What is the purpose/point of life?
Been doing some personal searching and growth over the last year and have boiled down to one thing. I feel my issues and lack of self worth or drive for more or better or happiness all stem from being young and thinking hard about death. Like really dwelling on the fact that it’ll all just be over and everything and anything we’ve done gone and eventually forgotten. I feel it’s always been in the back of my head and holding me down. I’m a very realistic logical thinking person so naturally I think ok, well the basic instincts of any life at the core would then be the “point” so to speak. What do we all have in common? What are those basic instincts? I go to consuming energy (“eating”), and reproduction to further the species/life. Other than that any other point or purpose seems purely for self gratification or temporaryily lasting past tour life span at best. Now as humans we are birthed and basically guaranteed life (in the general sense) and our basic instincts have turned into selfish choices rather than survival. Especially with reproducing seeing as the earth is way too over populated as it is. Then my head goes to ok well then the only purpose I could imagine would be to get us and atleast life in some form off this rock before it’s gone but even then enough time and forgotten as well. So I ask you.....what do you think? Is there an actual purpose or point to life or living?
Comments (201)
Think more.
Quoting Mtl4life098
You and millions of young people your age feel like you lack worth, or drive, or... something and you all worry about death.
Should you see a psychiatrist? No. Better self-worth comes from working to achieve worthwhile goals. There are many worthwhile things to do. Everyone has issues. You have issues now; you'll have issues until you drop dead. That's just life, so get on with it.
The Purpose of Life? You are part of the universe. Does the universe need a purpose?
Death: Yes, you will die. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe 70 years from now. Take care of yourself: don't smoke; don't drink too much; don't play with guns; eat a balanced diet, get a reasonable amount of exercise, and aim for a good night's sleep. No use killing yourself with bad habits.
You're logically minded but the logic you're using, about reproduction and survival, has led you to a depressing conclusion. Your species doesn't need you to reproduce and survival is near-guaranteed and even then again, your species can survive without you anyway. There's no way around your conclusion, it is correct.
From what you're saying, I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. You are not down because life is meaningless, you are down because the scale of your analysis makes you appear small and insignificant. If you fell in love and said "I'm going to work to make this girl happy" or got competitive with a game and aimed to become really good at it, you can actually make progress, you can actually be important in your own life.
If your purpose in life is just to reproduce for the species or anything like that, you can't be important, you're expendable and the human species doesn't care about you.
To answer your question though, I am convinced life has no objective meaning, the intellect can assert whatever it wants though and if someone is convinced their life has a meaning, you can't really say they're objectively wrong.
If the former then you're completely free to choose whatever you want to do with your life and that would be your purpose. If the latter, you'll need to come to terms with the fact that the existence of god is an open question i.e. the divine road to purpose is a blind alley.
:death: :flower:
Quoting Mtl4life098
And so we feel "nothing matters, nothing ever done, said, made, or valued matters" ... until experience compels us to reflect, recognizing that 'if "nothing matters", then "nothing matters" also does not matter'. :smirk:
Defiance ("To be" – without ready-made purpose (i.e. create 'eternity')) or denial (i.e. "not to be" – without ready-made purpose (i.e. waste/kill 'time')).
Or in other words:
Defy - affirm ("red pill") - what? (fate?)
Deny - negate ("blue pill") - what? (fate?)
:point: Amor fati: Life has no (e.g. metaphysical, or "god-given", or necessary-permanent) purpose/s, meaning/s, goal/s ... to live is to play AND struggle, to eat AND to be eaten, to breathe via screams AND laughter ... living learns – flourishes – from failure AND fails to learn (folly), creates AND wastes itself – collectively contributing to the acceleration of cosmic entropy – like countless stars blazing AND THEN burning-out, one by one, in the black ...
"If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present." ~L.W.
:fire:
To a large extent, I would suggest that the purpose of life is not an intrinsic one, but is one which we create. We can find our own meaning and purpose in life.
Or a social worker, a judge, or a parole officer. Or a mob boss. To name a few.
That's not true, though. It is, for example, not solely within the power of the individual to become a billionaire, a president of a country, or the one who cured cancer.
A purpose is just what something is good for, so the question is "is living good for anything?"
That hinges on what in general is good. Whatever is good, if life furthers that, then life is good for that, and that's the purpose of life.
I'd argue that what is good is basically enjoyment, so life is good for the enjoyment of it, and so the purpose of life is to enjoy it.
I'd argue further that the highest form of enjoyment is a feeling of meaningfulness, of importance, both of the universe being important to you, and of you being important to the universe.
Part of the universe being important to you is for its ability to help you enjoy it in other ways.
But another part of it being important to you is for its informing of your understanding of it, and yourself.
One way you can be important to the rest of the universe is to do good things for it, to help others to enjoy living.
And another way is to be a source of information, to help others understand it, and themselves.
So you might flesh all of this out, a bit poetically, as that the meaning of life is to learn, to teach, to love, and to be loved: for both truths and goods to flow through you from as far and wide as possible to as far and wide as possible.
see "The meaning of life and greek mythology"
One would need to work within one's limitations, the constraints that apply to one's circumstance.
No need to dissolve human life into the universe. Life doesn't have a purpose but this emptiness creates the room within itself for it (is "purposeable", if you let me use bad language) Once you find it, you never ever tell anybody that your life has no purpose.
As for your final paragraph, telling a youngster "be a good and reasonable old man" (like yourself, at least that's what looks like) won't work and you already know it. The good wishes embedded in those words at least are something worthwhile but usually they don't work either.
Improving oneself in order to help others.
Precisely. It is fundamental to what we are. One strategy for people who are consumed with the depths of their own problems (and I'm not ascribing this to the OP but as a general observation) is to focus on helping others. And the best way to help others is to improve yourself, since your new capabilities can be applied to the universal benefit.
That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.
Aristotle says people are wise who undertake to learn what is difficult. I think this is literally true in an existential sense. Each of us has capabilities and weaknesses. For someone with a great mathematical skill, learning advanced math and physics may be relatively easy, although, collectively, this might be regarded as relatively difficult, owing to the relative rarity of such gifts. I think the great challenge for each of us is to use what gifts we do possess for the collective good, but also to learn to recognize what are our own greatest weaknesses, and to work hard in those areas until those become strengths.
Everybody loves to enjoy rewards, but what is gotten without effort can never be more than superficially enjoyed. The harder something is to achieve, the greater the enjoyment when it is.
