enough of this fringe, quasi-intellectual pulp to see it for what it actually is, that is, nothing more than an elaborate exercise in obscurantist sophistry. It seeks , in short, to inject higher meaning into what is clearly meaningless and in doing so fails dismally. — John Gould

You must adore Depak Chopra then. He is not getting laid for nothing by slender blonde beauties of the upper echelons of society in the prime of their reproductive years ten times more than you and I combined. Erm... how many times must you multiply zero to get fifty thousand? Not ten. So then I underestimated him.

Why can't you give a point as an example? I don't accept your reason for withholding that information.

I think you are bluffing. You claim everyone or at least a vast number of people have a point to live. So it can't be all that hard, embarrassing or such a secret as to withhold giving me a few examples of points.

You just admitted by not giving examples that your claim is invalid, and false.

I have family and friends, and there are things that I enjoy in life. So do you, most likely. That's a very common reason to continue to live rather than opt for suicide. — Sapientia

That's more obvious than obvious. I thought you had had a point. A point which is more profound.

This is the best you can provide as philosophy? "People don't kill themselves because they enjoy life." Well, food tastes good so you will eat it, you scratch your back when it itches because it feels good, girls look good so you will procreate, etc etc.

"You live because you enjoy life."

I can't believe what passes for philosophy around here.

I think the enlightenment raised more issues than had been before, instead of resolving the existing ones.

I won't know why we need to blame the enlightenment for not resolving issues. Nothing else ever has. If they had been resolved by the Church, by Christianity, by Aristotle or Socrates or Plato, then there would be nothing for the Enlightenment to resolve.

No. The achievement of the enlightenment is not resolving things, but proudly presenting new things to resolve:
- what is the self
- is there a god
- does morality exist outside of religion
- biblical self-contradicions
- self-contradictions in the Christain fatih, and how to resolve them
- solving world hunger (at least we are now thinking about it)
- preserving the environment (ibid)
- preserving species (ibid)
- is abortion wrong
- why we ought not to smoke cigarettes -- resolved, they cause disease and kill people, one resolution for sure
- allotting the possibility that animals have souls, they are sentient (some of them)
- why giraffes have long necks -- yeah, this one has been resolved, too, btw, the fact that evoution is a much more viable explanation for biodiversity than creation or the biblical explanation. The only people who deny that are religious, and they have a vested interest in denying it. The vested interest is not reason, btw.

You make a lot of assumptions. 1. I must know a vast number of people who need a point in their lives. 2. We all have a common psychology. 3. The default position is universal. 4. People who have no point in life are so because of denial or depression.

I don't share any of these assumptions with you. The closest we have in agreement is that we all have a somewhat similar psychology to each other's. This is only to a point; there are more differences in degrees of aspects of human psychology than not. You can say we all like to be loved, but some of us need it more than others, and some of us don't need it at all, as an example.

Your point may be shared with others, but you have not convinced me. I don't see a necessity to having a point in life to keep on living.

In fact, the nature of the point is debatable, too, not just its existence as a prerequisite to continue living.

Please, if you wouldn't mind, give us some examples, or else a categorical explanation of what you consider a "point". Maybe we are not in disagreement at all, conceptually, it's just that "point", point is undefined and not necessarily understood by me the same way as by you.

So please give a few examples or a general fully delineating definition of what you consider a point to live by or for. Thanks.

No, it is more like an ipse ad quo pros tate. Or like an id est tu, or like an obinem iodu quam parat sod. Or, perhaps, I am not ashamed to say it, like a panem rehabilitatio ubi padre nostra. But never, NEVER a sine qua non.

I feel Monty Python should re-form specifically to answer this question: What did the Enlightenment ever do for us?

- OK, apart from inaugurating mass literacy.
- Yeh, but as well as showing us how the cosmos works even if there aren't any gods.
- No, but, aside from liberating millions of poor schmucks to enjoy art and culture and everything.

I just don't know how that scene ends. Maybe : 'Yes, but they never resolved a single important question, did they?' — mcdoodle

This is a brilliant answer. I know you are not supposed to make entries with simply agreeing with someone else, but this is not simply an agreement; it is an expression of admiration for a genius mind.

Well, yes, living is a continual process, until it ceases, and that process itself doesn't require any point. But living is like a car, and we are the drivers. As a driver, you can either hit the brakes and stop the car or you can carry on driving. People don't tend to drive around aimlessly, with no destination in mind, for no reason whatsoever. Life doesn't need a point, but we need a point to our lives - those of us who are reasonable, at least. — Sapientia

I don't think stopping the car is equivalent to dying. It is equivalent to a rest, because you can start after a rest, much like you can start a car.

