I have found the meaning of life.
The characteristics of meaning of life
1. It has to be ONE
We can conceive of meaning that is individuated - like specific roles in a movie - but each role is part of something greater, the story itself, which is one. People aren't satisfied with individual meaning; they want the meaning of life. So, if there's meaning to life, it has to be ONE.
2. It has to be objective
This goes hand in hand with 1 above. If each person can define the meaning of his/her own life then we'll see variety but also controversy. There'll be no agreement and we'll back to square one. By objectivity I mean the consensus among ALL that can only be achieved through rationality. The objective meaning of life has to be, at worst plausible and at best, provable beyond the shadow of a doubt.
3. It has to be grand
''Grand'' is a vague word but all I want to convey is that the objectivity and onenes I described above isn't enough to satisfy our standards for the meaning of life. Why? Well, because we have objective meaning of life. If science, biology, is right the single purpose of life is to reproduce - pass the genes. Although this is rational it fails to satisfy our lofty ambitions, aspirations and hopes. That's why we need the meaning of life to be, well, awesome.
Given the above definition for the meaning of life I've found one.
We're, especially mankind, the universe, specifically its mind, its conscisouness. Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. People are very interested in Artificial Intelligence and the prospect of a self-aware machine is way up there in terms of human technological prowess BUT we forget that we:universe :: AI:humans, even more perhaps.
What would be the single most important purpose of a machine who's self-aware? Self-discovery of course. So, similarly, for us, the consciousness of the universe itself, the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. This meaning of life is ONE, OBJECTIVE and GRAND and should hopefully end our quest for the meaning of life.
Your valuable comments...
1. It has to be ONE
We can conceive of meaning that is individuated - like specific roles in a movie - but each role is part of something greater, the story itself, which is one. People aren't satisfied with individual meaning; they want the meaning of life. So, if there's meaning to life, it has to be ONE.
2. It has to be objective
This goes hand in hand with 1 above. If each person can define the meaning of his/her own life then we'll see variety but also controversy. There'll be no agreement and we'll back to square one. By objectivity I mean the consensus among ALL that can only be achieved through rationality. The objective meaning of life has to be, at worst plausible and at best, provable beyond the shadow of a doubt.
3. It has to be grand
''Grand'' is a vague word but all I want to convey is that the objectivity and onenes I described above isn't enough to satisfy our standards for the meaning of life. Why? Well, because we have objective meaning of life. If science, biology, is right the single purpose of life is to reproduce - pass the genes. Although this is rational it fails to satisfy our lofty ambitions, aspirations and hopes. That's why we need the meaning of life to be, well, awesome.
Given the above definition for the meaning of life I've found one.
We're, especially mankind, the universe, specifically its mind, its conscisouness. Through us the universe has achieved self-awareness. People are very interested in Artificial Intelligence and the prospect of a self-aware machine is way up there in terms of human technological prowess BUT we forget that we:universe :: AI:humans, even more perhaps.
What would be the single most important purpose of a machine who's self-aware? Self-discovery of course. So, similarly, for us, the consciousness of the universe itself, the meaning of life is to understand the universe in all its glory. This meaning of life is ONE, OBJECTIVE and GRAND and should hopefully end our quest for the meaning of life.
Your valuable comments...
Comments (91)
1.It isnt rational, rather it is hinted in things such as beauty, love etc.
2. It depends on what you mean by one. Struggle, pain and contraries is what gives birth to the things that most experience as meaningful. Except most want to eliminate all three. That is what has given rise to the meaninglessness and zombie-like existence one can observe today.
3. What do you mean objective? What then happens to the subjective?
Its grandness comes from everything to which it is attached (potentially the entire universe).
This meme: "djmxki" is also, singular, grand and objective depending upon the consensus of the crowd.
Everything that is singular, grand and objective is also reducible, banal and subjective.
