Let's psychoanalyze our mothers

[onesteptwostep]

Why does a mother take care of her child?

 

[Cognisant]

In animals it's not uncommon for a female to reject/abandon her offspring, or just some of them, and humans are no exception to this.

Hence why in most cultures it's considered to be of utmost importance that new mothers (and fathers) are given a lot of support, they need to feel somewhat ready for parenthood before their parental instincts kick in.

If someone doesn't feel ready for parenthood they may abandon the child to whatever caregivers they feel are best able to care for it, this is a behavior driven by very shrewd instincts.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Well the question could be done for orphans too. Why would anyone have the compassion to take care of a young one?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

because the offspring carries her genes?

in some species, mothers eat their children. why do they do that? it's all a matter of allocating resources optimally to ensure survival of one's genes

I've referenced the research earlier on this forum, but it's has been shown that when a mother carries a fetus in her womb, there's an adversarial component to the relationship between them, because the fetus tries to maximize the amount of resources it gets from the mother's body, while the mother's body works against the fetus to balance the biological investment in the fetus. Pure love is not natural.

 

[CatGoddess]

Because 1. biology, 2. social convention. If you go and abandon your kid, your friends/family would probably be like "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?". And they'd kinda have a point, because nobody forced you to have unprotected sex or to carry your child in your uterus for nine months. I mean, literally creating a human just to force a hard knock lil' orphan annie life on them (minus bald billionaire guy) is kind of akin to breeding animals with terminal illnesses? Not just cruel, but pointlessly so.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Serac So in this biological/evolutionary model you've presented, you're saying it's because the mother wants to consciously keep on the reproduction of some proteins and strands of R N D A etc and so forth.. for what end though? Because imho that sounds super, super stupid. There's no mental component to that, which is a huge, if not could be the only real ultimate reality.

Either way I think the latter part of what you're suggesting more reflects a theme of sacrifice instead of imperfect love. But anyway, yeah, good to have varying answers.

@CatGoddess 1. why do these biological dispositions exist? 2. how did these social conventions come about?

 

[Black Rose]

My mother is mentally delayed. The lights are on but no one is home. Disassociation. She is fine intelligence wise but her sensibilities are immature. I believe she is ISFJ same as Hinata Huga in Naruto. A blank stare is common from her in interactions. I think she is still 12 years old. (bio age 62)

She like little house on the prairie.
She likes church.
She likes animals.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@onesteptwostep
um.. have you heard about this thing called evolution?

anyways.. I thought this thread would be about us psychoanalyzing our actual mothers. in that regard, not much to say –I was mostly raised by a single father who was a former soviet military guy. that's how Serac became the cold-hearted sonuvagun that he is

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think you've misunderstood what I've said- does the mother consciously think that she wants to pass on her genes?

If her genes were so important to pass on, wouldn't just be fine to inscribe the entire genome on some stone and have it monumentalized somewhere, rather than having to create another person? (which technically has a mix of genes, some from the dad etc so on).

@AK Oh I didn't mean it in that sense, you're replied to the title not the opening post.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

clearly, the relationship between a mother and a child is usually based on emotions. There's no "mental component" to it beyond that. It's not like the reason mothers take care of their offspring is that they came up with an ingenious philosophical reason as to why they should do that

If her genes were so important to pass on, wouldn't just be fine to inscribe the entire genome on some stone and have it monumentalized somewhere, rather than having to create another person? (which technically has a mix of genes, some from the dad etc so on).

that's a short-sighted plan though. Genes which are designed to survive and replicate have been going at it for what – 5 million years now? (and will probably continue until the whole planet goes to shit). Something scribbled on a stone would last a few thousand years at best. It's fragile, and cannot adapt to the environment.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Good good, we're getting to the more meaty part of the discussion. What are those emotions exactly?

edit: to reply to your edit, then just crest it out of diamonds for good measure lol

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

am I correct in assuming that you are assuming emotions cannot have a rational* cause behind them?

because otherwise, my answer is still the same – just that you insert emotions between the biological incentive and the resulting reproductive actions. The emotions are various chemical reactions in the mother's brain, intended to direct her behavior towards the well-being and survival of the offspring. and the reason such behavior is needed – surprise, surprise – is survival of the genes, because genes which don't incentivize such behavior would go extinct.