You are right, to continue with your metaphor, you need a destination to drive; but that's akin to having to dress up, to buy groceries, to take a shower. These are needs that come up and you satisfy them. These are not points.

What do you even mean to have a point to live? What is an example to a "point"? Please give us a few, and then perhaps we can come to an agreement, because it is conceivable that I'm grossly misunderstanding you.

What would be a good a good example of a "point" that would stop you Sapientia, from giving up life? Perhaps you could supply a number of such points, so we can establish a pattern, and through that, an understanding.

You need a point to live at all, unless you've lost or abandoned reason, in which case it wouldn't matter whether your next act was to watch a film or blow your brains out. — Sapientia

I beg to differ. You don't need a point to live at all. Many things live which supposedly don't have a point to do so, including all the plants.

I don't know where you get this idea to justify your continuation to live. Perhaps to YOU it is important. I shan't engage in trying to find out why. But please believe me, you can't extrapolate from your own stance to all living things or even to all mankind.

Bears don't have a point to live. Bugs don't. Snakes don't. Sea urchins don't. Jellyfish don't. Why would humans need one? Are we that different from frogs and crocodiles and caterpillars in the very sense that we are all alive?

The op forgot to add the immediately following next line, "But WHY do we ALWAYS talk about sex?"

If genders and gender roles didn't exist, how could gender discrimination or gender related problems exist? — BlueBanana

How? By claiming that they do exist, while they don't and then discriminate on the basis of non-existing differences.

Mind you, it is not possible for genders to be equal, and not different, if there are at least two distinct genders, but gender roles are not automatic (in humans they are), such as with foxes, penguins, apple trees, and frogs. Let's for a moment assume that sexual behaviour is discounted as a gender role behaviour (but I oppose this forced exclusion).

I apologize I was not referring to you at all when I mentioned "some people don't understand this chart". After all I don't know you and to the point of your most recent post I had no clue what you knew and what you didn't. But it was nice of you to volunteer that you are no expert either. :-)

A good reason to live is that change is excitng and change can only be witnessed, discovered, experienced or initiated by the living. — Jake Tarragon

As far as the living knows. The dead may be experiencing even bigger changes, or permanent exciting happiness (rapture). They don't tell you that, the dead don't. If you found a free source of incredibly rich entertainment, you would keep it a secret, too.

The dead may be deaf and mute, but they are not dumb. Not necessarily, anyway. And they could be incredibly joyful and happy, for all we know. In fact, there are entire religions that focus their attention on how to attain that state.

One supporting evidence of this is that we know for sure, or see and experience for sure, when the living go into a dead state, but the dead don't go into a living state. There is a remote possibility that they do, but they are not documented, and I for one never saw an obvious case of it myself. But I saw and heard of many cases of the living becoming dead.

A good reason to live is that change is excitng and change can only be witnessed, discovered, experienced or initiated by the living. — Jake Tarragon

This is true, as long as the changes are small and manageable. For instance, the biggest change in life, that is, changing from being alive to being dead, is not so exciting, although you can't imagine a bigger change.

Of course you need a point to live. Ask anyone who you think "just does" why they haven't killed themselves, and they'll give you that point. — Sapientia

I still think you don't need a point to live. You will provide a point or an alleged point when forced, or questioned, but that is not a "need" per se. Life is effortlessly continued. (In an existentialist sense, not that survival is automatic or even easy.) It takes a heckuva lot more effort to kill yourself than to not to kill yourself.

Road map is nice and symmetrical. A beauty. Too complex for me to examine. Arrows can mean anything -- processes, feeback, feed forward, reaction, action, feeling, emotion, motivation, action. Too much. I like a two-way road map, such as two arrows pointing in opposite directions, side-by-side, parallel to each other. THAT I understand. To understand this road map would take a long time and reading a magazine article, and even that is not a guarantee I'd understand it when all is said and done.

Clearly, my ineptitude, not that of the author of the diagram.

My point is, one should always make a point he or she herself understands, otherwise the point is lost even on him. This is clearly lost on me.

Right on, Petrokotbifas

sexual reproduction and sex happened way before human species happened. And I don't know, but imagine that there is much less separation of personality, vulnerability and aggression between males and females of other species than between males and females of humans.

Take crocodiles, frogs, black widow spiders (!) and fish, for instance. Fish don't rape. Or octopussies. They don't rape. Nothing rapes in earlier stages of evolutionary development in humans but rats, raccoons, chimps and transistor radios.

I reject the notion that sexuality developed as or from a parasitic form of life. The essay propagating this idea was written by an anthropomorophizing dilettante who could not see beyond her own nose (or his own nose).

