because it might well be the case following death, so it is potentially an option for action in life, just take an overdose and you're there, in a state of absolute nonexistence, the purpose is then clear, there is none. — Punshhh

because it might well be the case following death, so it is potentially an option for action in life, just take an overdose and YOU MIGHT BE there, in a state of absolute nonexistence, the purpose is then clear, there is none.

Just contradicted yourself, you say it might be then you say it is.

Purposes are necessarily present to consciousness. They do not exist otherwise. So both human and non-human animals only have purposes insofar as those are explicitly present to consciousness. That's not to deny that a lot of behavioral tendencies are evolutionarily selected for because they make survival until the possibility of procreation more likely--and that's simply because contrary tendencies are not as likely to be genetically passed on, because the potential parent creatures are less likely to survive to procreate when those characteristics obtain, but it would be misconceived to identify that fact with a "purpose." — Terrapin Station

So you are saying our existence is ultimately absurd and we just give ourselves small purposes to take our mind of that fact. There could never be an ultimate goal because it is absurd. Where is your proof that there isn't a cosmic/universal purpose though? For all we know, there could be.

Fear likewise only obtains when it's present to consciousness. — Terrapin Station

That suggests that all other animals have consciousness, since they display signs of fear (neurologically too)

When I say that "I don't have the slightest inclination . . ." I'm simply noting that thoughts questioning whether I should continue to live don't at all occur to me, and when someone like yourself suggests that they should, it just strikes me as absurd to even consider that it would be a worthwhile thing to ponder. — Terrapin Station

That suggests then that you are complacent with your experience of the world and what you know of it. Some of us aren't happy with what knowledge we are given about our existence and it leads us down many different paths of ascetic practices, psychedelic drug use and excessive philosophy reading to try and make sense of something that can't be made sense of in order to make us realize there is no point in trying and then we give up slowly or instantly in to complacency. As someone else on here suggested previously, what philosopher isn't neurotic in some sense already?

Hmmm, okay--still not sure I get that, though. For one, it doesn't make any sense to me to suppose that "I" am somehow different than something like a "survival mechanism" built into me. "I" am simply the totality of my body, and in terms of consciousness, including personality, particular brain states (which are dynamic). Something like a "survival mechanism" would also be just a factor of how my body, including my brain, happens to be constructed/happens to function, hence that "survival mechanism" would be identical to (a part of) me. — Terrapin Station

Would you also call the effiel tower part of you because it inhabits the same material you are made from? Or shares the atmosphere around you?

That which you can not control in your mind is not you, that which IS you is that which you are aware of and in control of. YOU don't beat your heart, your brain does it for you. YOU don't flinch at the faintist hint of harm but your brain does. catch my drift?

I look at it like, purposes only apply to individual ends and aims. I eat because it am hungry, find warmth because I'm cold, do activities because I'm bored, drink because I'm an alcoholic :), drive my car because I want to go somewhere, etc. I don't think you can combine all these separate purposes for separate actions, under an overall umbrella purpose. So that you eat because you're hungry, and drink because you're thirsty, and yet you both eat and drink because of a larger overall purpose like say living for god, experiencing pleasure, improving the world, whatever purpose you pick. It's like doing something for one reason, and yet you're *really* doing something for another reason. — dukkha

Ok, I understand and fair enough but no matter what activity you do, you are still enganged in an activity that encompasses all of them called "living" and it is NOT absurd to ask "why live". When someone asks "why live?" they are asking "what is the purpose of living?" which doesn't seem absurd to ask.

Yes purpose exists in individual components of tasks in life but the one task we all have no matter what all other tasks may be is the one of living. You could say it is the MOST deserving of having a purpose and yet we can't seem to find a rational solution to this yet.

We don't really live for any particular reason. That we continue to live is more a side effect of satisfying our competing needs and desires (eg food water warmth). Living is the default state, so you don't need to come up with a reason to live, because it happens regardless. Your reasons have no bearing on whether you live or not. Let's say you decide your reason to live is to experience pleasure. If you change or stop this reason you don't just drop dead automatically.

A more relevant question is whether there is any reason to commit suicide. But even then, you don't just die when you come up with a reason(s), and you can suicide without a reason anyway.

Living is the default state, so you don't need a reason for it. Although a lot of people do seem to find it psychologically gratifying to feel as if they're living for some grand meaning or purpose. But then the question is not what's my reason for living, but rather what reason should I posit (for living) in order to psychologically gratify myself (and not, to actually live, because that happens anyway). — dukkha

That is a very sound conception of how purpose is usually implemented in human life.