Your last equation doesn't work in real life, I can eat chocolate, have sex, have a drink... and get lots and lots of pleasure with little or no effort.
I disagree. Hence the distinctions between hedonism, eudaimonism, and agathism. I'm not unfamiliar with sensual pleasures, they eventually wear thin.
200 years of capitalism suggests otherwise. The repeated, and often genocidal failures of communism, suggests otherwise. Man tends his own garden best. In 1776, Adam Smith explained that the self interested actions of rational economic actors are coordinated "as if by an invisible hand" - not by some conscious intention to serve the common good.
The question of the youngster here (the main thing under discussion) was more or less "if I am going to die, why I was born" (Ionesco) The answer is within himself, not written here or in any other place and it is not something to be done as you and Bitter Crank say, a kind of task or homework that you do and, voilá, you find the purpose of your life. If that's the solution, the film "Soul" has done a heck of a better job than you guys. He just logged into a phylosophy forum and asked a +30000 years old question with no answer. Do I need to explain further what's going on here?
Indeed. The distinction between pleasure and craving.
I dig the quandary, but I feel like you're conflating two overlapping but distinct questions: what am I for?; how best to live? The latter does not presume the former. Not reproducing because the planet is overpopulated is fine, but it's not a purpose. Likewise, reproducing because your body tells you to is fine, but not a purpose. Both are reactions to what is, as far as the mind is concerned, an external environment. There's no need to rationalise them at all, and certainly no need to rationalise them teleologically and egocentrically.
But if you want to go down that route... my view in a crowded nutshell: We generally identify "I" as our mind, and your problem is about decision-making. What is the mind for? It's a thing that 1) takes facts (bodily stimuli, external stimuli, memories, etc.), 2) projects outcomes based on those, 3) algorithmically determines which outcomes are optimal, and 4) determines which facts to change to realise those outcomes.
(1) is inevitable, (2&4) take practice, (3) takes ethics. Deciding how the world should be is pretty much what constitutes our moral character. Do you maximise your personal advantage or gratification? Do you prioritise your sister over a stranger? Do you absent yourself as much as possible from effecting the world?
Whatever your ethics, if this is what the mind ("I") is for, it makes sense to optimise it's performance. (1) means being vigilant. (2) means thinking things through based on as much information as possible: learn what you can about the consequences of our actions and take your own actions seriously. (4) means competence: try your best.
(3) means knowing what the best outcomes are, which means knowing oneself well. Question your beliefs and culture, familiarise yourself with diverse moral philosophy to consider multiple arguments for and against an given ethics.
The mind is a small part of us. There's more to the brain, and much more to the body, than an algorithmic decision-making machine. You have capacities for empathy, for altruism. You have instinctive ideas of injustice. What are these for? These can advise what sort of outcomes are best.
And this is the age-old question. Since we are nearing the tipping point of our global system, the intrinsic superiority of one or the other perspective will undoubtedly be empirically validated before long.
There's a natural justice to the idea that a person owns themselves, and uses their talents and their capital to further their own interest - and an injustice to the idea they should be denied the opportunity to pursue their own interest for sake of someone else's idea of "the common good."
It's not merely a matter of economic freedom, but personal and political freedom allowed for by economics based in liberty. Collective ownership and a command economy does not allow for political opposition. The state owns everything, produces everything. The common good cannot be opposed. So communism not only deprives man of property, but his personal and political freedom. He becomes a factor of production. Individuality itself is inimical to the common good. So I ask you: what good?
Communism has failed every country that ever adopted it, and repeatedly committed genocide on a scale that makes Hitler look like a rank amateur - so if you advocate this system of political economy you really should be able to explain: what good?
:up: That'll do. Life is for living, games are for playing.
Quoting Mtl4life098
When I played it, YouTube flashed up an add for a Senior's card.
Altruism and egoism are human traits that far predate the appearance of capitalism and communism. Neither of which is any specific thing but rather an amalgam of philosophies professed by different personalities in different regions at different times to different effect. Whereas altruism and egoism have tangible human measures.
:up:
And then expect payment for borrowing the shovel.
What are you grateful for?
Having the time to think? Having access to a forum such as this? Being sufficiently articulate that you can elicit enough interest, from a dozen people around the world, that they respond to your post?
Having enough to eat? Having shelter and warmth?
Company? Friendship? Love?
Having access to good books and sites that are worth reading?
Make a list.
:up:
Jack, that's what meaning is. All meaning is attributed. It's just the use to which we put stuff.
So @Mtl4life098 is in effect asking what to do next.
Goodness, I find myself wanting to reply "What would Nietzsche say?"
See the thing we must remember is like in geometry a “point” Is only ever relative. What is the point of a spoon for example. Well the point is relative to its function for us “the creators of spoons/ utensils” - to consume liquids, desserts, medicines etc. Now if you rephrase it in another context “what is the point of a Spoon to the existence of mars”? It’s relatively pointless. The existence of a planet is not dependent on a spoon.
So points are always based in a context. So really we are asking what is the point of “X” in relation to “Y”. In certain cases it’s highly relevant and in others it is not.
What is the point of my life? This can feel insignificant when you consider the whole human population of 8 billion people and counting. But put in context; what is the point of my life to my family, to my friends, to my career .. to the talents I have, to the difference I could make to my area of specialisation.
The point of a doctor is meaningless for the healthy seemingly immortal “care free” essence of youth but essential to the weak or elderly or diseased.
When we ask of vagueries of the universe then specific points feel unimportant. But when we ask of the point of something to its close relationships and interactions it is crucial. Just as the millisecond is crucial to the meaning of a second and the second to a minute and minute to an hour and hour to a day and day to a week month year decade century Millenium and so on. The point of something is an order of magnitude. But importantly they are always interlinked. There is always a connection between points. Even is they seem pointless as a collective.
You are a distinct “point”in the universe. You are a point in time, in space, you are a point of energy, a point of Matter. The true endeavour is to understand the relevance or association of “ your point” the the “whole point” Or your “small picture” to the “bigger picture”.
Consider voting. Voting is a Point of decision making. And while sure one vote likely doesn’t count for much... every vote counts. It is one choice in the set Of choices that makes the whole voice of a population. It has to count for something mathematically.
So when one feels pointless or worthless, They likely thing in terms of the grand, the large, the insurmountable. It is essential to think atomistically in terms of the point - a point or purpose or agenda is the fundamental unit of a collective dynamic.
