What is the meaning of life?

[DWill]

The question has become a little hackneyed, to the point where it's a set-up for a gag: the pilgrim putting the question to the holy man on the top of the mountain, who delivers a jokey response. If the question means anything, it's about ethics, as most have said. The answer, "We're supposed to enjoy ourselves however we are able," would be seen as the wrong answer, I'm sure. The question is really one of purpose, not meaning. The challenge is to get from johnson's starting point to a human ethics that logically follows from our being starstuff. Despite TheHiddenTruthBook's eloquence, I can't find that path in his summary of his book. It still seems that our ethics is a much later creation of our own. It has its roots in the simpler feelings of care and protectiveness that other mammals show for their young or close relatives. We expanded that to include a much wider group--in theory the entirely of humankind and other species--as our brains grew and consciousness expanded. But our "ought" is our own thing, not derived from any "is."

[Taylor]

this question is a luxury

[youkrst]

to me life doesnt have a meaning, it just is.

to illustrate what i mean let me substitute for life a specific example of life

what is the meaning of a dog
what is the meaning of a cat
what is the meaning of a flower
what is the meaning of an elephant


see what i mean, it's a stupid question, a non sensical question.

like, what is the circumference of a leotard or what is the weight of an equation.

sentences have meaning (sometimes ) but life just is.

I AM.

one could ask what is a good way to enjoy life
what is the most efficient way to destroy life
how does one make a human being wish they ceased to live

etc etc

but to ask what is the meaning of life seems a bit like a poorly conceived question.

if you believe in a creator you could ask what is his purpose in creating us.
if you believe in life after death you ask how do we best prepare for it.
if you believe in development of consciousness you could ask how do i go about improving my consciousness more efficiently.

but what is the meaning of life?

what is the diameter of a triangle.

I just AM. WE simply ARE (to be continued...)

[TheImpatientAtheist]

to me life doesnt have a meaning, it just is.

to illustrate what i mean let me substitute for life a specific example of life

what is the meaning of a dog
what is the meaning of a cat
what is the meaning of a flower
what is the meaning of an elephant


see what i mean, it's a stupid question, a non sensical question.

Sounds like you have been reading/watching Richard Dawkins, not that thats a bad thing.

I have to agree on some level. The "meaning" question is difficult. BUT if by "meaning" you mean a synonym for "purpose", it becomes easy for me. The perpetuation of the species. Its a biological imperative the same way hunger and having to urinate are. You can dig deeper and ask "but WHY do we want to perpetuate the species?" and my reply to that would simply be that existence is preferable to non-existence. And if you'd like to claim that existence being preferable to non-existence is just a subjective opinion, I would claim you have taken one too many steps down a philosophical dead end road and to rejoin the conversation once you have stopped reading post-modernistic authors.

[Penelope]

Impatient Atheist wrote:

I would claim you have taken one too many steps down a philosophical dead end road and to rejoin the conversation once you have stopped reading post-modernistic authors.

Oooh, if that was meant to be provocative, it certainly worked for me. You have really ruffled my feathers.....whilst not exactly a pleasant sensation....very good for waking me up from my desultory complaining about world conditions, the state of the European Economy, and the heartless acts of human against human, so thank you Impatient.

I have for decades been a reader of 'post modernistic authors' as you dub them. In the seventies I read 'Your Erroneous Zones' by Dr. Wayne W Dyer. What a terrible name for an author from an 'English' point of view, we like names like Edward, Richard and Charles, we trust people with these names as the names of Kings. There never was a King Wayne . But, never-the-less I took out this book from the library in the 1970's and it had a brilliant effect on my way of thinking and looking at life and that is why I have never forgotten this one among many, many other such publications. I read a number of books by Richard Bach, particularly 'Illusions' which also is one that I carried in my mind ever after. I have read very many by Richard Dawkins, but his books are addressing a very different attitude. Professor Dawkin's wondrous books have helped me to get to grips, a little, with the fundamentals of science and life on earth. But his books are about science and scientific thinking, not really about attitude and perception.

Life cannot be just about the perpetuation of the species. If it were, this species wouldn't be worth perpetuating. Animals don't kill, torture and maime for pleasure. They kill for food or if in the case of cats, they play with their prey, it is not the flouting of ethics, because cats are just cats doing what cats do by nature. Humans are self-aware, and they know when they are doing something wrong, like enjoying the pain of another person. This is what makes us different from other creatures and this is what makes it necessary for us to devise a sense of purpose. Whether that purpose is to enjoy and be entertained by life's rich tapestry, whether it is to become more and more cultured and educated, whether it is to become the kindest, nicest little Pollyana we can be. We need to derive a philosophy of life, because we 'wonder about things'. The way most of us reach our philosophy of life is by reading other human beings' philosophies. We look at the thoughts of people from as far back in history as we can reach, because that birds-eye view gives us a better perspective on why they thought what they thought. The historical circumstances of the time, and the part of the globe where they were situated obviously effects their perceptions but there is a thread running through all, a need in that person to make sense of life, just as we still do today.