It is in accordance with what I said in my OP about how animals have no purpose in life other than to survive and not die because they are afraid to die.

I would like to add that having pleasure as a reason to live is absurd, as I pointed out in my OP.

It seems you are saying that purpose is just a mechanism to gratify ones self, to make one feel as if their life has value when it really doesn't. Is this correct? So when people say "my life is worth living", in reality they are fooling themselves. Correct?

if only for a little while. — Real Gone Cat

That is the issue. How can transitory pleasure be a purpose if it is without meaning and doesn't stay consistent?

Purpose would be a goal, something that isn't impossible to answer. Imagine if you knew a cosmic meaning of why we exist in galaxies and that in 300,000,000,000,000 years time our efforts as a species paid off and you knew what it was. Wouldn't complacency over run everything you did in life?

"John why r u doing that u silly billy?@?1?! Don't u see that u r wasting all ur time n efortz?"

"oh ya, but this is for tha singularity in billions of years time so no prob ya kno?"

You are impossible to do philosophy with. Not only are you subject to bigotry (not being able to see the other person's point of view because of your own desire to be right/close mindedness) but you constantly fail to elaborate on anything you are retorting. By proof of this, I suspect an inflamed comment in retaliation, if not then I will respond to your off topics 'personal' statements that are brief and are without explanation or reasoning.

I don't fear death. — Heister Eggcart

Who are YOU though? Do you also claim to have free will and have proof for it too?

Do you not get scared if someone holds a gun to your head? Maybe you're not afraid of the concept of the death which is something quite different. Your heart rate would increase if there is a gun to your head or if you or on a cliff face about to fall off. Fact is, your subconscious impulses run the show and it is like try to claim you aren't afraid of blinking when someone throws something at your eye. Just because you aren't screaming "nooo please i don't wanna die" doesn't mean your biological brain is unaffected by stimuli that indicate the certain demise of it's organism.

Anyway please keep this on subject.

I say neither, because ascribing life's worth on something else is neither sufficient nor necessary to make it better. — jkop

Yes, and indeed is absurd as my OP points out.

Yes you did - "It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." If it's irrational to be afraid of dying, then how do you find it possible to rationally think otherwise? — Heister Eggcart

You misinterpreted this. I rationally concluded............ the the only rational conclusion is.......... that all animals have an IRRATIONAL fear of death.

How do you know that the chipmunk fears death if it is not a thinking, rational being? — Heister Eggcart

Haha, seriously? I would think you would know better than to try and argue something like that. Just bring a flame thrower to it's lips... are you now going to argue that it will come closer and try to kiss the flame? right, keep going heister... keep going... haha

This is correct, nothing does resolve the situation. You are stuck here until you're not. You will run into harm, you will create your own harm, you will find survival within your culture, you will experience boredom unless you create some sort of entertainment situation. — schopenhauer1

Then it seems that we are getting the short end of the stick. Like we are thrown in to a prison... Like we are actors out on loan with no recompense

I disagree. We were born into existence, and it does contain harms and it contains a structure which we did not create. We all cope, that's just a truism, but that does not mean "and then it was good." — schopenhauer1

Bravo, on point!

That's what you don't think. What you do think is..."It seems after some many years of analysis of this question that all I can rationally say is that I live only because I am afraid to die, like any other animal on earth." More simply put, your claim amounts to, "I live because I'm afraid," which in your eyes is a rational claim. Why? — Heister Eggcart

I didn't say it was rational, I see it is what ALL animals on earth share instinctively and unconsciously. In fact that would be considered pre-rational and a matter of scientific fact.

All other so called purposes of popular fashion have been considered to be absurd.

I don't think I understand that comment. "A genetic predisposition for survival in your thoughts" is confusing to me. And then I don't get how "your personal preferences over what you find fashionable" fits into the context of either my or your comment. — Terrapin Station

So, in your thoughts (mainly if not completely unconscious) are programs that operate for survival. If someone puts something close to your eye you will blink, etc. Likewise if u are on the edge of a cliff you will be scared to go over. So in your thoughts, there is a predisposition for the genetics to play a role in maintaining the thoughts to keep the organism surviving.

You are claiming that it is YOU who is choosing not to live "I don't have the slightest inclination or reason not to live as long as I possibly can." when in reality it IS YOUR SURVIVAL MECHANISM and not your personality, or your preferences over what you find fashionable (not talking about clothing here). For instance, I find oranges more fashionable to me than apples.