What is the point of oxygen in water? Well it Sets the tone for the fluid. But a single molecule of water is not a fluid. The fluid is the group. But it needs each little point - each little molecule to interact so that the fluid phenomenon can exist.
Don’t underestimate the power of a little bit of change. Because at the end of the day any change is change all the same. We have no idea how our ripples expand outwards and influence those of others in the cosmic fluid.
You have inherent and irreplaceable worth in the dynamic change of the universe. But I compel you to focus on your immediate influence - those around you ... which value you much more than you could ever imagine.
There's something very childish about this. Musk finds folk handing him money so he chooses to use it to play with rockets. And he makes them land on their tails, just like in the Saturday Matinée.
It's wonderful stuff; don't get me wrong. I love to watch the children play.
Ah!
An important point. I would concur!
Sure.
Quoting Pantagruel
But you weren't trying to justify altruism. What you said is:
Quoting Pantagruel
Altruism and the collective good are not synonymous. That's merely the sheep's clothing with which the communist wolf hides its savage purpose. Dictatorship. Slavery. How are these good? How are these altruistic?
Help me out here, @Ciceronianus the White - would it be "Argumant nomen vocatio"?
The question is one of purpose - of the meaning of life. I can not define an ultimate purpose for existence. I can show there's a truth relation between the organism and reality in evolution, necessary to survival - and on this basis I advocate acknowledging science as an understanding of reality and acting accordingly to secure a sustainable future.
I suspect it leads somewhere - that truth is the path to God, as it were, just as misuse of scientific truth spells the doom of humankind. But I don't know.
Quoting counterpunch
I fail to see what's childish about acknowledging what one can and cannot know.
Yes, indeed, you commit the naturalistic fallacy. It's been pointed out before, by myself and others.
Odd, that you think calling play "childish" was intended as derogatory. Would that everyone could be Peter Pan.
And capitalism hasn't?
Over 9 million people starve to death every year, in a world that is pretty much entirely capitalist nowadays. Why is that not a failure of capitalism?
:rofl:
I have no illusions. You do. You refuse to see that capitalism has proven itself, far superior to centralising economic decision making in some few people with ultimate power. It's more successful, more free, more just and humane. Communism is a failure - and a genocidal abomination. Advocating communism should be more taboo than promoting fascism.
Quoting Pfhorrest
In Essay on Population 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that, because population grows geometrically - 2,4,8,16, etc - while productive land can only be added arithmetically 1,2,3,4 etc, acres at a time, human beings would soon outstrip their food supply and starve.
Today, there are around 8 billion people on earth. Which is to say, by your numbers, that capitalism feeds 7.91bn people adequately, and you call that a failure? I call it a miracle.
That don't look linear to me.
But then, you don't need facts when you have your ideology to comfort you.
The existence of agricultural technology is independent of the ownership of it.
It is the technology that feeds the billions of people on earth today, and it actually produces enough food to feed EVERYONE. There is no practical reason why anyone in the world today has to starve. We have the means to feed them all.
It is the distribution of ownership of that technology, and that land it is applied to, etc — which is what’s different between capitalism and its alternatives, who owns what — that results in millions of people starving to death every year DESPITE that overabundance of food.
If you are going to do that, don't expect to be taken seriously.
There's plenty more facts at Our world in data. See if you can find anything that suggests the growth of food production is linear, as you claimed. There is enough food for everyone, as @Pfhorrest said.
Your ideology prevents you from seeing this.
No. I demonstrated the difference between a:
Geometric progression 2, 4, 8, 16 etc, and an
Arithmetic progression: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.
Malthus' argument was that population grows geometrically, while productive land grows arithmetically, so we'd starve. Instead, we invented tractors! Now, 8 billion people are fed.
If you stopped trying to be a dick, and tried instead to follow the argument, you might relate this to what I'm saying about science, technology and sustainability.
...and the data shows Malthus to be wrong, productivity grows exponentially.
Further, most of those who are fed by the economic miracle live in such bastions of capitalism as China, India and Indonesia.
Here's the problem: you attribute the improvements to agriculture to the invisible hand. But they are the result of research and engineering, not economics. Your ideology prevents you from seeing this.
Malthus is the spiritual father of the left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, eco commie approach to sustainability. And he's wrong!
At last we are in agreement - but only because you thought you were being disagreeable.
Again, you show that you view the world through ideological glasses.
Quoting Banno
Oh dear me banno - this began with Pantagruel saying something like:
"The challenge is for people to use their gifts for the collective good."
The collective good isn't good, it doesn't work, and it won't secure a sustainable future. It is political economy - but don't imagine I'm blinded by devotion to an ideology. You're kidding yourself. I AM a philosopher. Everything is, and has been open to question - in the formation of these opinions.
...no...
...never...
I would place responsibility for sustainability with producers - not as you would, with consumers. First I'd support capitalism with limitless clean energy from magma, but then I'd require increasing responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality across sectors of the economy, by creating a science based, level regulatory playing field - to end the race to the bottom.
Don't imagine for a moment, that just because I'm explaining to Pantygruel that communism is a nightmare, I think capitalism is perfect - because it isn't. It works. It allows for some measure of freedom and dignity. But failure to recognise science as truth is still a catastrophic failure, bound to result in the extinction of humankind.
Capitalism is a disruption of the market.
I don't know. I suspect whatever his ideology he'd be equally blind. His precise ideology just means he's blind and vile.
Quoting Pfhorrest
In its current guise, certainly. Divorcing the fate of the company from the date of the trader has corrupted it immensely. When it can be in the trader's interest to destroy his own company, market forces are rather irrelevant.
I just wanted to mention Žižek.
I was thinking more of how it being possible for rich people to extract money from poor people by owning the things they need to use and charging them for that use creates incentives for the rich to buy even more of the things that the poor need, which distorts the market, making those things even more expensive and so more profitable for an ever-shrinking set of rich and unattainable for an ever-growing set of poor.
I think there's a massive overlap between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about wherein a company becomes a resource for a small number of people to extract money and move on. There are other factors, for instance creating demand for useless products which is less like trade and more like welfare. But a trader who owns the means of production and who successfully aggregates wealth by those means doesn't strike me as a corruption of the market, just an undesirable possibility of the market. Owning one's means of production, having workers... these are as old as markets themselves, surely.
