarify one’s thinking. Are there heaven or hell or grace, I don’t know. Does not understanding any of this make me a bad person? I don’t think so. If one lives a life in accordance with a positive view of human nature I think you are a good person.

1. Northern Arizona University https://www2.nau.edu › bio301 › content › iscrst

2. Bitesize, GCSE CCEA

universeness

Such questions! Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me? Would it make any difference if I did not exist? — George Fisher

There are around 100 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. It is also estimated that there are up to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. So there are probably more planets in the universe than grains of sand on earth. You, as a unique member of a population of 8 billion unique individuals living on this planet, are, on a universal scale, very rare indeed. Also, as far as we know, without a creature such as you, the universe may have no meaning or purpose, other than that which the like of you create. You can even imagineer gods.

Angelo Cannata

You have touched such a lot of the deepest questions that have been faced for thousands of years by all human beings. The specialists in these questions habe been essentially philosophy and religion.
So, first thing first: you are not the first one person in the world raising these questions. People have spent lives, energies, every kind of resources to deal with these questions. Their results can help you a lot, but you cannot understand anything if you want get quick answers: this would be the marketing mentality, of getting things easily, quickly, simply. The problem with this mentality is that it, because of this way of proceeding, says implicitly, and contradictorily, that these questions are not important. I am not saying that this is your mentality: it is just a risk, if you don’t have the patience of dedicating to your questions an appropriate amount of time and study.
After making your list of questions, I would suggest you to put them in order, any order, whatever order seems best to you. Then start from the first one and start doing some research. At the same time, try to organize your familiarity with philosophy, by organizing a path of study of it.
This way you will have taken your questions seriously and you will show yourself continuously that you are taking them seriously.
On the contrary, if you will get randomly distracted by one random question, random discussions, random everything, you will enter the contradiction I referred to: you are giving importance to your questions now, but the way you will end up dealing with them might tell that actually you aren’t.

Ciceronianus

What is life? Why is life? Where did it come from. Are we special?
Is there a God? What is God? Why is God? — George Fisher

Take the advice of Quintus Horatius Flaccus: tu ne quaesieris. There are no answers to these questions as they're intended. Just get on with life as best you can.

schopenhauer1

↪George Fisher

I think "meaning of life" questions become unnecessarily rooted in these historic questions of religion and science. I think when answering this question, just do some self-examination. What is it that you "do" every day? Basically, I think Schopenhauer has characterized it correctly, more-or-less. He basically said that we struggle to just exist. We were born into the world, not of any known prior desire to be born. We then have to deal with this fact. That involves survival in a society, learning the means of gaining enough resources to survive and be a comfortable, and find ways of entertainment. That's about it. Everything else is window dressing. Schopenhauer mentions the idea of Will or "will-to-live". Well, we need not perhaps make it a metaphysical thing. We can keep it at the personal existential level. That is to say, we struggle to fulfill our wants and needs. Boredom or "angst" tells us that we are never generally satisfied or satisfied for very long. The idea of "flourishing" is simply trying to run past the debt that is continually pressing upon us, which is an inherent dissatisfaction of being an animal that is oriented towards fulfilling needs and wants.

Vera Mont

A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning?

George Fisher

↪Angelo Cannata

Thank you very much for your response. I am just beginning on this forum and I appreciate any response I get.
I would guess that you are an academic. My essay was not as a professional philosopher. My intent was to use a device of writing to get nonphilosophers to begin thinking about these questions. I spent nearly forty years in education and I guess my focus has always been to get the student thinking.

I would love to continue sharing ideas about these and other questions.

George Fisher

↪Vera Mont

That is an interesting question. There is no real need to have meaning. From the earliest Greek philosophers to the present, they all seem to be looking for meaning in life and existence. Maybe that is something that has evolved in man as part of his survival strategy. It deserves further discussion.

180 Proof

I’m confused. What is life? — George Fisher

This.

Why is life?

Chance.

Where did [life] come from?

The universe.

Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.

"Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's rarified way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).

Are we special?

Compared to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?

Is there a God?

The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.

What is God?

An empty name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name

Why is God?

It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works on far too many of us.

Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me?

Like the rest of us, George, you are a grain of sand that isn't exactly identical to any other grain of sand on the beach. And you can know this. That's not much but it ain't nothing.

There is a maelstrom of stuff out there. How could I ever hope to grasp the meaning of it all.

You also can't count all the stars in the observable universe and visualize all of their relations relative to one another and hold that image in your mind either. So what. It's absurd (A. Camus, P.W. Zapffe) to desire such an omni-grasp of things. Now what does one do in such a vast, encompassing "maelstrom"? You might take

↪Ciceronianus

' sage counsel for a start ...