The only thing you say explicitly is that you live because you're afraid to die. Why is that? If you can't answer, then this excuse is as "irrational" as any other you machine gun mention. — Heister Eggcart

No it isn't, I said that claiming happiness to be the sense of purpose in ones life is absurd. There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!

Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

If you didn't see that then your are blind.

This is the nihilism of purpose. An understanding which rejects the meaning of living a finite life for the notion some purpose must enter in from the outside and make things matter. With respect to living, it's self-defeating. It turns fulfilment and worth into an impossibility for your own life. Only the reductive fiction (purpose) can be worth anything. Life is just a nothingness to be ignored or miserably wallow in. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I understand this. At the end of it all though all that can be concluded is "Life is just a nothingness to be ignored or miserably wallow in"

So therefore, why live? Like I said in my OP, the only conclusion I can make is that it is because I don't want to die, like all other animals.

Your OP says nothing about much of anything, >:O

"I'm afraid." Gee, that's great, man. Okay, what now? Who cares? — Heister Eggcart

Then obviously you didn't read it thoroughly enough, it said a great many things... it is just the illiterate people who are unable to spell out what it actually ISN'T saying because they want to come across as vindictive or sneering.

What's the purpose that will satisfy me?" What you seem to want (a purpose) is the very thing you deny is so (human life is just many different finite states) — TheWillowOfDarkness

How am I denying that a purpose is so? Or claiming that a purpose will lead me to satisfaction? A purpose will lead me to living a fulfilling life, is a fulfilling life one that is necessarily satisfactory?

Your problem is asking the question in the first place. Like the person who equates life only with happiness, you view living as a question of living "for a purpose." Lots of things happen in your life, but you only come away saying: "Is that it? I can't live just those small moments and be satisfied. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You imply that being "satisfied" quenches your need for a purpose in life.

What I live for encompasses innumerable things and activities, and is about contentedness, joy, and motivation, amongst other things. If these things were absent or unobtainable, then yes, I might conclude that I had nothing to live for. That's not melodramatic, it's reasonable. — Sapientia

Did you read my OP, if you can please respond to that as it is directly relevant to what you claim to be purpose in life:

"There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!
Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe"."

For example, some people find their pet worth living or dying for. But living for a pet is neither necessary nor sufficient for a good life. You could live and love your pet (or whatever) and find it just as significant, and your life just as meaningful, without the melodramatic act of ascribing all your life's worth on it. — jkop

True but you didn't define "You could live and love your pet (or whatever) and find it just as significant, and your life just as meaningful"

the whole purpose is define how that occurs.

They can be a source of meaning, or better, they are the meaning. The purpose is to learn to see more and more in them, appreciate them more and work with them in a better, less self-oriented way. If you take the dead view of analysis, they will appear as nothing to you on account of a bogus absolutist fantasy; because you will be demanding more than what is given, which is to say more than you are ready to receive.

It is simply a hopeless artificial situation to be putting yourself in of looking at life from the perspective of this deadening analysis; it is just not capable of leading to anything but nihilism and despair. There is nothing imperative or absolutely true in such a lifeless picture; it is something we do to ourselves, and not something inevitably done to us by life. — John

I understand what you are saying John, but I just can't see how it relates to the OP:

"There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!
Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

I just don't see how you can view others as the central focal point of the meaning and purpose in your life? Whence came this meaning in other people?

If I put away my deadening analysis of life and my struggle to find purpose then all I am left with is an ignorant human who goes around attaching itself to any fruitless desire and then claiming it to be the absolute source of purpose in their life (doesn't soun too far from some of the replies on here, including yours ((no offense)) :D ).

No, but it's a start. How can you possibly live a good life if you have nothing to live for? — Sapientia

I concur (Y)

One lives and dies regardless of whether there is something to live for. It is neither sufficient nor necessary for a good life. — jkop

Great post! It reflects what I was saying in my OP about how all animals live in the same way.

The very nature of a "good life" entails a purpose. If you don't think it does... THEN LIST WHY NOT!

I live for mostly hedonistic reasons. Do you want a list, or...?

It's irrational to dismiss that just because it is temporary. That it is temporary is inconsequential. For me, at least.

I don't live because I'm afraid to die. I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to right now. — Sapientia

I said nothing about the fact that because it is temporary it is inconsequential (AKA why live if it's not forever)

I was claiming (if you even read my OP at all) that:

"There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!

Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe"."

And your not wanting to die right now is the same as saying you don't want to die. Because in the future it is very likely that you will not want to die then either. Like the procrastinator who keeps putting of cleaning his room by saying "I will clean my room, just not now". It is a psychological coping mechanism, be aware of it!