True, which is why I’m not against markets, nor against privately owned means of products per se, but against concentration of the means of production into few hands, such that some people own more than they themselves use, and others own none and instead use the unused excess that others own; and against things that lead toward rather than away from that kind of situation, such as legitimating contracts that charge for the mere temporary use of something, rather than a trade of goods or services (where a service involves actually doing something, not just allowing someone else to do something).
That separation of people into non-owning workers and non-working owners, laborers and capitalists, is the defining feature of capitalism. All the stuff about markets and private ownership and workplaces is only relevant because it’s thought bu someone or other to be either a cause of or an effect of capital ownership being thus concentrated.
I’m thinking that I’d like to rephrase that “love and be loved” part in a way that’s a little more parallel to “learn and teach”: I’m looking for some verb that means to receive good things, something in the vein of “to earn” or “to win” (Spanish “ganar” seems in the ballpark, but I’m looking for English), and then another verb meaning to give good things, maybe to help or to aid? Any suggestions?
I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated.
An answer that does not construe the very existence of human beings as problematic.
Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.
An approach that identifies the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis, and in those same terms - describes the possibility of a prosperous, sustainable future.
[i]The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.
That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows?[/i]
An approach with ontological implications - a way of being, that implies the existence of an ultimate meaning or purpose to be discovered.
It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.
And it falls upon stoney ground. I cannot explain it. Is it ego? Is it impossible for them to admit they are wrong? Or jealousy - the impossibility of admitting I am right? Is it cowardice - that they hide from reality? Or self hatred - do they think themselves unworthy of existence? How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it?
Don't get me wrong, Crowley was a nutter, but he has a point. Gain the experiences you want, without wondering what "the point" is of all of it. If/when you figure that out it will only be applicable to you anyway, so no one other than you can answer it. The point of my life is far different from yours, which makes sense. Remember, there are no points awarded at the end of your days for arriving there in pristine condition. Live, play, enjoy, and seek out whatever you like. It gets shorter as you go eh.
True, but the pleasure is passing until the next round. There is minimal sense of accomplishment. When things are too easy we do not value them as they become mundane, rather than an accomplishment. These are dependent on one's abilities. Making a bed is not an accomplishment for most, for a stroke survivor it may be a massive accomplishment. Getting a degree for some is as difficult, or as easy, as making a bed. Same result, very different feeling of accomplishment.
The first three descriptors are correct, although he never did admit to being a Satanist. Again, the assumption that, because of the first three, he can not have a valid point is interesting: Why not?
The true path is to reject the bad faith of dogma and the bad objectivity of transcendentalism, without sacrificing the good faith of freedom and the good objectivity of universalism; equivalently, to avoid falling into bad, cynical skepticism, and bad, relativistic, subjectivism, but rightly adopting good, critical skepticism, and good, phenomenal subjectivism.
They think the answer is wrong. It's not rocket science.
Did you somehow miss that class in your 'Other people have different opinions to you' lessons?
Why would they offer you that courtesy when you've not offered them the courtesy of explaining why you are right? You're totally unqualified to comment yourself and you've not provided any supporting citation from those who are. Why would we put in effort you are not prepared to put in.
Do you need a citation to prove that in 1634, Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy upon proving earth orbits the sun? Do you need a citation to explain that religion supressed science as truth?
Do you need a citation to explain that the industrial revolution began around 1730 - using science for industrial power and profit, even while science as truth was supressed by a church that burnt people alive for heresy right through to 1792?
Do you not know that Darwin wandered around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick about the religious, political and social implications of evolution, before finally putting pen to paper in 1859? Did you not know that even then, over 200 years since Galileo - his theory was met with howls of protest from the Church that continue even unto this day?
Did you not know that Creationists are trying to infiltrate education, and that Answers In Genesis (AiG) has built a life-size Noah’s ark, costing $100 million - in Kentucky, USA? What - in any of this, needs independent verification you can't get from Bing? Who else here supports every idea with academic sources? And what makes you think I'm unqualified?
No, that's common knowledge.
Quoting counterpunch
No. That too is common knowledge.
None of these fact support your conclusion. What have either got to do with the conclusion that capitalism is inseparably linked to agricultural technology, or that geothermal energy is a viable source?
Quoting counterpunch
Alarmingly few. Most do not make so many heterodox claims though.
Quoting counterpunch
You've already told us your educational level.
Quoting Isaac
Ah, I have my answer. You think I'm wrong because you're simply incapable of following the argument. Phew. It's not me! That's such a relief, thanks!
So people need laws to tell them what to do because otherwise they will do what they want, and that works out badly for everyone else, hence the requirement for constraining....
Tell me again why we are concerned about saving people? Seriously, if I need laws to make sure my fellow man does no evil against me then, logically, having less fellow men around me makes me, and everyone else, safer. And we are back at letting the virus run free for the betterment of humanity.
That which does not kill us eh!
The argument you were referring to in full...
Quoting counterpunch
It does not once mention Galileo, nor the oppression of the church.
It does mention a lot about geothermal energy, and how capitalist approaches can save humanity.
So no. It's got nothing to do with my not following an argument and everything to do with you talking about stuff you're unqualified to talk about without citing your sources.
Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources to establish whether they're the actually likely to be the case or not?
I thought you'd said earlier that your approach was to take science seriously.
Again, that strikes me as a perfectly possible consequence of markets themselves, for instance a more successful trader edging out a competitor who becomes more peripheral. You could add regulation to avoid it, but that's not market forces at work, quite the opposite. Markets are about surplus: you have to start with more than you can use of *something*. There's no guarantee of also having less of the same value of something else you need.
Quoting Isaac
Such as? Provide sources!
Or good arguments, apparently. But congrats on the not making friends thing. You've overachieved if anything.
Quoting counterpunch
Your philosophy. No sources.
There you go.
If you like to provide your preferred form for the citation I'd be happy to make a proper reference for it.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You've demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot recognise a good argument. You're a left wing, political correctness ideologue. It's a dogma you cling to despite the fact communism has failed, and repeatedly run to genocide - despite me showing you that the anti-capitalist, eco commie approach to sustainability can't work, and despite me showing you the many obvious hypocrisies of political correctness.
My social skills are bad - I know this.
Your arguments are bad - I've shown you, and you still don't know.
So that's a no to my invite to the Annual Kenosha Death of Communism Lament then? There's free vodka and schnapps? Top prize in the raffle this year is a plough?
Ah well.
It requires formatting - because I'm commenting on my own post. If you're going to copy and paste it - either post the original, or format the copy as intended. I don't see anything that requires a source. If you do, you could always ask: "Do you have any further information on that?"