Do I have any meaning or ...

I think you do to the degree you strive to make your choices and relationships "meaningful" each and every day.

... responsibility within this milieu?

Like everyone else, George, you are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions and inaction.

Would it make any difference if I did not exist?

To you, it might. From the universe's perspective, well, you don't even "exist", none of us ephemerae "exist". (Read Epicurus, then read Spinoza)

A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning? — Vera Mont

:fire:

Vera Mont

Maybe that is something that has evolved in man as part of his survival strategy. — George Fisher

I don't see how. Crocodiles have survived far longer without ever asking it - afawk... but then, how much do we humans know about crocodile philosophy?
Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle reality into submission.

javra

A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning? — Vera Mont

That is an interesting question. There is no real need to have meaning. — George Fisher

Maybe the boldfaced answer provided could be further elaborated upon but, so far, I can only see this answer as utter hypocrisy. Being sapient, we seek meaning so as to make sense of, and we seek to make sense of so as to improve our own condition of being - if nothing else, so as to better allow us to live, rather than, say, to indifferently perish via rot.

Lesser animals may be sentient but, not being sapient, the quality of their lives is nowhere near as contingent on abstract understanding as our own is.

Absurdism, existentialism, nihilism, all these posit having pinpointed the true nature of reality, or of existence, or of the life which we are (else, are endowed with) - and in all this there is entailed meaning; specifically, meaning regarding reality, existence, life; meaning which endows those who uphold any of these just mentioned positions to better live within the context of the cosmos we find ourselves. Otherwise none of these positions would be in any way sensible to, much less upheld by, anyone.

One will note how none of these three positions just mentioned affirm either "I don't know" or "I don't care".

-------

From a somewhat vulgar sci-fi novel I still greatly like, Venus on the Half-Shell, there is the protagonist's leading question to which he tries to obtain an answer for from various beings within the galaxy:

"Why are we born only to suffer and die?"

The novel ultimately answers this question with:

"Why not?" (which I find might be a more important question to answer for oneself than the first, this were one to care about such issues)

javra

It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce live, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle into submission. — Vera Mont

Not all. Understanding of X does not necessarily equate to control of X. No?

180 Proof

Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle into submission. — Vera Mont

Brilliantly succinct – Wille zur Macht – oh yeah! You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower:

javra

You 'mansplain' that much much better than I ever could, lady! :clap: :cool::flower: — 180 Proof

I can't help but have a good laugh at this. So, you've never encountered a controlling woman then?

Vera Mont

Understanding of X does not necessarily equate to control of X. — javra

"If only" - I didn't say it worked, only that control is the aim.

Vera Mont

↪javra

Note: I also didn't say 'exclusively' - but if you can prove that organized religions and metaphysics are not predominantly masculine in origin, I'll eat a crow. (But you'll have to kill it.)

Ciceronianus

Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. — Vera Mont

Well, we seem especially inclined to whine (sorry, write) about such questions, and in spectacular detail, it's true. But there are men of great wisdom, like Horace of course (and me I would say, but am shy) who accept this and soldier on.

Vera Mont

But there are men of great wisdom, like Horace of course (and me I would say, but am shy) who accept this and soldier on. — Ciceronianus

Yes, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery.

javra

I didn't say it worked, only that control is the aim. — Vera Mont

As in "control over other (to distinguish this from self-control) is the good to be obtained for its own sake"? Aye to that, for far too many. Agreed. But this won't define the motives of all humans. Compassion, wonder, eudemonia, to list a few commonly found attributes of many a human, male and female, are not driven by the aim of gaining control over other (this such that the other is subjugated to the whims of one's own self).

The same I find applies to metaphysics: one's predispositions will greatly determine what one seeks out of it. For instance, to better gain control over all other or, otherwise, to gain a better understanding of what in fact is, this both physically and psychically. (The same, btw, can be said of any form of knowledge, including that which is scientific.) The latter can be appraised as a "love of wisdom" or else "of truth" wherein these are held to be good for their intrinsic worth, maybe here even good for their own sake. The former, however, will view knowledge and understanding as tools to be used for greater ascendancy toward a superlative superiority of one's own self wherein all other is subjugated.

Consider these two different metaphysics for example: nature as evil that needs to be subjugated and conquered vs. nature as sacredness that needs to be honored and conformed to (an example from a song: nature as that which tames the beast within). The first metaphysics is about control-over; the second isn't.

In short, tmk, control is not the aim of all by any means.