When an agent appears with a pitch fork in hand with a coercive moralizing toward whatever the value or truth of meme is, I may do what the average person does, or less likely what a "philosopher" would do when presented with the meme complex.
Our thoughts on this matter are in similar proximity. I would say that the essence of life is we, the mind.
The meaning of life is more about what we at doing and why we are doing it. In this respect, I believe we are all well how evolving by exploring, experimenting and learning. Why? To better understand what or who we are?
That can't be right.
Some people sacrifice their own lives without having first reproduced.
The explanation from sociobiology / evolutionary psychology is that altruistic behavior from one person increases the chances of reproductive success for those close to the altruist who are carrying some of the same genetic material.
Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being? passed on to somebody else.
One really has to ponder to scientific view of life to find the sleight of hand that is being performed.
There is no altruist. There are the altruistic genes (the flip side of Dawkin's Selfish genes). So science simply anthromorphizes the gene and squeezes some behavior in it. Genes love to multiply. People don't love each other, neurons so, etc, etc, etc.
Science observes some small stuff move and then attributes any and all behavior to the small stuff. Somewhere there always had to be the mind. There is no getting away from it.
"Purpose and meaning" requires consciousness/awareness or intention to actually exist. Since we have no designer consciousness to appeal to, the next most relevant consciousness to appeal to becomes our own individual mind.
The purposes of our lives that we set for ourselves are the most "meaningful" purposes that we have access to. Many of us differ in terms of what we think constitutes a worthwhile purpose, and generally we choose purposes which make us happy (in the short or long run, and with open or closed eyes).
But through stars, it has achieved hotness, and through fish it has achieved swimming. To convince a fish, you need an argument that self-awareness is more valuable than swimming.
It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind.
He found some meaning to his life. What's the problem? You prefer I AM ROBOT?
I have heard people going farther than that and saying things like abortion (and probably infanticide) is people ensuring the reproductive success needed to preserve their genes.
Specifically the genes are trying desperately to preserve themselves. You can actually hear them huffing and puffing if you listen closely to their little lungs.
I doubt that you will ever get anyone to agree on all of these, so it can never be objective.
Unless of course you are willing to accept that the only meaning of life is to live it.
It is.
All beings who're a self-aware are beings who want to know who they are.
Humans are beings who're self-aware
Therefore, we want to know who we are.
The conclusion is made stronger by the fact that we're the only living things (at least on Earth) who have a highly developed ability of rational inquiry. So, that virtually makes humans = the consciousness of the universe.
Quoting Beebert
The true meaning of life can never be more than one. Like I said we can conceive of life's meaning as roles in a movie - we play our part and exit. However, all these roles, different though they are, must be cohere to tell a single story. If this were not so, the movie, play, novel wouldn't make sense - it'll be chaos.
Quoting Beebert
Something is objective to the extent that it's rational and fact-based. My meaning of life - to discover the secrets of the universe - is based on the fact that humans are the only living things with the mental prowess to study the universe. So, doesn't that mean our goals, meaning, etc. should be predicated on this unique faculty?
Quoting Nils Loc
What are your reasons for your claim? You've judged but not explicated your evidence. I have.
Quoting Rich(Y)
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
You answered your own question. I think of ALL life, not just humans, and what we see is that reproduction is the prime motivator - flowers, nectar, colorful feathers, pheromones, aggression, etc. Without reproduction life is impossible. So, reproduction is an objective meaning of life. It's a truth. All that it lacks, in human terms, is what I call ''grandness''. That's why I had to look elsewhere.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's subjective meaning and so, in my terms, it falis as a meaning of life because each will disagree with the other since the meaning/purpose of each individual isn't based on rationality and facts, rather on personal preferences as when we choose an ice cream flavor.
Take the analogy of the movie. You seem to be saying that each person has his/her own role to play. However, if there's no overarching organization to these roles, the movie, play would be absolute nonsense. What then of subjective meaning? Surely, it too is nonsense.
