<p>the meaning of life is to use evil to preserve peace.</p>
<p>what does "42" mean??</p>
<p>it's from a book</p>
<p>I find it awfully egotistical when people assume that, as humans, they must have some purpose in life. There is no evidence that Homo sapiens is either a divine creation or the culmination of the primatial branch of the evolutionary tree. So, why do we seek a premeditated motive for our existence? Why do we expect to be judged by some logical set of criteria, if at all? I'm sure that the "why" of these questions can be answered by psychology. What we know, though, is that no such motive or criteria exist.</p>
<p>People judge other people. As expectations vary by region, culture, and era, it comes as no surprise that there is no formal definition of a "successful life." Religion, of course, leaves no room for ambiguity (or greater rationality). This debate is not for the religious.</p>
<p>Just as there are no criteria for success in life, there is no motive for its existence. Evolution has no "wants," "needs," or "desires." It is artificial to assign life the purpose of "procreation." Life did not spontaneously appear with the intention of multiplying its genetic material as effeciently as possible. In reality, this drive is just a byproduct of the fact that reproductive mechanisms permitted the survival of said mechanisms.</p>
<p>Learn to appreciate the meaning only you can assign to your life. Secular humanism is not a religion; it is the acceptance of and devotion to the world we inhabit.</p>
<p>that's a really good point, Nom. Thanks, I enjoyed your point of view.</p>
<p><em>ahem</em> Nom, not all of us accept the evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>
Ring a bell?</p>
<p>to you maybe. And I'm not a religious fanatic. Who are you to say the religious can't take part in this discussion.</p>
<p>I'm only stating the obvious: religion grants its adherents' lives meaning and significance. There is absolutely no way to respond to "my G-d(s) say that the meaning of life is X." I'm arguing within the confines of science and natural law. Religion, in this context, is not debatable. I said nothing of religious peoples' right to participate in this discussion. I only asked that rebuttals of my post work within the same boundaries. Declarations of faith are meaningless in this debate (not discussion).</p>
<p>We certainly spend a lot of time and thought trying to prove we're just trousered apes, don't we? My contentious spirit and my love of the sacred would never allow me to let your post go unanswered, Nom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just as there are no criteria for success in life, there is no motive for its existence. Evolution has no "wants," "needs," or "desires." It is artificial to assign life the purpose of "procreation." Life did not spontaneously appear with the intention of multiplying its genetic material as effeciently as possible. In reality, this drive is just a byproduct of the fact that reproductive mechanisms permitted the survival of said mechanisms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you've hit upon here is precisely the point. Evolution is not a force acting on nature, it is a description of a process that happens in nature, in living beings already created. Evolution is not the cause of life, but simply what's happened since. The origin of life is completely mysterious. Of course we partake in the creation of life by giving birth, but that which separates a living being from a dead one, that which infuses matter with spirit, which animates it, is sacred and beyond our capability to create. No matter how hard you shock Frankenstein, it ain't gonna work. The ontological gaps between beings - between, for example, inanimate matter, plant life, animal life, and human life - are unbreachable by the arrangements of atoms alone. </p>
<p>And it is this distinction that is important. The piling of matter, m, will only result in matter. The piling of plant life, m+x (where x=life) will only result in plant life, it will not become animal life, m+x+y (where y is best described as consciousness), and animal life does not become human life m+x+y+z (where z is our power of self-awareness). To blame our existentialistic psyches on clever compounds that self-created, and then chose to combine in such a way over so many years to produce phenomena along the likes of Shakespeare, Bach and yourself is a bit absurd. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it awfully egotistical when people assume that, as humans, they must have some purpose in life. There is no evidence that Homo sapiens is either a divine creation or the culmination of the primatial branch of the evolutionary tree. So, why do we seek a premeditated motive for our existence? Why do we expect to be judged by some logical set of criteria, if at all? I'm sure that the "why" of these questions can be answered by psychology. What we know, though, is that no such motive or criteria exist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What evidence are you looking for? What evidence will you admit? While I can not so hastily say it is our purpose, I can say that our happiness depends on our developing our unique faculties, our more human faculties, so as to become most completely human. To let our self-awareness go to waste, to not reflect, to not engage in intellectual thought, in short, to be as animals, is almost a choice, but it is not one that will bring happiness. It is not a complete choice. No matter how often we tell ourselves it is all millions of monkeys hammering at millions of typewriters, we cannot cease asking ourselves what our purpose is, falling into those annoying dilemmas that have no straight answer. Animals don't suffer from this. Our higher faculties - yes, higher - exist, and demand our use. To become most completely self-aware is a shared goal among all religions.