A need to make 'patterns' as one of the moderators on here accused me of, no names, but you know who you are Interbane. The science of nature, does make patterns, like the Fibonacci numbers. Well, similarly, we (most of us, I think) want to discover patterns in our human evolution. I don't think it is natural for us to be content with 'Chaos'. Athough, as Terry Pratchett has pointed out, Chaos does make good patterns for tee-shirts.

[youkrst]

Sounds like you have been reading/watching Richard Dawkins, not that thats a bad thing.

pretty patronising comment, my post was elementary Buddhism which as far as i know predates Richard Dawkins by quite a few centuries.

i have seen very little Dawkins and read none at all but what i have seen i have enjoyed.

[Penelope]

I was just vacuuming the stairs, as I thought about this topic and where it is leading. What if our purpose in life is linear....as in the progression of the soul to become more and more wise, and kind and worthy of eternity, or, What if it is an opening out like the petals of a flower, ie, we are not going anywhere, certainly not 'up'. Vacuuming the stairs being provocative to this theory.

Or: what if there is no purpose? Would it make my behaviour any different? Would I still not seek to be 'good'? I don't mean 'good' in a competitive sense, because after all, what difference does it make if I can run faster than anyone else, so long as I can get along. But I want to be worthy and virtuous....(you insufferable prig, Penelope).....I think I want to be worthy and virtuous because my genes are being passed on to my grandchildren.....(the joyous, barbarous, delightful little carbon based lifeforms).

I don't want the human species to perpetuate at any cost. I want us to become a loftier race like the hymn we used to sing at school:-

These things shall be
A loftier race
than ere the world hath known
Shall rise

With flame of freedom in their souls
And light of knowledge in their eyes.

Yes, that's what I want. And although I feel powerless and feeble about a lot of things which are happening in this world, I can actually do something about myself and my attitude and maybe that will pass on to my progeny. See...purpose, pattern.


PS - I'm afraid in my case, this involves a lot of prayer for wisdom and honesty and courage, because wisdom and honesty and courage don't come naturally to me. Vanity, kudos-seeking, and lust come very naturally.....

[TheImpatientAtheist]

Sounds like you have been reading/watching Richard Dawkins, not that thats a bad thing.

pretty patronising comment, my post was elementary Buddhism which as far as i know predates Richard Dawkins by quite a few centuries.

i have seen very little Dawkins and read none at all but what i have seen i have enjoyed.

It wasnt meant to be patronising, or else I wouldnt have qualified it with "not that thats a bad thing". It just seemed to me to be along the lines of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

And elementary Buddhism cant predate Dawkins by a few centuries, because time is an illusion, Richard Dawkins COULD have been around in the time of the Buddha based on the birth/rebirth concept, etc. /troll

[TheImpatientAtheist]

Life cannot be just about the perpetuation of the species. If it were, this species wouldn't be worth perpetuating. Animals don't kill, torture and maime for pleasure. They kill for food or if in the case of cats, they play with their prey, it is not the flouting of ethics, because cats are just cats doing what cats do by nature. Humans are self-aware, and they know when they are doing something wrong, like enjoying the pain of another person.

Wrong. Here is just one documented case of killing for fun/sport.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... perts.html

Chimps are also self-aware, as evidenced by the 'mirror test'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
http://news.discovery.com/animals/chimp ... 10504.html

Even single celled organisms strive for existence (homeostasis). They will recoil from a 'rouge' group of cells in a petri dish, take action to procure nutrients, etc. There is a profound theory in the study of conciousness that basically posits that conciousness evolved as a mechanism for achieving homeostasis. If you're interested in this concept, check out "Self Comes to Mind" by Antonio Damasio.

[Penelope]

The impatient atheist wrote:

Chimps are also self-aware, as evidenced by the 'mirror test'.

Yes, Chimps are amazing and even use sign language. But not to the same extent as homo sapiens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55put3MLZcw

The thing is, we try to communicate 'ideas' and 'abstract' notions. Our 'egos' get in the way of this to a great extent.

We have such a Tower of Babel here on the Internet. Such an opportunity to communicate.....but there is so much, ' I am right' 'You are Wrong' attitude. I think we need a little more 'Hands across the Ocean'.

The Ocean being the sum total of human experience.