Quoting unenlightened
Value is, at least in part, attached to uniqueness and we are unique, being the only rational animal. Imagine a room full of blind people. Each person has his/her own talents but ALL are blind. Now, you walk in and presuming you're sighted, you're then given the responsibility of seeing for the blind people. It's something like that.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It's too soon to judge. Evolution hasn't stopped, has it?
Quoting Sir2u
I think people will agree to the conditions I set because they're the very reasons why no one has yet found a meaning to life.
The meaning of life is not to live it. It's to discover how to live it. Imagine you're given a gift. The gift by itself has no meaning. It's how you perceive the gift's value that gives meaning.
No, that is what you see. Give it time. You may learn to see more. Not everyone is like you. Be happy with who you are but let other people see life differently.
Each of us is the main character in our own movie, and sometimes life is nonsensical as we haphazardly traipse into each other's lives. But the epic tale of all life on earth is hideously long and follows no compelling arc; the human vignette is far more satisfying...
If you're satisfied with it, fine but many aren't. They decry the meaninglessness of life. It leads them down the path of depression, pushing them over the edge into death's embrace. Such men/women seek objective and grand meaning - the meaning of life. How do you deal with such people?
Quoting Rich
The problem is many want the meaning of life.
If it's not about truth why the question:
[I]What is the meaning of life?[/i]
The question seems to invite only one proposition and propositions are about truth.
Oh, you mean like bats have this unique echo-location sense that we monkeys don't, so the universe must be all about them.
You're missing the point (I think deliberately). Bats can't study us but we can study them. Have you seen a book on humans written by bats? The human mind is unique in that respect. We're the only animals with a well developed mind that enables to examine everything in the universe. We hold the magic mirror and we reflect the universe and all its contents on it. No other animal can do what we do.
I'm not saying other animals aren't unique but I am saying that their uniqueness doesn't allow them to examine the world like we can.
Quoting Rich
I agree the meaning of life can change over time but right now, the meaning I described seems to be the best fit.
Yes, for yourself. As for myself, it does not apply for a variety of reasons.
The assumption here is that writing books is evolutionary more advanced. Maybe bats are more advanced because they don't need books? Maybe bats actually have a much more evolved awareness?
What is your meaning of life then?
Quoting Rich
You mean they're clairvoyant and cognizant of the universe in its entirety? I don't think so.
You're missing the point. We're unique, bats, and stars, and fish are unique. What is advanced and what is retarded depends on where one is going; and wherever one is going is the 'meaning' of going that way. You assume that reflecting, being aware, writing books, whatever we do is the meaning and then conclude that this is the meaning. That we are the Crown of Creation is not a new idea, but neither is the idea that we are a terrible mistake. Perhaps it's all about learning to cooperate, and the ants are more advanced than we. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you haven't given any justification.
A bat may simply be more evolved and does not need to share its experiences in the way humans do. We can't know the truth. We can only speculate about our beliefs which is part of the process of exploring, experimenting and learning.
I know biology, evolution, has no goal per se. That does place us in the same rat race as bacteria or viruses - simply finding a niche in the food chain and trying to survive nature's caprices. This is one way to look at it and it does make sense. However, in this view, we ignore a crucial fact - that we can think. The unique abilities of other animals serve only as a means to survival. Our ability to think goes beyond living for the sake of living. There's no need to know math or science or poetry or music to survive in this world. The examples you give are proof of that. Our capacity for abstract thought places us in a very special position that confers on us a responsibility to take a step beyond the ''survival of the fittest'' principle that seems to dominate other lifeforms. We are animals, no doubt but we are also thinking animals and that gives us a purpose that is much much grander than anything imaginable for, say a bat.
Chiropteric ectasy is a grand state of being. Every bat is an individual seldom disabled by the abstractions of an ideal future. Chiropteric meaning by bat consensus is to be found in bat reciprocity, or bat on bat influence in an ecological sense. Whatever happens in the course of bat life, x arising then y arising, conveys bat objectivity.