This thread supports my belief that each of us should develop a fetish. Then we would have something to live for. — Real Gone Cat

Lol, What happens when the fetish goes stale?

It really doesn't though if you read my OP, fetish is like right pinky toe.

Harmony neither acts nor reasons, and contentment is the harmony of the lowest possible energy state of the complete system, when we no longer make distinctions between who we are and what we are doing. Instead of seeking happiness or pleasure or viewing work as drudgery, we merely accept them as we accept everything else in life including the evidence of our own senses and sensibilities. Which is why to be or not to be is not worth considering and why Socrates said death may be the greatest of all blessings. When we no longer make distinctions between who we are and what we are doing each moment can be a blessing. — wuliheron

Ok, I see what you are saying. I meditate so I can see directly that when thought stops contentment arises and that is the lowest possible energy state of the complete system (the brain). But probably the lowest energy state is sleep or death. and harmony acts but doesn't reason, if it didn't how could harmony exist? Harmony needs action in order for it to exist. Where is the harmony in a completely still nothing?

I don't see how you got "to be or not to be is not worth considering" from "Socrates said death may be the greatest of all blessings." How does all of this making to be or not to be is not worth considering? Because I would be so content that it wouldn't matter? AKA:

How is it wrong? It doesn't mean I'm going to persue that goal to the detriment of others (nor is that necessarily the case with other goals for other people such as happiness or eudaimonia). — Ovaloid

It is vain, and illusory. It has nothing to do with the detriment of others, so you don't need to point that out. Likewise, how do you even prove that you had the free will to even claim ownership over what you accomplished? The libet experiment doesn't act in your favor there.

self-esteem = feeling good about oneself, not necessarily = other people feeling good about one — Ovaloid

Fair point, it still doesn't stop the fact that it is misguided and vein. But just think about if you had no one else to compare yourself to, and it was only you in existence? Of which standards would you set yourself up against? How would you know if you did well and could therefore be proud of yourself? It seems you NEED others to feel good about yourself, just not directly need them to see how good you are as you say, although it is my contention that the common ego secretely wishes for this anyhow no matter how much it tells itself that it only cares about it's own appraisal.

There's absolutely no need for that. (btw mods, what is the point in banning bigotry if other kinds of meanness are left up?) — Ovaloid

It wasn't intended to be mean, it was intended to show you the vanity of your beliefs. As in by dropping dead on the floor right at the height of all your self-indulgent flattery. e.g. i'm so proud of my self, i'm so talented, mirror mirror on the wall bla bla bla

I live for love. — Heister Eggcart

Then obviously you didn't read my OP

There is a much better chance that death isn't what you claim it to be - a superduper wizz bang thingamajig (and you are asking what the hell I mean?! Go figure.) I could see you excitedly running through that door labeled "Death" and then drop screaming into a void. — Harry Hindu

I never claimed death was anything more than nothing. The term superduper wizz bang thingamajig is just to show you the absurdity of the component you seem to think is in my right pocket when you have absolutely NO idea what it is, yet you are going around yelling "I know everyone, I know... me! not you! but me! I know that there is nothing at death! SO there!"

Death is no different from what I experienced before being alive - nothing. Death is simply non-existence after you existed. You didn't exist before you came into being, and that "experience" of not existing would be the same as after you existed — Harry Hindu

Are you sure of that? How do you know you weren't an mystical energy being who at the time of transference had all of it's memories temporarily disabled.

My point is that you can't know that for certain. I am so sick of foolish people inferring concrete absolutes about states they know NOTHING of, your as bad as a christian ffs. You don't KNOW what it was like before death, therefor don't say it was nothing... all you can say about it is that you don't know and you don't remember, but it could be something and it could be nothing.

The requirement that life should have meaning to me, personally, seems unreasonably self-centered. It's not for me. — unenlightened

You quoted me on what I said "I am not talking about the meaning of life here but a purpose that sustains one from avoiding inevitable death" then you talk about meaning. facepalm

Moreover, you don't have evidence that it only last once. It is only a self-centred inference because of your stubborn belief patterns. It might or might not be, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Say I was to correct your sentence for you though:

"The requirement that life should have purpose to me, personally, seems unreasonably self-centered. It's not for me."

What is self centred about that?

Bitter Crank I would like you to address this plz when u have the time.

I was trying to show you that if there was no suffering then there still wouldn't be a purpose. You are saying a worthy purpose is to "heal the world" but what will it be once the world is healed? To keep healing it more? And then what? Just to keep healing and healing and healing as long as humans exist?

