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". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Happiness can be a kind of purpose, and in case you haven't noticed, people tend to do what they think/feel will make them happy. When we achieve our goals, we often expect happiness to be a direct or indirect result...

That sounds a lot like what Ken Wilber calls "Flatland". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What's that and why is it relevant? Is it because I'm not using the magic of imagination?

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.
— WISDOMfromPO-MO

Humans are emotional beings, and when it comes to metaphysical beliefs which will never be verified or falsified in this life there is little risk of actually being proven incorrect. As such many of us emotional humans opt for metaphysical beliefs which cater to our emotional sensibilities. The idea of an eternal soul, reincarnation, a paradise afterlife, these are all metaphysical beliefs which do not appeal to people because they are logical, but instead because they are emotionally comforting. The whole concept of a perfect and all loving creator god who has a plan and has our backs is the invention of emotion, not logic.

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The things we value and desire are the objects of our individual happiness.

You wouldn't say "I want to be unhappy" or "being happy makes me unhappy"...

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". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We don't actually need much, but we do want it.

Everyone is greedy by someone's standards...

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ken Wilber is free to chase imaginary butterflies like "exiting the stream of time" and call it humble, and you're free to chase after him. If you or him wishes to substantiate that with evidence though, unfortunately it's got to exist temporally.

If you think trying to live a long happy and love filled life is narcissistic, how do you view trying to live a life of objective and ultimate purpose? Wouldn't that be full blown egomania?

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A worldview speaks for itself the way a sunday school teacher speaks to young impressionable minds about god and morality...

If you find your worldview disrespected then grow up and defend it. Some worldview's are shitty, and sometimes they're worth dismantling.

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How have I "disrespected others"?

"What other people think" is the only reason we exchange ideas on this forum

Anybody who comes to a philosophy forum and starts moaning about how worldviews are being disrespected is probably not secure in their own worldview.

You are what you truly love, be it good or bad, or indifferent. Conscience towards others is the basis of civilization. Because we all can agree on certain objective morals, those morals afford us a measure of civility in society. Morality is universally true, virtues are bastions of peace. To love morality is to be a just person. Above and beyond that foundation, you are unique and may choose to be and do whatsoever you wish.

One of the biggest questions I have found in morality is, am I responsible for other people's welfare? To a large degree we all are, whether we choose to do it or not. A just welfare for all beings is a duty of every citizen.

The reality at large is that a great many people feel entitled to have the attitude that life is all about satisfying themselves, and it doesn't matter what happens elsewise. As long as their lives are fulfilled, than who cares what befalls other people of desperate circumstances. So we still remain in the competitive jungle.

The spectre of evil harm that could happen to anyone has forced us to be fiercely defensive. Vigilant defense is necessary for survival. But to be fiercely competitive may in fact send humanity on the whole to an early demise.

One has to decide in their hearts that they are going to follow the laws of society, and appreciate that those laws keep civil society in tact. The moral code of law is the reason we survive. That there is a universally agreed upon code of survival, and justice propagates love.

So why shouldn't every citizen be afforded those laws, and have an opportunity to live peacefully in the world. Instead of killing off undesireables, and losing the weak mentalities, which destroys love and goodness in society.

It seems your affluence determines your success in life. The pursuit of the selfish desire is predominant. But if we are to evolve and grow, we have to consider a form of government, that affords every citizen an opportunity to live peacefully be they law abiding. Communism, and sharing the wealth are not options. So then what?

Quite frankly I think it's deplorable to have homelessness abound when their is so much.

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

Do you mean all men are mad fools? :)

Maybe earth is a biological super computer. — ThinkingMatt

You're getting my drift sir/madam, as the case may be(Y)

The universe would in that case be an ignorant, brutish lout (carrying on with the mind-body analogy) fixated on a tiny planet. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, different perspectives yield different conclusions. We're, as yet, not well-formed minds to deserve a status in the universe but it's a work in progress methinks. I think (fingers crossed) we can, sometime in the future, be worthy of an important position in the evolution of the universe.

I have always found the concept of learning for the sake of learning to be highly appealing, — VagabondSpectre

Me too. I wonder where the drive for this comes from. It doesn't seem to differentiate knowledge that helps survival and knowledge that is neutral/antagonistic to survival. As if the mind is hardwired to seek knowledge for its own sake. This fact makes my position more credible that we should aim to understand the universe.

yes. And it is time for philosophy to have some fun about it. Where is the Cervantes of philosophy?

But isn't quixotic predicated on some form of absolute knowledge - that sees the difference between the practical and impractical. That in itself seems rather quixotic.