Since all is one ultimately, there are no bats and no humans, no grandness, no oneness, no objectivity, no no ness, no yes ness. Things neither exist nor not exist, nor neither neither exist nor nor not exist, et cetera.
There is no problem. I'm convulsed with joy that he's done so. Nonetheless, if we're the mind of the universe, the universe is diminished.
By "deal with such people" I presume you mean "convince them to be happy without ultimate and objective purpose"...
Seldom do I bother with an attempt, but when I do it's not always so difficult. If my interlocutors care deeply about having a rational and empirically sound view of the universe and the things in it (including ourselves) then I will make strong appeals to the evidence based merits of science, skepticism, and atheism (read: "soft-atheism"; colloquial agnosticism; refraining from belief where there is no evidence or indication). In concert with showing the incredulity of the metaphysically gnostic (read: those claiming knowledge beyond the scope of what physical evidence can show) this approach can be very effective. If a person doesn't care so much about the logical consistency of their beliefs as they do about how it makes them feel (all of us do care how our beliefs make us feel even if to a small degree) then I will paint a picture which emphasizes the value of empathy, joy, and shared experience. Living a long and happy life with few regrets, surrounded by those you love can be a powerful image. Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable.
The real trick of it is to paint a sufficiently vivid and detailed worldview which then becomes more appealing to them than their own (generally an easy thing to do if they have no pre-existing grand narrative I must compete with). It can require a lot of ground work, especially when to bereave someone of a grand narrative might also bereave them of their moral/value system. Most of the time I prefer to not deal with ideologues driven by grand existential narratives in this way, but if I become seriously committed to doing so, then because so much of their world view might need replacement, the discussion becomes broad and long.
Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)...
Agreed, to thine own self be true. Enjoy life and enjoy still-expression.
If you say so.
In fact, I have no objection to having as a goal understanding all we can about the universe. But it's a goal only, albeit a worthy one. I think there is no one (single) "meaning of life." There is no one (single) end or purpose to life. We're part of a vast universe, and in light of its vastness it seems to me foolish if not absurd to think we're the best part of it or of any special significance, or that it was created for us or is a kind of vehicle or forum made so we have a place in which our destiny plays out.
I'm fond of the Stoics. The ancient Stoics believed that the universe is alive and that the governing part of it is a Divine Reason, and each of us possesses a part of the Divine (usually conceived of as material but of a very fine nature, similar to fire as an element; they were constrained by the physics of the time). As parts of the living universe endowed with the capacity to reason, our goal should be to "live in accordance with nature" i.e. live as reason dictates, consistent with the Divine Reason. making the best use of what is in our power and taking the rest as it happens, as Epictetus said. What happens which isn't in our control is the universe acting in accordance with the Divine Reason, which isn't necessarily concerned with what we finite creatures want or what we think good or bad. But reason requires that we act virtuously.
In my more spiritual moments I think this is a lovely way to view the universe and is in any case a good way to live. But what we should do is something which must be determined on a case by case basis; too much goes on in life to say that "I've found the meaning of life."
Not at all. If that was the beginning of a book, I'd be hooked.
I was just running with what you stated about how we can only speculate, explore, imagine. Bat life is probably great.
Is it possible that no one has found a meaning to life simple because there is none to find?
Many have come up with ideas about this topic, but there has never been a large enough agreement on any of them to be taken seriously by any but the fan(atic)s of the idea.
I, at least have a serious argument for my way of thinking, if I don't follow my own advise and just go on living, I will die.
If I don't follow the other ideas, I might not become a better person, become more knowledgeable, become the consciousness of the universe and so on but I will still go on living.
I serious doubt that if you walk along any crowded street and ask people the meaning of life that many will have even thought seriously about the topic.
Why is that a problem? It may be reality.
Ken Wilber puts it this way:
1.) The cosmos has great span.