How do we know no such criteria exist? Psychology in its modern sense is a clever word for programming, while in its ancient sense it was the study of the soul. What experience tells us is that we have free will, we are also aware of guilt and a sense of the numinous and a sense of the good and of the beautiful, a sense of morality and ethics that cannot be programmed, but are determined by our nature, and are shared by our species.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People judge other people. As expectations vary by region, culture, and era, it comes as no surprise that there is no formal definition of a "successful life." Religion, of course, leaves no room for ambiguity (or greater rationality). This debate is not for the religious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by this and what is your support for it?</p>
<p>"Work out your salvation with diligence." (Buddha)</p>
<p>Hah. I haven't been here in months. I can't believe I remembered my password just for this thread. It's probably the one thread I've enjoyed.</p>
<p>
My interpretation is perpendicular to yours. I see nature's complexity as supporting my scientific world view. Your comment poses the question of how such a complicated universe could have emerged. With only a minor shift in this or that, many claim, the results would have been devastating to the development of life. What is the chance that things would happen exactly the same way were the universe restarted randomly? Slim to none. I agree. Nonetheless, here it is; here "we" are. You make the assumption that things were intended to be as they are now, that we are the only organized structures worthy of mention. However, were the universe different than it is today, you might be a molecular cloud or some form of life we cannot even comprehend (maybe pondering this question from the other side!). The chances of any particular situation occurring are equal. Chaos drew lots and came up with this world.</p>
<p>
Research has revealed that purportedly universal human concepts are cultural, not innate. Language, for example, influences thought processes. The Korean language has two words for "within". These are, in loose translation, "inside something much larger" and "inside something the same size." When asked to sort a group of items (paperclip in a bag, sand in a bucket, an empty bag), English speaking children sort them according to whether or not they consist of one object inside another. Korean speakig children tend to sort the items according to how the objects are contained (as their language permits it). If fundamental differences in thinking are attributable to language, it follows that differences in behavior are attributable to greater culture. Most Americans believe cannabalism to be a supreme evil. Certain peoples of Papua New Guinea would disagree. Moral vs. immoral, beautiful vs. disgusting, red vs. yellow vs. orange; all are cultural constructs. There are no universal human interpretations. People may seek meaning in life, but their criteria for success are defined by the culture they live in, not some underlying spritual thread.</p>
<p>hi limon,
just wondering, why do you think actively learning is so good for you?
I mean as opposed to just experiencing everything in your "sphere of existence".</p>
<p>
[quote]
My interpretation is perpendicular to yours. I see nature's complexity as supporting my scientific world view. Your comment poses the question of how such a complicated universe could have emerged. With only a minor shift in this or that, many claim, the results would have been devastating to the development of life. What is the chance that things would happen exactly the same way were the universe restarted randomly? Slim to none. I agree. Nonetheless, here it is; here "we" are. You make the assumption that things were intended to be as they are now, that we are the only organized structures worthy of mention. However, were the universe different than it is today, you might be a molecular cloud or some form of life we cannot even comprehend (maybe pondering this question from the other side!). The chances of any particular situation occurring are equal. Chaos drew lots and came up with this world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You did not directly address my argument against evolution. It is not a question of my personal beliefs against your rational, scientific worldview at this moment, it's a question of the validity of Evolution's arguments. I call it Evolution and not evolution because I'm referring not to Darwin, but to the materialist doctrine. The jump I usually see missed is this nonsense about inanimate matter becoming living. Hmmm. Last time I checked evolution was a description of natural selection in living beings. The process of natural selection, of anything genetic, cannot occur in inanimate objects. Or did I miss something? Life does not occur simply by the arrangement of molecules. Science has no explanation for life, nor for consciousness or self-awareness, nonmaterial things that cannot be created. </p>