Quoting Isaac
Yes, that would be a no! The same no - you gave my open invitation to engage with philosophy on a philosophy forum. On second thoughts, perhaps I will attend; only, I'll arrive on an ATV, do donuts on the lawn, blare loud music so no one else can here themselves talk, and piss in the punchbowl!
Yep, my bad.
Quoting counterpunch
Just in that section, there's...
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Then in the rest of your contribution, there's
Quoting counterpunch
So, "Do you have any further information on that?"
Indeed. Well your commie club meeting in the pissy corner of an underground carpark, still a no, thanks!
Makes us dumber ...
Quoting counterpunch
What about these comments requires a source? They are a logical argument. The premise; that resources are a function of the energy available to create them, is proven by the fact that given sufficient clean energy - we could capture carbon, produce fresh water, irrigate land etc. No source is necessary or possible. I cannot cite an understanding of basic physics. Or logical implication.
An example of something that could use a source is this:
Quoting counterpunch
So, as you ask so nicely - watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w
The second part is not a fact. You've not shown that energy supply is the only factor involved in assessing our ability to do these things, and on the face of it, it seems extraordinary unlikely that it would be.
Quoting counterpunch
YouTube is not a source, but it's a start. Find a paper by this Hans Rosling and quote from it the parts that support your assertion...
...if you're remotely interested in taking this seriously, of course, which I've seen absolutely no evidence of thus far.
Watched it. No mention at all of the circumscription you put here on the factors affecting access to food. Not one.
Quoting Isaac
Youtube is merely a platform. It's a tedtalk by a master statistician, and it does prove my point. You lefties are addicted to your pain. Given statistical proof it doesn't exist - you don't change your views. You attack the source.
"Hey, BLM - there's no genocide being committed by the police."
"Racist!"
If you care about a sustainable future - why are you not delighted to learn that there's no need to stop this, carbon tax that, eat grass and cycle to work? Why don't you want a prosperous sustainable future? Is it that you eco commie ideologues want to stuff your mistaken "limits to growth" hypothesis - down the throat of capitalism and hope it chokes?
Yes. That's why I leave that sort of thing to experts in those various fields. And you've still provided nothing to back up your assertion that no other factors are involved.
Quoting counterpunch
Where? I've watched the whole thing. Nowhere does he even mention the causes of mortality. Not even in passing or implication. Nothing. The whole lecture is about how third world countries are becoming more developed, more mid-level and that within-region variation is high. Have you perhaps accidentally posted the wrong link?
Quoting counterpunch
Because you've not provided a shred of evidence. Not one single tiny hint that anything you claim is actually the case.
No one is accusing police of genocide. A fine example of the straw men that must be resorted to when reality is too much to handle.
Maybe you should watch it again!
Quoting counterpunch
Just like every of our physics theories, my opinion lacks the complete information and thus may be inaccurate. I don't support mind-body dualism presently, which will become evident as you read the expose. I am not denying that the ego is real, but I can't find enough evidence for its transcendence. Therefore, I don't believe in transcendent ethical arguments for the answer to your question. I am in support of the idea of consciousness in the flesh.
A particular type of dynamically organized collections of physical objects try to sustain themselves. By which I mean, to retain behavior and dynamic equilibrium. This is not of great import in the scheme of things and to choose to expire is not objectively inferior, but then your existence becomes hermetic. You leave no fingerprint in nature. Not wanting to sustain becomes self-defeating, and trying to sustain becomes self-fulfilling. Disinterest in life is a transitory trait and terminates soon after. Single organisms can be the end of entire communities, so don't think of it as a personal quality. The sustenance aim of life is not surprising, but the complexity of life is more so the exception. It is apparently the result of many coincidental circumstances, such as enough energy, low entropy, appropriate star matter, supply of information, and time. For your question to come to surface, evolution needs to have carried the drive to sustain to the point where fundamental choices becomes neurologically viable inquiry and seemingly valuable enough to reflect on in terms of the accrued personal and collective experience. Ironically, your heritage of a long collective struggle against the challenge to be a complex lasting organism compels you to ask further.
Why is asking what is the "point" meaningful? In attempts to be lasting, your ancestry evolved from basic reactive systems to intelligent systems. The latter utilize neurological processes to maintain a degree of correlation with the physical environment, current and projected, to make choices for the least expensive and most probable outcome in support of its sustenance, given the present information. But how does the plan form? How do we know to eat, reproduce, socialize, avoid pain, struggle for power. Those are obviously not deliberately planned. Genes, culture, and environment synthesize your innate survival skills. This is your long term memory and a bond to the bigger picture of life. Your survival starts from a collection of irrational impulses.
However, as useful as intelligence is, it has a flaw. Being intelligent means that you try to castrate prejudice and to seek absolute correctness. Which implies many deeper questions such as what is justice, freedom, duty, virtue, entitlement, meaning. Those are practical questions. You are trying to make long term assessment of your decisions and clear yourself of distortions. But in a sense, your whole plan is a data processing error. Your physical and psychological traits are contradiction with the erratic condition of the universe. Nature opposes your very existence. Fighting prolongs it, but to no end. You and your surrounding life are slowly turning to dust in an agonizing struggle. You dismantle the illusion of integrity. "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
In emotional agony, or in complete indifference, the brain can recede into a purely rational state. The virtues of choices are futile and your existence stalls.
On your question, I have a defeatist attitude. I entertain pantheism or panpsychism and possibilianism, but this is not the question here. My inclination appears to be towards absurdism. I am aware of two other avenues. One, to adopt attitude of least resistance and to be utilitarian Darwinist. You can opt between various views, aiming satisfaction of the natural program with least amount of suffering, according to some specific measure of suffering that varies between variants. Or, you could adopt individual ethics, based on the manner in which you have been upbrought and your convictions. And then exude your influence on others if you are politically inclined. Long rant. Dissatisfying ending.
Indeed; my apologies.
The ominous reference to the dreaded "communist wolf" seems more like an argumentum ad metum, but it has a kind of nostalgic charm.
Still, something to ponder.
The purpose of life seems self-referential. Really, it comes down to maintaining homeostasis, scratching your ass, and not killing anyone else in the process.