2.) The noosphere has little span.
3.) However, unlike the cosmos, the noosphere has great depth.
It is finding the meaning/purpose of life, not the meaning/purpose of humans, the universe, etc.
And where in the question "What is the meaning/purpose of life?" does it say that anything is the best part of anything or of special significance or that anything is made for anything else?
It simply asks, "This experience we go through called "life", what is the meaning/purpose of it?".
Also, the question is not "What is the one meaning/purpose of life". The question is, "What is the meaning/purpose of life?", period.
I think we're on the same page.
Good but false.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Why such a dim view of humanity? Are you saying this from a moral standpoint? Even if you are, I think we're doing quite well. Morality is, what, 2000+ years old. Evil is much older. It's an uphill battle and we're fighting hard. Shouldn't that be a good thing?
(Y)
Don't you think we've outgrown the ''survival of the fittest'' principle? Math, philosophy, music, art, etc. aren't necessary for survival. Yet, they're legitimate human pursuits at appreciating the universe and/or understanding our universe.
It's good to have a realistic worldview but isn't the meaning of life I painted also realistic and includes our greatest faculty - the mind?
Quoting Beebert
So, what do you care about?
My OP gives ONE, OBJECTIVE & GRAND meaning of life. That should satisfy most people.
Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a goal.
Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a high priority or thinks that it is important.
And "happiness" is no less ambiguous and abstract than "meaning/purpose of life".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That sounds a lot like what Ken Wilber calls "Flatland".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, or something like that.
It sounds like "This approach can be very effective with people who already believe what it says".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
These people who shun logic and care only about how their beliefs make them feel, where are they?
I doubt than any such people exist.
Speaking of evidence-based, no evidence has ever been presented to me to make me believe that such people exist.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, happiness is not necessarily a universal goal or universally desirable.
The same could be said about longevity and "being surrounded by those you love".
It could be a narcissistic, narrow, crippling image to some people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Or maybe we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not call it "greed".
Maybe mental, physical and emotional fulfillment is not enough for some people. Maybe some people need more. I would not call the longing or effort to satisfy a need "greed".
And how are we defining "eternal"? Ken Wilber defines it not as time with no beginning or end, but as no longer being in the stream of time. Maybe the latter, not the former, is the object of that aforementioned "greed".
Finally, instead of small, humble and achievable, it may seem narcissistic, prideful and repressive to some people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That makes worldviews sound like the work of a used car salesman or a spin doctor.
More importantly, it sounds extremely disrespectful and condescending.
And if a worldview is worth having, it should speak for itself.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Anybody who is secure in his/her own worldview should not care what other people think.
And anybody who is going to disrespect others based on their worldview is probably not secure in his/her own worldview.
What I meant was that people who claim to Care about truth often just care about caring about truth, or about talking about truth. Its just another interest.
I think it's more than ''just another interest''. Truth is necessary for survival. For instance, not knowing that a gun can kill you is dangerous. I think this value of truth carries on into other domains of human experience.
contQuoting TheMadFool
I agree that this is the purpose of all living things as individuals "to continue the cycle of living things".
Quoting TheMadFool
Though if the purpose of continuing the cycle of life (as we are not imortal) is to understand the glory of the universe as a whole (humankind). Then that leaves us with the question of why we need to understand the glory of the universe in the first place?
As you grew up didn't you feel a drive to understand yourself, others, this world, this universe? As the only species to be awake on this Earth, isn't it a duty to understand this universe?
I don't disagree with your premis that continuing the cycle of life is to better understand the universe from humankind - my question is what's the objective in doing so?
What is the purpose of a knife? To cut.
What is the purpose of eyes? To see.
What is the purpose of phones? To communicate.
What is the purpose of mind? To understand.
The objective is built into a tool's form and ability.
With all these analogies there is an underlying purpose for all these actions being done. Eg. The reason you would be cutting with a knife is to perhaps prepare something to eat (so you can continue surviving).