<p>But let us suppose the scientific worldview is right. Okay, we are a freak product of chance. But hey, that's okay, because we aren't even pondering anything at this moment. Electric impulses are causing my brain to send electric impulses to my fingers to type. Will doesn't exist, because matter can't account for will - matter is pure cause/reaction, stimulus/response, a game of pool. I don't exist outside this game that is all about my survival and my comfort, so I throw out every religious text available, every law book, and screw every woman I want and steal and kill every which way is best for me, because matter can't be moral. Whatever "me" I think exists is... I don't know what it is, since matter can't think. A projection of my brain? Alright, I'll give you this, somewhere along the way, life developed the capacity for thought outside of the survival game. Some clever fellows decided they would come up with what was good, and programmed their people with this view, and so we get cultural relativism, a psychological phenomena in which members of the species homo sapiens often die and sacrifice themselves for others because, like Pavlov's dogs, they've been conditioned on the good and the beautiful. </p>
<p>I do not dismiss science by any means. Science is a perfectly reasonable pursuit, but it cannot provide insight into non-empirical questions. To be a materialist and still talk about purpose is a contradiction, we can't have purpose. We can't give ourselves purpose, we can't reflect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Research has revealed that purportedly universal human concepts are cultural, not innate. Language, for example, influences thought processes. The Korean language has two words for "within". These are, in loose translation, "inside something much larger" and "inside something the same size." When asked to sort a group of items (paperclip in a bag, sand in a bucket, an empty bag), English speaking children sort them according to whether or not they consist of one object inside another. Korean speakig children tend to sort the items according to how the objects are contained (as their language permits it). If fundamental differences in thinking are attributable to language, it follows that differences in behavior are attributable to greater culture. Most Americans believe cannabalism to be a supreme evil. Certain peoples of Papua New Guinea would disagree. Moral vs. immoral, beautiful vs. disgusting, red vs. yellow vs. orange; all are cultural constructs. There are no universal human interpretations. People may seek meaning in life, but their criteria for success are defined by the culture they live in, not some underlying spritual thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Influences, it does not determine thought. You are overstepping huge bounds in taking a matter of preference, red vs. yellow, for one of obligation or moral status. If you ask a Korean, nicely, specifically, to sort the objects one way, they can. If you ask the English to sort them the other way, which you were able to translate, they can also. Now, I've lived in Korea. I have Korean friends, I speak a little Korean. I did not see anyone condoning rape, murder, theft, dishonor, or any other form of what I call immorality. Sure, language has its effects, just as concepts that are undefined in any science can limits our understanding. The Greeks had five words for knowledge, the Spanish have two, the English have one. This has had a huge effect on what people will consider "knowledge" because of the criteria involved. Furthermore, you are equating two different things, because morality is not rooted in thought, it is rooted in emotion. It has no rational justification, our emotions, our values, are the basis of our morality, and cannot be proven. To be truly immoral, or morally illiterate, would be equivalent to someone not comprehending math or reason's first principles, which cannot be proven by reason, they are the basis of reason. As for cannibalism, you would have to ask them why it is acceptable - after all, it's not killing that's unacceptable, it's a particular type. Dying is different from murdering is different from martyrdom is different from a sacrifice is different from need is different from... After all, there are far more similarities throughout the world when it comes to morality than there are petty differences.</p>
<p>This whole argument is null anyway because it begs the question - and who decided what to indoctrinate each culture with? Someone, way back, did have an idea of what was good, not convenient, but good, and decided to make people believe it contrary to what was best for their survival? Weird, man.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hi limon,
just wondering, why do you think actively learning is so good for you?
I mean as opposed to just experiencing everything in your "sphere of existence".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Amy, learning for me does include experiencing everything you can as well. But the great ideas that are going to challenge you, the ones that require the most thought, that you raise yourself up to their level, are usually found in books.</p>
<p>the meaning of life is to procreate</p>
<p>The meaning of life is to prove your life has meaning.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I'm going to leave this discussion now. While you have given much thought to this, I fear that the discussion can never progress. I am tired by your assumptions. I have neither the time nor the selflessness to devote to this thread. Millions of others, all more more educated than myself, share my position. Feel free to ask any one of them the questions you have posed to me. </p>
<p>Good luck in your studies,</p>
<p>Nom</p>
<p>There is abosolutely no meaning to life.</p>
<p>i don't think any of us know what the meaning of life is yet.</p>