Quoting Book273
Apparently, in the experiment 6 people have been weighted in total, with the measurements of 3 being discarded, the remaining three varying. One lost weight, one lost weight and regained it, one lost weight in multiple stages. Meaning, only one patient exhibited the precise result. Even if I put too much trust in the description of the wikipedia source, sweating, gas release and other factors have to be accounted for. I am not saying that there is certainly no soul, but that experiment was butchered. Furthermore, some beliefs don't afford the soul material expression. I am open minded to any form of existence of the soul if it is proven, but the result would be also irreconcilable if the weight was attributed to an insubstantial part of the person.
How would they have been accounted for, given it would be difficult to do even today?
Quoting Book273
Energy is a form of matter, because you can create a particle with rest mass from the collision of high energy photons.
Quoting Book273
No. It would be reconcilable with me if it had completely materially transparent or unknown material nature.
Not at all difficult to do today, were the experiment to get past the ethics board. I believe what was done back then was the patient was placed on to, essentially, a large tray and weighed. Immediately upon death they were weighed again, having never been removed from the tray. A tray shaped platform is important as upon dying the sphincters of the body relax, so any fluids within the body would be released. The tray allows these fluids to remain as part of the total measured weight.
Today a similar set up would be done, except that one could use a light, thin plastic tent to ensure any lost gases were also captured and weighed. Not that escaping gasses would account for much weight, but one might as well be thorough.
I would be willing to do this experiment. Providing the subjects gave informed consent prior. Methinks the ethics board would never approve of it. Neither would the church if they had any say in the matter.
The wikipedia article includes a critical remark which was made by physician named Augustus Clarke, one of the MacDougall's contemporaries, according to whom right before dying the body releases heat, which affects the liquids in the body, turning sweat into gas and I assume, affecting the pressure of the internal gasses as well. If the pressure or state of the body's own liquids changes right before the person dies, when they are released/evaporate, the buoyant force exerted on those liquids would be different or otherwise, I speculate that the body's intestines and thus the exterior surface would partially inflate right after death, resulting in greater buoyant force on the corpse. According to Clarke, this could account for the 21 grams, although I understand that we are talking about a lot of weight. It seems to me that if Clarke is right about the heat release anyway, to be fully accurate, the experiment would have to place the subject in a hermetically sealed hard surface container that is weighted with compensation for the barometric pressure.
Quoting Book273
There are multiple issues. First, as society, we insist that even the dying receive palliative care, or at least sedation. In principle, even if you have the consent of people that know that they are going to be on life support eventually, they will also have to sign an order to "not resuscitate" and "not intubate". With dying patients that have vital functions, you will be suspected in trying to arrange the time of death of the patients.
ICU beds are now quite capable of weighing patients accurately, there is no need to arrange anything. One could program the cardiac monitor to relay a "weigh patient" signal at 30 seconds after asystole begins. There would be no need for outside intervention. Additionally, anyone participating in such a study would be palliative, and therefore, resuscitation and intubation would not apply anyway.
Bah. So what? Make friends with the abyss and carry on.
Ah, dragons have high standards.
Clarke only stated that the sweat would have evaporated. I tried unsuccessfully to indicate by stating that "I assume" that it was my speculation that the pressure of the gasses, i.e. their temperature before they exit the colon, would be raised. I wanted to link this to the overall picture. Meaning, the effective weight of the expelled gasses in the presence of the atmospheric buoyant force might change if they get warmer right after death.
Quoting Book273
Again, this was my clumsy addendum. I meant that if some gasses were blocked in the colon, it would inflate it and push out the tummy of the person to some extent. In retrospect, the change in volume of the human corpse would probably be very small to warrant significant change in buoyancy.
Quoting Book273
First, I doubt that ICU beds are designed to capture gasses and I doubt that the hospital would design their beds in any way that is not primarily interested in the health care of the individual. If they are on life support, I can see better chances of this happening. The measurements would have to deal with barometric pressure if they are not performed simultaneously and presume to be completely accurate.
It also occurred to me that 21 grams is a lot of energy. Around 525 GWh to be precise, which is more then the electrical consumption of New York city for a month. If this energy is detectable as loss of mass, it means that 525 GWh leave the body without any physical trace on it. I understand that the soul may be speculated to exist in a different unknown energy field, but apparently it interfaces with our weight measurement instruments, so it has to have some impact on ordinary matter.
I realized what you mean by this - that the measurements will be done only deferentially. The counterforce from the atmosphere is irrelevant, because it will be approximately the same before and after death. I concede on that point. But again, if sweat evaporation and other gasses need to be captured, with absolutely the same buoyant force, you will need a hard walls hermetic container. I am not saying it has to be under vacuum inside, just sealed. You can't move terminally ill patients, so you need someone on life support, and his signed agreement.
I also thought, how do you know that souls, if they presumably existed weigh the same? Also, how would you prove that what escapes in this field is an organized energy (that captures any intelligence or memory) and not high entropy energy?
That's more of a response than my explanation of purpose - on page one got.
"I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated. Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation. The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.
That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it."
That's a description of purpose in terms of following in the course of the fundamental truth relation between the organism and reality - in order to secure a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind, and you, ghost hunter, say I'm cheapening the forum? How's about you take your scooby-do bullshit and enter an egg sucking competition with it? You'd win a participant certificate for sure! But it's not philosophy!
This puts the idea of existence into play. Just existing is already an achievement within itself. It really is up to each individual to decide what they want to use this opportunity as and for, even if they don’t see it that way. Depending on you, your personality and how you utilize it, is up to you as an individual. Obviously there are imposing factors pushed upon you from society and people in general, but it all circles back to you and what you desire. If you don’t desire anything then you don’t, and that’s your life. Nothing wrong with that, unless it isn’t what you enjoy.
There are levels when it comes to existence: unbearable, painfully tolerable, alright, mediocre, good, and great. Some of us are privileged enough to not have to worry about shelter, eating, drinking water, and staying water. That right there is an edge. When you have less to worry about, life becomes more tolerable and enjoyable.
This plays into feelings and emotions. Why have emotions? There is no manual on how feelings and emotions can intertwine with life and reality, it is simply there to experience. But those feelings allow yourself to become more immersed in reality and truly be present. It truly is up to you, how these emotions come to be, and the situations that result of it.
Indicating as I did earlier, the hypothesis may lie outside of our current frame of thinking, but I am not against exploring it. Especially when one takes such objective view. I am not sure that it will give us meaning, but that is presently unknown. Basically, I mostly agree.
Is that supposed to imply a modus tollens:
If life has a point, then man is not free.
Man is free.
Therefore life has no point.
Do you think that is sound? Or was it just a drive by interesting quote?