What's the underlying drive or reason to understand the universe?
Maybe earth is a biological super computer. Where its purpose is gathering information about the universe around it for the advantage of a more advanced entity? (Reference from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) - might not be such a silly premis
The premise doesn't lead one anywhere and does not describe the lives of many who choose not to procreate (we have the choice).
In my view we are here to create and continue to evolve through our creations. We are doing this throughout our lives in different ways and forms. Philosophy is just one form of creating.
Is it? I had the impression the OP was referring to human life, i.e. what we as the "self-awareness" or "mind" of the universe exist to do.
Be that as it may, I don't think there is any single meaning of "life" (which I assume encompasses anything living), either. And, as it seems you object to the "meaning of life" being considered singular, I don't think there are any meanings of life.
I don't think, in other words, life of any kind, general or particular, is intended to convey anything, or has any particular destiny or destinies, or exists for any particular purpose or purposes, nor do I think that it should. It simply is. There is life. There will be life in the universe regardless of what we think or want or do.
We're a part of the universe, but only a very small part. Our concerns are largely selfish; what we can do is limited. Our knowledge of the rest of the universe is limited. If we're the "mind" of the universe, it's mind is very human-centered, very Earth-centered. A tiny mind of a huge universe. The universe would in that case be an ignorant, brutish lout (carrying on with the mind-body analogy) fixated on a tiny planet.
We have out-paced mere survival concerns yes (although they trail us very closely), like Tolstoy's life of luxury, it's this fact that affords us the time to consider the various arts and to contrive and confront these dilemmas in the first place.
I find some notions of pantheism and pan-psychism interesting, but since we've got no evidence to validate or invalidate them I must consider them as one hypothetical possibility of many.
I have always found the concept of learning for the sake of learning to be highly appealing, but existentially I value learning because it serves my own mind (or the minds of loved ones) not because it might serve some other mind of which I'm not aware. (a universal mind of some kind)...
Happiness can be a kind of purpose, and in case you haven't noticed, people tend to do what they think/feel will make them happy. When we achieve our goals, we often expect happiness to be a direct or indirect result...
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO What's that and why is it relevant? Is it because I'm not using the magic of imagination?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Humans are emotional beings, and when it comes to metaphysical beliefs which will never be verified or falsified in this life there is little risk of actually being proven incorrect. As such many of us emotional humans opt for metaphysical beliefs which cater to our emotional sensibilities. The idea of an eternal soul, reincarnation, a paradise afterlife, these are all metaphysical beliefs which do not appeal to people because they are logical, but instead because they are emotionally comforting. The whole concept of a perfect and all loving creator god who has a plan and has our backs is the invention of emotion, not logic.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
The things we value and desire are the objects of our individual happiness.
You wouldn't say "I want to be unhappy" or "being happy makes me unhappy"...
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO We don't actually need much, but we do want it.
Everyone is greedy by someone's standards...
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Ken Wilber is free to chase imaginary butterflies like "exiting the stream of time" and call it humble, and you're free to chase after him. If you or him wishes to substantiate that with evidence though, unfortunately it's got to exist temporally.
If you think trying to live a long happy and love filled life is narcissistic, how do you view trying to live a life of objective and ultimate purpose? Wouldn't that be full blown egomania?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
A worldview speaks for itself the way a sunday school teacher speaks to young impressionable minds about god and morality...
If you find your worldview disrespected then grow up and defend it. Some worldview's are shitty, and sometimes they're worth dismantling.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
How have I "disrespected others"?
"What other people think" is the only reason we exchange ideas on this forum
Anybody who comes to a philosophy forum and starts moaning about how worldviews are being disrespected is probably not secure in their own worldview.
One of the biggest questions I have found in morality is, am I responsible for other people's welfare? To a large degree we all are, whether we choose to do it or not. A just welfare for all beings is a duty of every citizen.
