<p>You're absolutely correct megalomaniac. Why can't the purpose come from within? That is, from the depths of my heart, the way I actually live. I create my purpose in life and I live by it. I wrote a seven page essay on Free Will vs. Determinism last semester that explains, in my opinion, why Free Will does exist (and how it exists) and what the moral, social, and personal implications of my doctrine of Free Will are. Got a 96 on it.</p>
<p>Existentialism is a branch of philosophy that does dive a lot more into the topic of Free Will and could really provide some insight for those who look for purpose in their lives. It does not provide you with a purpose but shows some very interesting perspectives on how purpose can be acheived.</p>
<p>The other day, at my philosophy cafe meeting, someone raised the question of "is it bad to not have a purpose for doing something?" and my opinion is absolutely not. The reason is because we make choices every day that are indeed based on nothing other then ourselves. We simply make choices because we know that a choice needs to be made and there is nothing we can rely on in order to make that choice. So to choose to do something without a purpose is still a choice in itself (perhaps it is not apparent to the self that it is still a choice), but not always a bad one.</p>
<p>ya, i agree. its like i said earlier in this thread: your purpose is what you make it. </p>
<p>"Why do we need this idea of an all-encompassing purpose?"
many people search for an all-encompassing purpose because, simply, they want there to be one. many are comforted by the idea that there is a higher power, and that this higher power has created a purpose for them and the entire human race. i think this is why many people turn to religion: they simply WANT there to be a god, and they therefore decide to believe one (or many) exist. as it were, i am one of these people. IMO, what is the benefit/point of believing something that doesnt make you happy and feel comforted? to seek truth? no one will ever know the whole "truth". pretty much, for me at least, it comes down to: hey, why NOT believe in a higher power, and therefore an all-encompassing purpose?</p>
<p>I agree that our purpose depends entirely on the individual. The only truth or reality is one's own perception of the world and their life, which is unique to the individual and therefore cannot be refuted. Personally, I do not think there is any intended purpose of the individual, human or not. We simply came into existence by chance, evolved into our current form, and perform our actions based on complex chemical interactions. Free will only appears to exist because of our evolved ability to think, but thinking itself is based on chemical interactions. Somehow, I can find comfort and happiness in this view point, so like HoldenMCaulfield, I'm content accepting this, though I can't say I've written a 7 page paper discussing it. I'd be interested to hear your argument adconard, I'm open to changing my beliefs.</p>
<p>Also, I don't think discovering the meaning of life is necessarily limited to those who know their futures. Anyone willing to think enough about reality with an open mind can discover their own meaning based on their perception. That meaning becomes a truth once the supporting reason can withstand all logical assaults.</p>
<p>I would post my paper on here but not gonna let some slackers come on here and extract the paper and make it their own later on down the road, hehe. I am too tired right now but I will try to come up with a very synthesized and shortened argument later.</p>
<p>is it really that hard to believe, slipperyeel? The whole world isn't Christian, as much as it seems otherwise at times. Unless your post was a joke in which case I fail.</p>
<p>^um no, it is kinda hard to believe considering there are about 2.1 billion christians in the world. thats approx. 1 out of every 3 people, in case you didnt know... ha, for going to berkeley (well im just assuming you go there, based on your location) you arent too bright...</p>
<p>Yep, you got it buddy. I'm stupid because I realize there are more religions than Christianity in the world. Perhaps people like you criticize Christians any time they say something, so they've learned to keep quiet. </p>
<p>Being the dumb UCB student that I am, I'm going to ask for you to cite evidence that your claim is valid, and that you aren't pulling numbers out of wherever you choose. </p>
<p>And yes, I can divide 2 billion by 6 billion, but thank you for doing the math for me, you druggie high schooler.</p>
<p>Oh, and Holden, I hope you realize Salinger didn't intend for Holden Caulfield to be a hero. Because if you don't, I suggest rereading Catcher in the Rye.</p>
<p>Drab - First, i am christrian. therefore, im not sure how your comment "Perhaps people like you criticize Christians any time they say something, so they've learned to keep quiet." applies to me...? in fact, how was i critical of christians at all in my post...? if anything i was defending slipperyeels post. you should reread what i said. i never said you were stupid for knowing other religions beside christianity exist. my exact words were "it is kinda hard to believe considering there are about 2.1 billion christians in the world. thats approx. 1 out of every 3 people". therefore, you are stupid to think that it is not suprising at all that it took three pages in a forum for someone to mention a christian belief. im not sure how anyone can deny this (how it IS VERY SURPRISING no one had thrown out a christian belief considering 1 out of 3 people in the world are christian.)..? oh, and about that statistic, if you would have googled it, you may have found this: <a href="http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</a> . all i googled was "how many christians in the world" (not exactly hard to find, where is your berkeley initiative?). its funny, i was exactly on. 2.1 billion christians. i thought it was common knowledge that christianity is a HUGE WORLDWIDE RELIGION. i just cant see how it WOULD be surprising that, in almost 3 pages of posts, only one person had put the universal christian purpose!!! TELL ME, PLEASE, HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT SURPRISING??????????</p>
<p>megalomaniac - you said "Oh, and Holden, I hope you realize Salinger didn't intend for Holden Caulfield to be a hero. Because if you don't, I suggest rereading Catcher in the Rye." ya, im not sure how you came to this conclusion of my misinterpretation of the central theme of the catcher in the rye...? what, im i supposed to relate every single one of my posts to the theme of the novel or something...? its like me saying, i hope you realize the meaning of the word "megalomaniac", and, if you do, you cant post anything valid, agreeable, or non-dillusional. see, it just doesnt manke any sense. its my sceen name man, not something i try to represent with every word i speak or type.</p>
<p>when i said "i just cant see how it WOULD be surprising that, in almost 3 pages of posts, only one person had put the universal christian purpose!!! TELL ME, PLEASE, HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT SURPRISING??????????" i meant "NOT surprising" of course. its so early... theres probably other mistakes, you people know what im trying to say.</p>
<p>I was just saying, because I know so many people who come out of reading that book claiming they've been completely changed by the book and they're going to go out and denounce hypocrisy and all that jazz. It's just sorta pathetic watching people do that. And yes, I'm well aware of the word. I chose my SN in a very tongue-in-cheek sense.</p>