Well in a sense yes... I consider Don Quixote as a perfect example of how we human beings live in delusions, both internal and external delusions, that is, we misinterpret the inner world as well as the external world... But philosophy has been to serious and dry and stern about this, instead of having some fun like Cervantes did... The history of ideas lack a sense of humor IMO... It has a sense of tragedy, but comedy is lacking

We're, especially mankind, the universe, specifically its mind, its conscisouness. Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. People are very interested in Artificial Intelligence and the prospect of a self-aware machine is way up there in terms of human technological prowess BUT we forget that we:universe :: AI:humans, even more perhaps.

What would be the single most important purpose of a machine who's self-aware? Self-discovery of course. So, similarly, for us, the consciousness of the universe itself, the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. This meaning of life is ONE, OBJECTIVE and GRAND and should hopefully end our quest for the meaning of life.

Your valuable comments... — TheMadFool

What happens if we discover that there is nothing to discover except mechanisms and technological change?

What happens if we discover that there is nothing to discover except mechanisms and technological change? — schopenhauer1

At that moment the meaning of life will change

At that moment the meaning of life will change — TheMadFool

That is contradictory to your OP.

That is contradictory to your OP. — Sir2u

No it's not. I should've been clearer. Think of how we function in our everyday lives. We set goals. If we achieve them we set new goals. It's the same thing with the meaning of life.

No it's not. I should've been clearer. Think of how we function in our everyday lives. We set goals. If we achieve them we set new goals. It's the same thing with the meaning of life. — TheMadFool

But that is as individuals, not as a race.

If each person can define the meaning of his/her own life then we'll see variety but also controversy. — TheMadFool

As a race we would first have to agree on the meaning of life for it to be changed, and that is not going to happen your way.
If we accept that the meaning to life is to live it, then everyone will always agree and there will never be any reason to change it no matter what happens.

But that is as individuals, not as a race. — Sir2u

I don't see a problem there. The world, more or less, has/had set environmental, political, social, health goals (UN, WHO, etc). When they are/were achieved new goals are/will be set.

As a race we would first have to agree on the meaning of life for it to be changed, and that is not going to happen your way. — Sir2u

Why? I'll base the meaning of life on sound reasoning. Either people accept or not. If they accept it won't be because of me but because they see the logic in my arguments. If they don't they'd be irrational.

If we accept that the meaning to life is to live it, then everyone will always agree and there will never be any reason to change it no matter what happens. — Sir2u

But the purpose of life being to live is a tautology.

If they don't they'd be irrational. — TheMadFool

And most who disagree with you say you are irrational.

But the purpose of life being to live is a tautology. — TheMadFool

So prove it is untrue.

And most who disagree with you say you are irrational. — Sir2u

What is irrational in my OP? Can anyone specify?

So prove it is untrue. — Sir2u

The purpose of life is to live!!!

That makes no distinction between an ant, a pig, a dog, and a human. However, we know that ants, pigs, dogs, and humans differ from each other. So, shouldn't meaning of life for a human be different from that of an ant, a pig or a dog or a plant, etc? These real differences between living things not only serve to identify each species but also bear on the way these lifeforms live which includes the meaning of life.

That makes no distinction between an ant, a pig, a dog, and a human. However, we know that ants, pigs, dogs, and humans differ from each other. So, shouldn't meaning of life for a human be different from that of an ant, a pig or a dog or a plant, etc? These real differences between living things not only serve to identify each species but also bear on the way these lifeforms live which includes the meaning of life. — TheMadFool

You still have not proven that there is a purpose or meaning to any life.

You still have not proven that there is a purpose or meaning to any life. — Sir2u

As per the conditions set in the OP I have. The purpose of life is to understand the universe. This is objective (based on the reason that the universe is self-aware and able to comprehend itself through us) and grand.

As per the conditions set in the OP I have. — TheMadFool

based on the reason that the universe is self-aware and able to comprehend itself through us — TheMadFool

Can you prove any of this beyond your belief in them.

Supposedly if a reason for something is removed then it becomes obsolete or non existent.

Humans don't have tails anymore because we no longer need them to live in the trees.
I don't have a drivers license right now because I don't have money to fix my car and don't need it.

So what is the reason you have for life? To make the universe self aware. So what did the universe do before humans came along, and what will it do after we are gone? What happens if the universe is not at all self aware, which I am sure it is not? We lose our reason to live so we won't exist anymore.
Why would something as vast as the universe pick some little fucked race like us in a very tiny little piece of itself to help it be self aware. It would be like the jolly green giant sending an atom of its toenail to to find out what is in its left ear.

If that is the only reason for human life then we are screwed.

And I don't want to be the eyeballs of the universe anyway.

And I don't want to be the eyeballs of the universe anyway. — Sir2u

Well, I guess you can try out being a computer bot and see if that fits you better?

As for myself, I (my mind) am definitely peering out and increasing awareness all the time of that which surrounds me - as is every other life form. That is how life evolves.