The reality at large is that a great many people feel entitled to have the attitude that life is all about satisfying themselves, and it doesn't matter what happens elsewise. As long as their lives are fulfilled, than who cares what befalls other people of desperate circumstances. So we still remain in the competitive jungle.
The spectre of evil harm that could happen to anyone has forced us to be fiercely defensive. Vigilant defense is necessary for survival. But to be fiercely competitive may in fact send humanity on the whole to an early demise.
One has to decide in their hearts that they are going to follow the laws of society, and appreciate that those laws keep civil society in tact. The moral code of law is the reason we survive. That there is a universally agreed upon code of survival, and justice propagates love.
So why shouldn't every citizen be afforded those laws, and have an opportunity to live peacefully in the world. Instead of killing off undesireables, and losing the weak mentalities, which destroys love and goodness in society.
It seems your affluence determines your success in life. The pursuit of the selfish desire is predominant. But if we are to evolve and grow, we have to consider a form of government, that affords every citizen an opportunity to live peacefully be they law abiding. Communism, and sharing the wealth are not options. So then what?
Quite frankly I think it's deplorable to have homelessness abound when their is so much.
Do you mean all men are mad fools? :)
You're getting my drift sir/madam, as the case may be(Y)
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes, different perspectives yield different conclusions. We're, as yet, not well-formed minds to deserve a status in the universe but it's a work in progress methinks. I think (fingers crossed) we can, sometime in the future, be worthy of an important position in the evolution of the universe.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Me too. I wonder where the drive for this comes from. It doesn't seem to differentiate knowledge that helps survival and knowledge that is neutral/antagonistic to survival. As if the mind is hardwired to seek knowledge for its own sake. This fact makes my position more credible that we should aim to understand the universe.
What happens if we discover that there is nothing to discover except mechanisms and technological change?
At that moment the meaning of life will change
That is contradictory to your OP.
No it's not. I should've been clearer. Think of how we function in our everyday lives. We set goals. If we achieve them we set new goals. It's the same thing with the meaning of life.
But that is as individuals, not as a race.
Quoting TheMadFool
As a race we would first have to agree on the meaning of life for it to be changed, and that is not going to happen your way.
If we accept that the meaning to life is to live it, then everyone will always agree and there will never be any reason to change it no matter what happens.
I don't see a problem there. The world, more or less, has/had set environmental, political, social, health goals (UN, WHO, etc). When they are/were achieved new goals are/will be set.
Quoting Sir2u
Why? I'll base the meaning of life on sound reasoning. Either people accept or not. If they accept it won't be because of me but because they see the logic in my arguments. If they don't they'd be irrational.
Quoting Sir2u
But the purpose of life being to live is a tautology.
And most who disagree with you say you are irrational.
Quoting TheMadFool
So prove it is untrue.
What is irrational in my OP? Can anyone specify?
Quoting Sir2u
The purpose of life is to live!!!
That makes no distinction between an ant, a pig, a dog, and a human. However, we know that ants, pigs, dogs, and humans differ from each other. So, shouldn't meaning of life for a human be different from that of an ant, a pig or a dog or a plant, etc? These real differences between living things not only serve to identify each species but also bear on the way these lifeforms live which includes the meaning of life.
You still have not proven that there is a purpose or meaning to any life.
As per the conditions set in the OP I have. The purpose of life is to understand the universe. This is objective (based on the reason that the universe is self-aware and able to comprehend itself through us) and grand.
Quoting TheMadFool
Can you prove any of this beyond your belief in them.
Supposedly if a reason for something is removed then it becomes obsolete or non existent.
Humans don't have tails anymore because we no longer need them to live in the trees.
I don't have a drivers license right now because I don't have money to fix my car and don't need it.
So what is the reason you have for life? To make the universe self aware. So what did the universe do before humans came along, and what will it do after we are gone? What happens if the universe is not at all self aware, which I am sure it is not? We lose our reason to live so we won't exist anymore.