Note: I also didn't say 'exclusively' - but if you can prove that organized religions and metaphysics are not predominantly masculine in origin, I'll eat a crow. (But you'll have to kill it.) — Vera Mont

:grin: :razz: Hard to "prove" what was well over two millennia past, but a good deal of evidence points to societies being far more egalitarian in terms of sexes and their interests when addressing at least western culture prior to Abrahamic religion/metaphysics. Everything from women pharaohs supported and admired by the people (we often forget that ancient Egypt is so far the most long-surviving civilization in history by far), to female Druids of cultural and religious importance on a par to male Druids, to many a revered goddess in ancient days (to not address the legend of the ancient Amozons, or of Lesbos, and so forth), to tribal societies and their own spiritual/metaphysical beliefs (such as that of animism and its resulting nature worship - which, btw, I personally can't much distinguish from the basic tenets of today's panpsychism, despite the latter often claiming to be physicalist).

So, if this was the case before, there's no reason other than the status quo of culture that this can't be the case again.

Then there's also such a thing as "feminist metaphysics", this on top of a good enough sum of female philosophers. Outnumbered by males, true, but maybe this in large part has to do with cultural indoctrination and resulting education - on par to what one finds in the sciences and in mathematics. If so, than in parallel to how female authors were once greatly outnumbered by males but no longer are, the same could someday hold for women metaphysicans and philsophers in general.

And, for instance, just because Hypatia of Alexandria was mascaraed by males who'd rather forget all about her does not make her a less worthy philosophical figure in our history.

But hey, in the unlikely case this might eventually come to convince you that religions and metaphysics are not under the primary jurisdiction of males in principle, please let that poor crow be!

Tom Storm

↪George Fisher

Whether you believe in a gods or not probably comes down to personal taste and aesthetics (not to mention enculturation). We then modify our beliefs with the arguments we encounter and find attractive.

I see no use for or good reasons for gods and no good reasons for some transcendent purpose. None of that stuff resonates for me.

I agree with this:

There are no answers to these questions as they're intended. Just get on with life as best you can. — Ciceronianus

And I agree with this:

Why is life?
Chance.

Where did [life] come from?
The universe.

Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
"Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).
Are we special?
Compare to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?

Is there a God?
The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.

What is God?
An empty name.

Why is God?
It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works for far too many of us. — 180 Proof

Meaning is a human construct and is always calibrated against some value system. In other words, the only meaning available to us is the meaning we make for ourselves. In my experience, people who spend significant time fretting over meaning can often miss the big picture which involves getting on with living, making choices, participating, helping others, being of use.

Joseph Campbell (with whom I am not always in agreement) wrote: "Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

I find this more satisfying than meaning attached to a magic man with no explanatory power and some vague or subjective interpretations of an old book which says a thing.

Vera Mont

But this won't define the motives of all humans. — javra

Nor did it aspire to.

Compassion, wonder, eudemonia, to list a few commonly found attributes of many a human, male and female, are not driven by the aim of gaining control over other — javra

And those qualities also don't inspire wrathful gods, vengeful systems of justice or wars of ideology.

(The same, btw, can be said of any form of knowledge, including that which is scientific.) — javra

I'm not sure I could classify the findings of metaphysics as "knowledge of what is", but OK. By what is the quest for this kind of knowledge primarily motivated?

Hard to "prove" what was well over two millennia past, but a good deal of evidence points to societies being far more egalitarian in terms of sexes and their interests when addressing at least western culture prior to Abrahamic religion/metaphysics. — javra

A few pagans in Europe; Lots of unorganized Native Americans - not the Great Civilizations which conquered them.

Everything from women pharaohs supported and admired by the people (we often forget that ancient Egypt is so far the most long-surviving civilization in history by far), — javra

Not a super-convincing example, if you'll look at the depiction. And, of course, being allowed to participate in the rituals is not the same as having invented the gods.

Outnumbered by males, true, but maybe this in large part has to do with cultural indoctrination and resulting education — javra

Which was my contention. Cultural indoctrination is a direct result of the prevailing philosophy.

But hey, in the unlikely case this might eventually come to convince you that religions and metaphysics are not under the primary jurisdiction of males in principle, please let that poor crow be! — javra

Done! My half-facetious summary is not a major tenet of my faith, and I don't eat meat anyway.

Ciceronianus

es, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery. — Vera Mont

"Soldier on" means "to continue to do something or to try to achieve something even though it is difficult" according to Merriam-Webster Online. I'm not sure why, but that's how it was intended.

180 Proof

↪javra

Plenty of "controlling" females have crossed my path but not enough commanding women (or men for that matter).