As for myself, I (my mind) am definitely peering out and increasing awareness all the time of that which surrounds me - as it's every other life form. That is how life evolves. — Rich

I am not against that at all, in fact I embrace the ideas. But how does that make the universe self aware?

But how does that make the universe self aware? — Sir2u

It does once one becomes aware there are no boundaries - anywhere. I believe this Daoist-like idea was presented in another recent thread.

Can you prove any of this beyond your belief in them. — Sir2u

I have done so in my OP.

Briefly,

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

The above facts form the basis of our meaning of life. That's as objective as anyone can get. It's also a grand purpose, for those unsatisfied by the other objective purpose of life - self-preservation or simple survival.

So what is the reason you have for life? To make the universe self aware. So what did the universe do before humans came along, and what will it do after we are gone? What happens if the universe is not at all self aware, which I am sure it is not? We lose our reason to live so we won't exist anymore. — Sir2u

The universe has achieved self-awareness through us. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say self-awareness is the only thing the universe has attained, I must emphasize that self-awareness and the mental faculties that tag along are the only means to understand the universe. In that humans are unique as the only mind the universe has. Isn't it obvious then what we have to do?

Why would something as vast as the universe pick some little fucked race like us in a very tiny little piece of itself to help it be self aware. It would be like the jolly green giant sending an atom of its toenail to to find out what is in its left ear. — Sir2u

Your perspective is different. In a spatial context we are insignificant, Earth is insignificant, the Solar system is insignificant, the Milky Way is insignificant and perhaps, the universe itself is a tiny speck in a much bigger cosmos.

However, in the context of life things appear different. This is the only planet known to harbor life. In the context of mind, humans are the only ones that have one. It's a matter of the right perspective and big and small, vital and trivial, switch places.

I'm not saying the universe is not unimaginable in expanse. It is. All I'm saying is life in general and we in particular are also deserving of the same awe.

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

The above facts — TheMadFool

The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs. Facts are basically formed by creating a consensus around beliefs, but in this case I doubt there is consensus attend (2), but given the proclivity for humans to put themselves at the top of any hierarchy, you might achieve a consensus around (1). BTW, I do agree that humans are always learning and creating, but as far as I can tell so are all other forms of life. My fish are always learning (evolving).

There only reason the concept of facts exists is that is what we are taught in school are necessary to prove things, and philosophers seem to need to have proofs to justify their discipline. Funny thing is, no other profession requires such a case.

The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs — Rich

My facts are:

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

To disprove 1 there has to be a nonhuman lifeform that has the same/greater mental faculties. Can you name one?

This forum, many others, you, me, this conversation, all books written, research done, questions asked and answered are proof of 2.

So, these aren't personal beliefs as you allege. These are hard facts and I've based my arguments on them.

To disprove 1 there has to be a nonhuman lifeform that has the same/greater mental faculties. Can you name one? — TheMadFool

Not really. Just different. Anyway, there is no way to know one way or another unless humans define things in terms of putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as they normally do. It's good marketing.

This forum, many others, you, me, this conversation, all books written, research done, questions asked and answered are proof of 2. — TheMadFool

Everyone is constantly learning. If learning is knowledge, then all life forms do this. It's called evolution and it is continuous.

These are just observations, and there may or may not be a consensus. It depends upon meaning and interpretation. I definitely disagree. So you are already losing a consensus. I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing?

The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs. — Rich

I doubt that he understands the difference.

I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing? — Rich

Count 1 vote against this theory.

Not really. Just different. Anyway, there is no way to know one way or another unless humans define things in terms of putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as they normally do. It's good marketing. — Rich

I asked you to disprove my claim that humans are the only lifeforms capable of understanding the universe. Can you do that please.

If learning is knowledge, then all life forms do this. — Rich

Have you seen a nonhuman lifeform conducting experiments? I agree DNA encodes information but information repository has "evolved'' from DNA to human brains to books to computers. What of non-DNA encoded information?

I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing? — Rich

These are facts. Opinion polls can't affect facts.

I asked you to disprove my claim that humans are the only lifeforms capable of understanding the universe. Can you do that please. — TheMadFool

Why should I have to disprove anything. If you have some proof for your facts then I would love to hear them.

All life forms are experimenting all the time. Buy a betta fish, treat her/him nicely and observe. Ditto for any pet.

As for facts, seems like a whole bunch of people claim to have them but unfortunately they seem to contradict each other. Just read the threads on this forum for some evidence of this.

Why should I have to disprove anything — Rich

Because you objected to them.

As for facts, seems like a whole bunch of people claim to have them but unfortunately they seem to contradict each other. — Rich

Contradict my facts

They are your facts, enjoy them. You have plenty of company.