Why would something as vast as the universe pick some little fucked race like us in a very tiny little piece of itself to help it be self aware. It would be like the jolly green giant sending an atom of its toenail to to find out what is in its left ear.
If that is the only reason for human life then we are screwed.
And I don't want to be the eyeballs of the universe anyway.
Well, I guess you can try out being a computer bot and see if that fits you better?
As for myself, I (my mind) am definitely peering out and increasing awareness all the time of that which surrounds me - as is every other life form. That is how life evolves.
I am not against that at all, in fact I embrace the ideas. But how does that make the universe self aware?
It does once one becomes aware there are no boundaries - anywhere. I believe this Daoist-like idea was presented in another recent thread.
I have done so in my OP.
Briefly,
1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge
The above facts form the basis of our meaning of life. That's as objective as anyone can get. It's also a grand purpose, for those unsatisfied by the other objective purpose of life - self-preservation or simple survival.
Quoting Sir2u
The universe has achieved self-awareness through us. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say self-awareness is the only thing the universe has attained, I must emphasize that self-awareness and the mental faculties that tag along are the only means to understand the universe. In that humans are unique as the only mind the universe has. Isn't it obvious then what we have to do?
Quoting Sir2u
Your perspective is different. In a spatial context we are insignificant, Earth is insignificant, the Solar system is insignificant, the Milky Way is insignificant and perhaps, the universe itself is a tiny speck in a much bigger cosmos.
However, in the context of life things appear different. This is the only planet known to harbor life. In the context of mind, humans are the only ones that have one. It's a matter of the right perspective and big and small, vital and trivial, switch places.
I'm not saying the universe is not unimaginable in expanse. It is. All I'm saying is life in general and we in particular are also deserving of the same awe.
The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs. Facts are basically formed by creating a consensus around beliefs, but in this case I doubt there is consensus attend (2), but given the proclivity for humans to put themselves at the top of any hierarchy, you might achieve a consensus around (1). BTW, I do agree that humans are always learning and creating, but as far as I can tell so are all other forms of life. My fish are always learning (evolving).
There only reason the concept of facts exists is that is what we are taught in school are necessary to prove things, and philosophers seem to need to have proofs to justify their discipline. Funny thing is, no other profession requires such a case.
[I]My[/i] facts are:
1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge
To disprove 1 there has to be a nonhuman lifeform that has the same/greater mental faculties. Can you name one?
This forum, many others, you, me, this conversation, all books written, research done, questions asked and answered are proof of 2.
So, these aren't personal beliefs as you allege. These are hard facts and I've based my arguments on them.
Not really. Just different. Anyway, there is no way to know one way or another unless humans define things in terms of putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as they normally do. It's good marketing.
Quoting TheMadFool
Everyone is constantly learning. If learning is knowledge, then all life forms do this. It's called evolution and it is continuous.
These are just observations, and there may or may not be a consensus. It depends upon meaning and interpretation. I definitely disagree. So you are already losing a consensus. I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing?
I doubt that he understands the difference.
Quoting Rich
Count 1 vote against this theory.
I asked you to disprove my claim that humans are the only lifeforms capable of understanding the universe. Can you do that please.
Quoting Rich
Have you seen a nonhuman lifeform conducting experiments? I agree DNA encodes information but information repository has "evolved'' from DNA to human brains to books to computers. What of non-DNA encoded information?
Quoting Rich
These are facts. Opinion polls can't affect facts.
Why should I have to disprove anything. If you have some proof for your facts then I would love to hear them.
All life forms are experimenting all the time. Buy a betta fish, treat her/him nicely and observe. Ditto for any pet.
As for facts, seems like a whole bunch of people claim to have them but unfortunately they seem to contradict each other. Just read the threads on this forum for some evidence of this.
Because you objected to them.
Quoting Rich
Contradict my facts