That just doesn't seem logical. We are animals at base level. All animals share this in common.

"What is a man. If his chief good and market of his time. Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more." -Hamlet

All this 'purpose' business: what sense can we make of finding a desire for purpose in us? There's a beginning. — mcdoodle

We don't need to find a desire for purpose, I think most people have desire for a purpose and if they don't then they are too stupid too or depressed. The issue is that people are saying their purpose in life are neutral objects... or thereabouts anyway. How irrational it is to say my purpose in life is my stuffed cat that died 10 years ago! Likewise, how irrational to say that your purpose in life is your wife, who shares the same resemblance of a stuffed cat only yet she provides you with more emotional responses, intellectual stimulation and opportunities for situational decision making. I don't care how much you love your dead cat mate, that just doesn't cut if for a purpose in life!

You maintain your little world doing your pendulum swing.. Upkeep is really important here. You survive- go to work, consume, maintain your space.. In modern settings this is your property and living situation.. You look for entertainment.. this can be things to alleviate boredom including loneliness.. You look for a friend group, a mate, hobbies, etc. With a mate you may try to form a family unit so that you have an anchor- a unit to go back to.. A family is almost a manifestation of boredom multiplied.. If you have a unit of people, you will be that much more occupied.. Your world will be filled with concerns of other people at-the-ready for you to have to deal with.. Anything to avoid existence itself.. that churning will that moves your forward to the next task, ensuring you keep following activities related to cultural upkeep (survival, maintaining property, etc.), and making sure you find ways to entertain. — schopenhauer1

What your describing sounds like a nightmare someone cooked up about a bunch of carbon based lifeforms who are too stupid to see the truth of their own situation and to cowardly to do anything about.

I think monks or ascetics who meditate would be an exception here as they focus on existential despair, emptiness and loneliness all day, although you don't seem to think so as the paragraph in your thread suggested. You claimed the lofty goal of nonexistence or a transcendental existence through ascetic practices is only a coping mechanism for the situation but never truly resolves it.

We want to get caught up in something so that we do not actually see existence itself or contend with our own boredom. We also have hope that some future state will bring more pleasure than the present state. This provides the carrot and stick. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, we are just kidding ourselves that our life is worth living or that it has purpose and/or meaning (self-created or otherwise)

What puzzles me is why you are taking it to be, or else insisting on making it, a question of cold analysis. Ask yourself whether there is anything or anyone that you care about deeply. or even a little. Does any activity interest you? Do you have any creative or spiritual aspirations? Do any artworks or works of philosophy, or literature or works of music move you? Do you love any activities like dancing or walking in the wilderness or any sports? Does any religion or spiritual teaching speak to your imagination, intuitions or emotions?

If the answer is 'no' to all, or even to any, of these questions, then have you considered the possibility that it is your being unable to see past cold, dead analysis, at least in some connections, that is doing the damage to your state of mind, and perhaps ruining or at least diminishing what could be a productive and flourishing life? — John

Sure John, there are various aspects of my existence that I find fun, beautifull, eccentric, enlightening but AS I POINTING OUT IN MY OP I am failing to see how these are a source for the purpose in ones life.

It is seriously like no one has actually read my OP and understands what I am saying in this thread.

Let me say it again:

There are some fleeting moments of joy and beauty that I can capture but it is foolish to live FOR those moments exclusively because they are transitory and fleeting, nor do they actually give any more purpose to one's life, it just makes life more "exciting". They are merely moments in which one is so elated with pleasure that they do not think of how empty and absurd their situation as a human is. If one were to live for pleasure alone it would leave one waiting in anticipation all the time and actually make life worse!
Happiness is an extension of the human experience much like my right pinky toe is too. Claiming happiness is a purpose for life is absurd. You might here a great many people claim "The very sole purpose of my existence is to experience happiness" but this makes as much sense as to say "the very sole purpose of my existence is to experience my right pinky toe".

I have given purpose a lot of thought and have concluded that the answer is for humanity to secure its long term survival with a healthy social culture, which manages the planetary resources sustainably and cares for and maintains the biosphere. Is that not a worthy purpose? — Punshhh

That purpose is the same as I stated in my OP, just to keep surviving and not die like all other animals. That is not a purpose, that is an instinct.

It's quite simple, an absence of anything, everything. There are no bananas or thingamajig, it's quite simple. In fact it couldn't be simpler. — Punshhh

Don't you see though that they are one and the same thing? You don't KNOW what an absence of anything is because you can't ever experience it. It is simple because you just aren't looking at it deeply enough.