One doesn't serve the other. It is continuous and whole. It creates and shares as waves.
How bad do you want to know. You have your answer.
But to correctly answer the question, there is no purpose to life. Even generating a purpose yourself is little more than just avoiding the inevitable and ignoring the void we live in. It's a band-aid solution but not a long lasting one as once you glimpse the void attempts to patch it again continue to fail. No philosopher has successfully conquered it either without giving into the desperation to make meaning.
Quoting MondoR
No it isn't.
Quoting counterpunch
Also no.
To create, explore, share, enjoy is to create warmth like a Shining Star. The opposite is a cold, dark, Black Hole.
None of that is to create warm or a star, it's to delude yourself into thinking such things exist in the universe and ignore what IS.
The only purpose we have is that which evolution shackled us with. Or else a purpose we have created for ourselves which is not saying that we "have a purpose" but that we created a purpose.
If we are capable of creating a purpose, doesn't that imply that we have a purpose? To create purpose?
I agree.
A purpose is a reason for which something is done. If it is possible NOT to have a purpose, that implies that what is done without purpose happens because of no reason, i.e. it just happens. So having a purpose is the same as "conferring meaning". If something is capable of conferring meaning, then that thing has a purpose, viz., to confer meaning. So if something which is capable of conferring meaning does not confer meaning, then it simply does not fulfill its purpose.
But the complete elimination of reality-transcending elements from our world would lead us to a “ matter-of-factness ” which ultimately would mean the decay of the human will...The disappearance of Utopia brings about a static state of affairs in which man himself becomes no more than a thing. We would be faced then with the greatest paradox imaginable, namely, that man, who has achieved the highest degree of rational mastery of existence, left without any ideals, becomes a mere creature of impulses. Thus, after a long tortuous, but heroic development, just at the highest stage of awareness, when history is ceasing to be blind fate, and is becoming more and more man's own creation, with the relinquishment of utopias, man would lose his will to shape history and therewith his ability to understand it. (Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, p. 236)
Make of it what you will....
That is what they are doing.
People talk about "finding my purpose" as opposed to "creating a purpose" which is really about creating a life that fulfills you. I think it's an importan distinction because I know people who spend their lives trying to "discover" what their purpose in life is, or "discover" what the "meaning in life" is. They're searching for things that aren't there.
But we agree - creating goals and behaviours in life (like helping others) are what give you purpose. But everyone has different ways of achieving that.
"...to create, to explore, to share, to enjoy."
At least some of those things require a (privileged?) life free from a draining job, and crushing debt. Some people don;t have the luxury to do those things. That's my point. And kids are great, but if you have any you know that it can leave you little time for going on philosophy forums (I have none).
Not at all. A baby is doing it in a crib.
What I said is the purpose of life.
Make something out of Life. And if not this one, the next.
For humans, the purpose is to survive, get comfortable, and find entertainment. Repeat. Along the way suffer various things great and small.
I think there's confusion here between the concepts of "find" and "create. Our purpose, to answer the topic question, is to spread our genes, nurture our young and die. Clearly that isn't the way people in this discussion mean it.
A can opener has a purpose, but we don't want to think of our purpose like that. A human being doesn't have any other purpose besides our evolutionary imperatives. But no one wants to thinks that's our ONLY purpose. But it is.
I'm not being a downer, just trying to clarify language. And my conclusion is actually a happy one, and very freeing. DON'T try to "find" a purpose that something (God? Society?) has told you you should find. Create your own.
If the question was stated as "what is a good way to live your life?" I would have no issue here. And it's a good discussion to have. But using the terms "purpose" and "meaning" used the way they are here, are problematic.
We are social animals that live in communities and its like a scream telling you something is wrong because something is wrong. Humans socialise. This maybe the first time in the history of humanity where we are not living even as humans have done for millennia. So it's normal to feel that way. It's as much a question of psychology in 2021 as it's is philosophy. It would be more worrying if you didn't question your purpose in times like these.
We should all remember that we are important. Each of us in my view is like a neuron in the brain of the universe. We exist so that the universe is sentient.
Doesn’t a human life imply that it exist for the sake of something higher than that? That human life is subservient to a goal qualitatively different, and more exalted, than that of the lower species of existence and life?
Some may say that it doesn’t, that it’s purpose cannot be determined by any objective nature, but rather only by its own individual will. If so, what is the evidence for that? For I only see a clear teleology to human lives: that they be led, ultimately, like lemmings to the brink of a cliff, into the various discussions on The Philosophy Forum!
I agree. I think philosophy should be about the reality of existence, not dreaming of a better life. It's about truth, not "I wish."
My only quibble is that you seem to be unnecessarily painting this as a negative. Not believing there's some transcendent "purpose" or "meaning" to life is undeniable. I mean IN THE WAY PEOPLE HERE are referring to these terms. Of course we do have a purpose in nature, unless you don't believe in evolution. Or believe in God.
But the good news is: freedom. Our lives are NOT predestined, nor hardwired. We're free to do whatever we want.
Yep. Purpose is misapplied to life itself. People live, suffer, and then they die. However, I see these kind of questions as seeing the pointlessness of keeping this going. What is great about survival, finding more comfortable states (less cold, clean environment, etc), and finding entertainment? All of this done within the context of a socioeconomic context and historical trajectory. Just one thing after the other. It's not so much "purpose" as "this is what we do". Sisyphus. Just because we "know" what we are doing while we are doing, doesn't mean it has more significance. In a way, it just amplifies the ways in which we suffer. A dog lives a happier life.
Inhibits quiet enjoyment.
Well, I think it depends on a) your situation and b) your expectations. I think if you want life to make you happy, you'll be disappointed. I suffered from depression, still do really. But part of what got me out of that gutter was the realization that life is neither good or bad. Many of the things that seem unbearably awful are delusions that your brain can reason with, and discard. You can't find total happiness...that's impossible...but at least you can evaporate some of the delusions that plague you.
Only speaking for myself of course.
Then as Sartre said "hell is other people." That's part of it too. Not to say I've conquered the quest for happiness, oh no no. But I have put it in perspective, and don't blame the world for my darkness. Which helps.
This is the supposition I can't understand.
I tend to think our modern culture hyper-individualizes everything. You are here because of a historical trajectory. You have to "work" because you need to survive. "Work" is derived from how your sociocultural, economic, and political environment dictate it. There are many things that are actually out of your control. They can be dictated by the very conditions of existence itself even. You can perhaps choose certain things, but you can't choose to not have any choices, and you cannot choose to have choices that are not available to you. Certainly, if we wanted the status quo of creating more humans to work, get comfortable, and find entertainment, the message would be something like, "It's not the world that is the problem it is YOU. Now get on board or don't bother us". Etc. etc. and things like that.
I am not saying you can't adjust your thought-process, but I am just saying it is convenient to turn the tables on someone complaining about existential conditions to shut up and leave the regular folk alone. In other words, "to get help".
They don't though.
Purpose is something imbued by a creator, evolution has no purpose it simply is a force that happens. If you want to say purpose it would be something given by parents I guess but even then that is more a desire.
Goals and behaviors in life can't give you purpose for you will have none at the end of the day. All they can do is distract you from the reality of existence.
Quoting GLEN willows
Why? Why get moving? You won't remember any of it when you die and you can't take it with you (assuming an afterlife). There really is no reason to get moving or do anything.
Because standing still is worse.
Quoting Darkneos
Or the creation.
Too much emphasis is placed on the randomness of evolution by ppl who only look at mutation in genes. Yes, that mutation is indeed random, but the mutations that are accepted...are they merely random? No, they must be adaptable; and then we come to the question of what is adaptability, and we must allow that it means something like, “what fits in to the scheme of the universe”.
It’s like if someone said, “pinball is a game of pure chance, for there is no way to know how the ball will return to the paddle, at what angle or speed. The player just pushes the button by reflex, and hopes it sends the ball into places where big scores can be racked up.” But there are, in fact, “pinball wizards”, who correspond to our evolutionary adaptability, able to choose the random things that fit into the scheme of the game.
If there were no hierarchy among genetic mutations, ie some better, some worse than others; in other words, if all mutations were equally adaptable, then the universe would be filled with amorphous monstrosities!...nor would there be pinball wizards.
The creation cannot imbue itself with purpose. Purpose is imbued by an outside force not from within. So it cannot be given to oneself.
Quoting Todd Martin
But that would be misunderstanding evolution. The first mistake is that people believe it has a purpose. It doesn't. It just happens. Organisms that fit the mold survive and reproduce while the rest die. There is no purpose or reason behind it. It just is.
The mutations ARE random. It's really luck that a mutation generates a benefit for the organism. There is no adaptability to the level you think there is. That isn't how evolution works. There isn't a scheme to the universe.
Pinball wizards are really just lucky. It happens. People misattribute such things as skill when it's luck. The same goes for success or promotions. We say it's skill because it gives us a sense of control in our lives. We don't want to admit that our accomplishments are really just about luck.
I really don't think a philosophy forum is for you, maybe try some new age nonsense.
Purpose: the reason for which something is done or created OR for which something exists.
There is no ‘outside force’ presupposed by the term ‘purpose’. That’s an assumption in your interpretation.
Now, from your analogy of promotions to human positions, I would assume that you consider Nature or God to have the same fickleness as a CEO when making decisions, and that the mold the latter make is of the same sort that the former does, id est, according to the random will of the boss...but does that seem true? that Nature/God possess the inconstancy and capriciousness of some human CEO?
I am just an ordinary guy living a very ordinary life. But when I sit on my front porch and watch the buzzards circle high in the air above me, I wonder at the confluence of nature that resulted in this reality: that beings came to be in this world that were able to overcome the effect of gravity in this way; that they were endowed with the ability to spot carcasses thence far below, and swoop down to get their sustenance from them; that there exist other such scavengers in water and soil; that man was born to imitate them through artificial means, etc...
...but I digress...
You say adaptable mutations are just lucky, but you admit that there is a “mold” into which they fit. Is this mold by pure chance also? If so, was it made by God or Nature...or does that matter?
As far as experts go in the game of pinball, since you believe success in it is due to pure chance, let me ask you: would you be willing to wager $100 that you could beat a pinball champion in a head-to-head contest?
Adaptable mutations are lucky because it is a role of the dice that they don't hinder the organism. There is no "mold" they fit, that's just you projecting design.
I would be willing to wager, if I actually likely pinball. But they're just lucky. Much of our lives is based on chance and not really our own efforts.
therefore he who lives without purpose truly lives.
Live! Isn’t living itself enough?
The desire to have more than just life is a result of
not properly living – and that is why the fear of death
grips the human mind, for what is death to one
who is really alive!
Where living is intense and total
there is no time to fear death –
and there is no time for death, either.
Do not think in the language of purpose –
that language is diseased in itself.
The sky exists without purpose.
God is without purpose,
flowers bloom without purpose,
and stars shine without purpose –
what has happened to poor man
that he cannot live without purpose!
Because man can think he gets into trouble.
A little thinking always leads to trouble.
If you must think, think completely, utterly!
Then the mind whirls so fast with thoughts
that freedom from thoughts is attained.
Then you begin to live.
That’s why I asked you all those questions about the “mold”. Do you retract your original statement? Did you misspeak?
As for your contention that the adaptability of mutations is governed by pure chance, let me suggest that you are confusing two very different things: the value of the mutation to the organism’s survival, and the likelihood that it will appear.
Consider the coronavirus: like any organism, it’s genes undergo a wide variety of mutations over time, and these mutations are equally likely to appear in any one example of that organism at any time. In this way, all mutations are equal and subject to “a role of the dice”...
But some of these mutations, which all have an equal chance of occurring, turn out to allow the virus more tenaciously to attach to the host cells, which in turn allows it to invade them more easily and quickly and in larger numbers, etc. These are the more successful “variants” we have been hearing about, which will undoubtably plague mankind for many many years to come. Their success, as opposed to their chance of occurring, is not due to chance, but to the peculiar way they fit the host, to the “mold” nature has set that they fill.
I would suspect that something like this is rather what is taught in Evolution 101.
As far as your sentiment, that “Much of our lives is based on chance and not really our own efforts”, I would agree with you. Chance plays a major role in the world, intermixed with design to a greater or lesser degree in all affairs. Sometimes it is purer, sometimes not so obviously pure. An example of the former is when a disabled aircraft crashes into your house and destroys it, and kills you and your entire family; but even that is not bereft of design: how close did you live beneath a major channel for commercial air-travel for example?
I and my twin brother were once getting soundly beat by our older brother, noted for his jocular sort of wisdom, in a billiards match, sometimes by seemingly miraculous circus shots he was making. We both told him at the same time: “you’re just lucky.” His reply? “Luck is just skill looking for an opportunity.”