And thus spoke the little old woman: You go to women? Do not forget the whip! — Also Sprach Zarathustra

:fire:

javra

I'm not sure I could classify the findings of metaphysics as "knowledge of what is", but OK. — Vera Mont

Smilingly asked, would one otherwise classify the findings of metaphysics - such as the nature of time, space, and causality - as "bullshit regarding what is not" (such that neither time, space, nor causality are)?

By what is the quest for this kind of knowledge primarily motivated? — Vera Mont

I thought I'd already addressed this. I take it to be primarily motivated by the predispositions of one's character. Some want to subjugate. Others want to understand. Here, alone, are two different motivations.

A few pagans in Europe; Lots of unorganized Native Americans - not the Great Civilizations which conquered them. — Vera Mont

A bit underplayed. It's worth mentioning that these "Great Civilizations which conquered" were all slave-owning. Differences of taste in terms of what is valued, I suspect.

Gnomon

Meaning of Life

So, what does this mean? — George Fisher

The "Meaning of Life” in general is a perennial quest for Philosophers and Theologians. Scientists though have no need for universal meaning, and only search for the significance of particular things.

Most western religions claim to have the answer direct from the meaning-giver. And that is : loyal subjects are expected to serve their heavenly Master, as serfs & slaves & sycophants grovel before their feudal Lord, in return for protection from external threats, such as devils, demons, & witches. When the Lord is viewed as a king, individuals have no meaning apart from their role in communal service to the realm. Those pawns who don't passively submit to domination may be banished from the fiefdom.

But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization".

When each person is left to create his own justification for taking-up space & resources in the world, the value of his life is not set by heavenly standards, but by more naturalistic or humanistic criteria. It may be simply to accomplish some special ambition, or to seek the vague feeling of self-fulfillment. The defining context may be our relationship to mankind, or to the whole universe; as our role in society, or as a cog in the great machine of the Cosmos. The subjective meaning of each life is more often measured simply in terms of happiness or satisfaction with the person’s role and status in the community. There seems to be as many personal meanings as there are lives in this world

The Meanings of Life
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html

180 Proof

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Tom Storm

But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization". — Gnomon

I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. The problem is that any meaning derived from a religion or philosophy is still a subjective or personal account. What we tend to see is personal preferences played out on a theme - it might be Calvinism or Vedanta or Sufi based. But nowhere does anyone convey or hold a meaning that is not contingent and subjective and constructed from personal preferences and personal interpretations. My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent.

Vera Mont

Soldier on" means "to continue to do something or to try to achieve something even though it is difficult" — Ciceronianus

I know. Geez!

I'm not sure why, but that's how it was intended. — Ciceronianus

Because, traditionally, a soldier asks not why; his is just to do or die. Carry on regardless.

Some want to subjugate. Others want to understand. Here, alone, are two different motivations. — javra

On neither of which does metaphysics deliver. The quest is the thing: the prize is forever tantalizingly out of reach.

It's worth mentioning that these "Great Civilizations which conquered" were all slave-owning. — javra

Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great.

javra

Which was my contention. Cultural indoctrination is a direct result of the prevailing philosophy. — Vera Mont

Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great. — Vera Mont

I might have misinterpreted you before. Sounds like underneath all the superficial bickering, you just might be into this "control over the subjugated other" thing yourself.

Of note, one can engage in conflict, war, or maybe worse so as to not be subjugated just fine without any intention of subjugating the other. This can in part be expressed via that whole, "give me liberty, or give me death" motif - a bit of philosophizing in and of itself.

Vera Mont

I might have misinterpreted you before. Sounds like underneath all the superficial bickering, you just might be into this "control over the subjugated other" thing yourself. — javra

I might, subconsciously - who knows? Except I've never sought a meaning or purpose for my life, and have always believed that life is too astounding and wondrous to require justification.
Point of order, though, before I depart. I never said the objective was "control over the subjugated other". I said the objective was control of the world by inventing a more powerful projection of themselves and putting Him in charge, on the understanding that if we do his bidding, He will do ours. Thus, patriarchal religions partially fulfill this objective by giving the privileged few (the god-anointed monarch, the high priest, the pope or ayatollah) control over the faithful through their interpretation of the deity's will.

This can in part be expressed via that whole, "give me liberty, or give me death" motif - a bit of philosophizing in and of itself. — javra

I would classify that as political philosophy, rather than metaphysics.
And it's true that one can go to war for liberty... but only if another attempts to subjugate him.

javra

I never said the objective was "control over the subjugated other". I said the objective was control of the world by inventing a more powerful projection of themselves and putting Him in charge, on the understanding that if we do his bidding, He will do ours. — Vera Mont

First, this is an exceedingly limited view of what metaphysics entails. More to the point of this one reply, doesn't this then mean that we are subjugated to Him? Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it?

Meaning of Life

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions