(Y) (Y) (Y)

No, you seem to have something you want to say. If love to hear it. Thanks.

Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)... — VagabondSpectre

Agreed, to thine own self be true. Enjoy life and enjoy still-expression.

His post was obnoxious. Your post is nothing more than cheap online bullying.

Humanity is a silly mess. Literally, who cares about truth? Philosophers just like philosophizing and it is its own reward just as a tennis player likes tennis.

No, you seem to have something you want to say. If love to hear it. Thanks — Rich

If you say so.

In fact, I have no objection to having as a goal understanding all we can about the universe. But it's a goal only, albeit a worthy one. I think there is no one (single) "meaning of life." There is no one (single) end or purpose to life. We're part of a vast universe, and in light of its vastness it seems to me foolish if not absurd to think we're the best part of it or of any special significance, or that it was created for us or is a kind of vehicle or forum made so we have a place in which our destiny plays out.

I'm fond of the Stoics. The ancient Stoics believed that the universe is alive and that the governing part of it is a Divine Reason, and each of us possesses a part of the Divine (usually conceived of as material but of a very fine nature, similar to fire as an element; they were constrained by the physics of the time). As parts of the living universe endowed with the capacity to reason, our goal should be to "live in accordance with nature" i.e. live as reason dictates, consistent with the Divine Reason. making the best use of what is in our power and taking the rest as it happens, as Epictetus said. What happens which isn't in our control is the universe acting in accordance with the Divine Reason, which isn't necessarily concerned with what we finite creatures want or what we think good or bad. But reason requires that we act virtuously.

In my more spiritual moments I think this is a lovely way to view the universe and is in any case a good way to live. But what we should do is something which must be determined on a case by case basis; too much goes on in life to say that "I've found the meaning of life."

His post was obnoxious. Your post is nothing more than cheap online bullying. — Rich

Not at all. If that was the beginning of a book, I'd be hooked.

@Rich

I was just running with what you stated about how we can only speculate, explore, imagine. Bat life is probably great.

LiTeRaLlY, wHo CaReS aBoUt TrUtH? — Beebert

No what you were just trying very hard to be an obnoxious bully. You were successful.

Lots of petty bullies online.

Now, aren't you glad I asked?

I think people will agree to the conditions I set because they're the very reasons why no one has yet found a meaning to life.

The meaning of life is not to live it. It's to discover how to live it. Imagine you're given a gift. The gift by itself has no meaning. It's how you perceive the gift's value that gives meaning. — TheMadFool

Is it possible that no one has found a meaning to life simple because there is none to find?

Many have come up with ideas about this topic, but there has never been a large enough agreement on any of them to be taken seriously by any but the fan(atic)s of the idea.

I, at least have a serious argument for my way of thinking, if I don't follow my own advise and just go on living, I will die.
If I don't follow the other ideas, I might not become a better person, become more knowledgeable, become the consciousness of the universe and so on but I will still go on living.

I serious doubt that if you walk along any crowded street and ask people the meaning of life that many will have even thought seriously about the topic.

Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished. — Ciceronianus the White

Why is that a problem? It may be reality.

Ken Wilber puts it this way:

1.) The cosmos has great span.
2.) The noosphere has little span.
3.) However, unlike the cosmos, the noosphere has great depth.

I think there is no one (single) "meaning of life." There is no one (single) end or purpose to life. We're part of a vast universe, and in light of its vastness it seems to me foolish if not absurd to think we're the best part of it or of any special significance, or that it was created for us or is a kind of vehicle or forum made so we have a place in which our destiny plays out. — Ciceronianus the White

It is finding the meaning/purpose of life, not the meaning/purpose of humans, the universe, etc.

And where in the question "What is the meaning/purpose of life?" does it say that anything is the best part of anything or of special significance or that anything is made for anything else?

It simply asks, "This experience we go through called "life", what is the meaning/purpose of it?".

Also, the question is not "What is the one meaning/purpose of life". The question is, "What is the meaning/purpose of life?", period.

A child playing with blocks would be a microcosm of this experience — Rich

I think we're on the same page.

Good but false.

Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished. — Ciceronianus the White

Why such a dim view of humanity? Are you saying this from a moral standpoint? Even if you are, I think we're doing quite well. Morality is, what, 2000+ years old. Evil is much older. It's an uphill battle and we're fighting hard. Shouldn't that be a good thing?

(Y)

Don't you think we've outgrown the ''survival of the fittest'' principle? Math, philosophy, music, art, etc. aren't necessary for survival. Yet, they're legitimate human pursuits at appreciating the universe and/or understanding our universe.

It's good to have a realistic worldview but isn't the meaning of life I painted also realistic and includes our greatest faculty - the mind?

Humanity is a silly mess. Literally, who cares about truth? — Beebert

So, what do you care about?

Is it possible that no one has found a meaning to life simple because there is none to find? — Sir2u

My OP gives ONE, OBJECTIVE & GRAND meaning of life. That should satisfy most people.

By "deal with such people" I presume you mean "convince them to be happy without ultimate and objective purpose"... — VagabondSpectre

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a goal.

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a high priority or thinks that it is important.

And "happiness" is no less ambiguous and abstract than "meaning/purpose of life".

Seldom do I bother with an attempt, but when I do it's not always so difficult. If my interlocutors care deeply about having a rational and empirically sound view of the universe and the things in it (including ourselves) then I will make strong appeals to the evidence based merits of science, skepticism, and atheism (read: "soft-atheism"; colloquial agnosticism; refraining from belief where there is no evidence or indication). In concert with showing the incredulity of the metaphysically gnostic (read: those claiming knowledge beyond the scope of what physical evidence can show)... — VagabondSpectre

That sounds a lot like what Ken Wilber calls "Flatland".

this approach can be very effective... — VagabondSpectre

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, or something like that.

It sounds like "This approach can be very effective with people who already believe what it says".

If a person doesn't care so much about the logical consistency of their beliefs as they do about how it makes them feel... — VagabondSpectre

These people who shun logic and care only about how their beliefs make them feel, where are they?

I doubt than any such people exist.

Speaking of evidence-based, no evidence has ever been presented to me to make me believe that such people exist.

then I will paint a picture which emphasizes the value of empathy, joy, and shared experience. Living a long and happy life with few regrets, surrounded by those you love can be a powerful image... — VagabondSpectre

Again, happiness is not necessarily a universal goal or universally desirable.

The same could be said about longevity and "being surrounded by those you love".

It could be a narcissistic, narrow, crippling image to some people.

Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable... — VagabondSpectre

Or maybe we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not call it "greed".

Maybe mental, physical and emotional fulfillment is not enough for some people. Maybe some people need more. I would not call the longing or effort to satisfy a need "greed".

And how are we defining "eternal"? Ken Wilber defines it not as time with no beginning or end, but as no longer being in the stream of time. Maybe the latter, not the former, is the object of that aforementioned "greed".

Finally, instead of small, humble and achievable, it may seem narcissistic, prideful and repressive to some people.

The real trick of it is to paint a sufficiently vivid and detailed worldview which then becomes more appealing to them than their own (generally an easy thing to do if they have no pre-existing grand narrative I must compete with). It can require a lot of ground work, especially when to bereave someone of a grand narrative might also bereave them of their moral/value system. Most of the time I prefer to not deal with ideologues driven by grand existential narratives in this way, but if I become seriously committed to doing so, then because so much of their world view might need replacement, the discussion becomes broad and long... — VagabondSpectre

That makes worldviews sound like the work of a used car salesman or a spin doctor.

More importantly, it sounds extremely disrespectful and condescending.

And if a worldview is worth having, it should speak for itself.

Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)... — VagabondSpectre

Anybody who is secure in his/her own worldview should not care what other people think.

And anybody who is going to disrespect others based on their worldview is probably not secure in his/her own worldview.

"So, what do you care about?"

What I meant was that people who claim to Care about truth often just care about caring about truth, or about talking about truth. Its just another interest.

Its just another interest. — Beebert

I think it's more than ''just another interest''. Truth is necessary for survival. For instance, not knowing that a gun can kill you is dangerous. I think this value of truth carries on into other domains of human experience.

@TheMadFool

cont

the single purpose of life is to reproduce — TheMadFool

I agree that this is the purpose of all living things as individuals "to continue the cycle of living things".

the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. — TheMadFool

Though if the purpose of continuing the cycle of life (as we are not imortal) is to understand the glory of the universe as a whole (humankind). Then that leaves us with the question of why we need to understand the glory of the universe in the first place?

Then that leaves us with the question of why we need to understand the glory of the universe in the first place? — ThinkingMatt

As you grew up didn't you feel a drive to understand yourself, others, this world, this universe? As the only species to be awake on this Earth, isn't it a duty to understand this universe?

@TheMadFool

I don't disagree with your premis that continuing the cycle of life is to better understand the universe from humankind - my question is what's the objective in doing so?

my question is what's the objective in doing so? — ThinkingMatt

What is the purpose of a knife? To cut.
What is the purpose of eyes? To see.
What is the purpose of phones? To communicate.

What is the purpose of mind? To understand.

The objective is built into a tool's form and ability.

What is the purpose of a knife? To cut.
What is the purpose of eyes? To see.
What is the purpose of phones? To communicate. — TheMadFool

With all these analogies there is an underlying purpose for all these actions being done. Eg. The reason you would be cutting with a knife is to perhaps prepare something to eat (so you can continue surviving).

What's the underlying drive or reason to understand the universe?

Maybe earth is a biological super computer. Where its purpose is gathering information about the universe around it for the advantage of a more advanced entity? (Reference from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) - might not be such a silly premis

I am talking about absolute truth. I believe Don Quixote is all men basically.

I don't disagree with your premis that continuing the cycle of life is to better understand the universe from humankind - my question is what's the objective in doing so? — ThinkingMatt

The premise doesn't lead one anywhere and does not describe the lives of many who choose not to procreate (we have the choice).

In my view we are here to create and continue to evolve through our creations. We are doing this throughout our lives in different ways and forms. Philosophy is just one form of creating.

It is finding the meaning/purpose of life, not the meaning/purpose of humans, the universe, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Is it? I had the impression the OP was referring to human life, i.e. what we as the "self-awareness" or "mind" of the universe exist to do.

Be that as it may, I don't think there is any single meaning of "life" (which I assume encompasses anything living), either. And, as it seems you object to the "meaning of life" being considered singular, I don't think there are any meanings of life.

I don't think, in other words, life of any kind, general or particular, is intended to convey anything, or has any particular destiny or destinies, or exists for any particular purpose or purposes, nor do I think that it should. It simply is. There is life. There will be life in the universe regardless of what we think or want or do.

Why such a dim view of humanity? Are you saying this from a moral standpoint? Even if you are, I think we're doing quite well. Morality is, what, 2000+ years old. Evil is much older. It's an uphill battle and we're fighting hard. Shouldn't that be a good thing? — TheMadFool

We're a part of the universe, but only a very small part. Our concerns are largely selfish; what we can do is limited. Our knowledge of the rest of the universe is limited. If we're the "mind" of the universe, it's mind is very human-centered, very Earth-centered. A tiny mind of a huge universe. The universe would in that case be an ignorant, brutish lout (carrying on with the mind-body analogy) fixated on a tiny planet.

Don't you think we've outgrown the ''survival of the fittest'' principle? Math, philosophy, music, art, etc. aren't necessary for survival. Yet, they're legitimate human pursuits at appreciating the universe and/or understanding our universe.

It's good to have a realistic worldview but isn't the meaning of life I painted also realistic and includes our greatest faculty - the mind? — TheMadFool

We have out-paced mere survival concerns yes (although they trail us very closely), like Tolstoy's life of luxury, it's this fact that affords us the time to consider the various arts and to contrive and confront these dilemmas in the first place.

I find some notions of pantheism and pan-psychism interesting, but since we've got no evidence to validate or invalidate them I must consider them as one hypothetical possibility of many.

I have always found the concept of learning for the sake of learning to be highly appealing, but existentially I value learning because it serves my own mind (or the minds of loved ones) not because it might serve some other mind of which I'm not aware. (a universal mind of some kind)...