Well, the argument was that we have an innate knowledge which shows when we pick the human over the non-human. — Πετροκότσυφας

How soon we forget our own words. :-)

Anything that causes death: flame throwers, bullets, guns, arrows and bows, nuclear devices, electric chair. I say this because the biggest change you can experience in life is becoming dead.

Our knowledge is innate, but different. That is the nature of human responses and qualuties that are innate. That is the no. 1. mistake by philosophical theorists, that they figure all humans are the same as every other human. This has dogged many philosophers. from Socrates to Hume, from Plato to Hobbes.

What you are saying is somewhat similar to a hypothetical claim, that since person X can solve Problem B, but Person Y can't solve Problem B, it follows that IQ is not an innate quality. It is; but it differs in its material instance between the IQ levels of X and Y.

I don't know what an "entailment" is, and what a "disjunction" is. I can't form an opinion while these two concepts are involved in the question, proposition, or offered solution. Many others participating in the thread, I assert, but don't claim, also have no clue what these two words mean, but they say something anyway.

Well, I don't say things "anyway".

So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on. — MikeL

Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god.

Science especially; the scientific method excludes positive proofs. It can negate (if the thing is falsifiable) things, and that is one tenet of scientific claims, that everything science claims has to be falsifiable. Therefore when you ask that a scientist prove to you that there is no god, you ask a scientist something he never claimed he could do.

Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one.

Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας

I believe this is true. Each part alone and the whole thing together. I chalk it up to a difference in the morality gene as a product of instantaneous mutation. It is a fallacy to think that we are all equal in our own personal and very compelling ethical responses. Much like we differ in height, weight, IQ, etc, we differ in moral fortitude and in moral vicissitude. It has to do with the microbiological physiology of the "morality gene".

In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. It is not easy to murder someone. Not just physically speaking, of the mechanics of it, because that is hard, too, without firearms. It is not an easy decision, or an easily executed task. So if you somehow can convince yourself that your human enemy is worse than a dog, for instance, then it's easier to murder him.

Heck, it's not even easy to kill a mammal. I was lead through an abattoir in my high school years, by one of the vice presidents of the abattoir, during a field trip in my geography class. There was a guy whose job was to kill the cows. The vice president said in front of that guy, "it is the only job I would refuse to do in this establishment." The executioner, so to speak, grinned uncomfortably.

As for heralds, guardians, harlots (really?), and Satan, where did this come from? — Bitter Crank

Heralds: Some religious Jew described Angels to me as carriers of messages between God and humans.
"Guardian Angel".
Harlots: "You are my little angel".
Satan: He used to be a main angel, an Archangel if you like, like Gabriel or St. Peter or Peter Gabriel, but for one reason or another God tossed Satan from the heavens into the netherworld to be its ruler.

I haven't made any of this up, although I do admit my list was incomplete and the elements in it were taken from different, disparate cultural streams of belief.

One could argue that those who value their pets' well-being and very life before other humans', are in fact anthropomorphizing the little critters. However, this reasoning leads to nowhere, as it tautologizes the original claim; it leads to a circular reasoning, where the claim is proven by itself.

My point is that while we each may claim that we'd first save our cat, dog, or other pets, we actually wouldn't. We would save Hitler. We would save Nero and Caligula and Stalin, if we heard them cry out with fear, pain and desperation.

"Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..." — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If it's equally responsible, then there is another factor, which is also equally responsible. IN fact, there could be a number of different factors, which are equally responsible.

One thing can't be alone equal. Or equally responsible.

The quote does not make sense.

I sense that the quote was lifted from a context that is no longer there, and that is a no-no. I claim that the quote as said was part of something that meant something different than what the author is claiming it means.

What are angels? — fishfry

There are four main types of Angels. 1. Heralds. They bring tidings of great joy. 2. Guardians. 3. Harlots. 4. Satan. The first three types are pleasant; the last one, a type unto itself, is evil.

My uncle who is a Roman Catholic, tells me that all angels are male.

Objection: some civilizations are known to treat some animals like cats and cows as gods, thus showing that the GCB hierarchy is not innate in all.
Counter-objection: This premise is true, but they did this because they believed these animals to be gods, inasmuch as christians treat Jesus as God because they believe him to be one, not just a human being. As such, these civilizations still had innate knowledge of the GCB hierarchy — Samuel Lacrampe

Can a thing both be and not be at the same time and at the same respect? Can a god be a human and can a human be a god? A god is infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, beautiful, etc., a human is not. So can you be both infinitely good and not infinitely good? Can you be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time? I hardly think so. I think religions that deify humans, animals, plants, rocks, and sub-atomic particles are way off the course as a worship direction.

What's the point of living if you eventually die? Well, I don't think you need a "point" to live. You just do.

Other that that, there is the enjoyment of life, and there is the extreme fear of death.