*rational in the sense of being favorable for someone's well-being, survival and replication

 

[CatGoddess]

@onesteptwostep Yeah, the biological impulse is evolutionary; it exists in pretty much all mammals because mammalian offspring take a relatively long time to grow to the point that they can fend for themselves. Species where mothers, on average, don't have that impulse would be extinct because the offspring would die. So only the ones where the mothers do have it are still around. Unless you dispute that humans are, regardless of consciousness, art, etc. still animals?

As for the societal pressure, I think it stems partly from the biological instinct, partly from a history in which people needed their children to help on the farm/when they get old, and partly from actual moralizing. I.e. people got used to needing to/feeling driven to (biology) raise their children, and people don't like to change their routine so now it's abnormal to not raise your children (or to not have them, which is something I disagree with). You get ostracized. And most people also have a sense of empathy and wouldn't like to see a child thrown out onto the street.

Of course, some parents don't care in the slightest and only want to cash in when they're old so that they don't have to go to a nursing home.

Although, I'd think most of what I just explained would be fairly obvious? Are you just trying to open a topic of discussion?

 

[onesteptwostep]

am I correct in assuming that you are assuming emotions cannot have a rational* cause behind them?

because otherwise, my answer is still the same – just that you insert emotions between the biological incentive and the resulting reproductive actions. The emotions are various chemical reactions in the mother's brain, intended to direct her behavior towards the well-being and survival of the offspring. and the reason such behavior is needed – surprise, surprise – is survival of the genes, because genes which don't incentivize such behavior would go extinct.

*rational in the sense of being favorable for someone's well-being, survival and replication

It's 4 am here and I'm drowsy, but my Ni senses are tingling so I'll just say it. In evolution eternal life is gene reproduction and the hell is extinction, while the faith is survival. It's just another question and answer that doesn't get to the bottom of things.

What more I was asking was what is an emotion in terms of its qualia or subjective experience. Why does that experience exist? Why does a bond between a mother and a child exist, and why is it that mothers learn from this experience, cherish this experience, and would even give their lives for the sake of this bond? It is based on emotions yes, but what are those emotions? I feel there is such a large 'mental component' beyond which you've shortly described. Love is formulated in chemistry, but what is the meaning behind that chemistry? Why is there an entire chemical system in which to take care for a young? If the answer is to pass on the genes, does that teleology have an end? What's its final goal? Does it not have a final goal?

If then the answer to that is to enjoy the pleasure on earth as long as our species last, why? Aren't you by admitting that pleasure is something that's worthwhile that our quaila is important to us to some degree..? Perhaps moreso than the passing of our genes..? In a sense, materialistic evolution is somewhat tautological when trying to answer questions only a human could ask.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@CatGoddess post reserved for tomorrow I need to hit the sack ^_^ I am about to fainttt~

@CatGoddess

@onesteptwostep Yeah, the biological impulse is evolutionary; it exists in pretty much all mammals because mammalian offspring take a relatively long time to grow to the point that they can fend for themselves. Species where mothers, on average, don't have that impulse would be extinct because the offspring would die. So only the ones where the mothers do have it are still around. Unless you dispute that humans are, regardless of consciousness, art, etc. still animals?

Can you clarify the idea you're trying to convey here? My question before was more about why all that process you've described above in that quote exists at all in the first place. Do you see what I'm getting at? I understand the theoretical process, but what I'm more wondering is for what end does that process then exist for?

As for the societal pressure, I think it stems partly from the biological instinct, partly from a history in which people needed their children to help on the farm/when they get old, and partly from actual moralizing. I.e. people got used to needing to/feeling driven to (biology) raise their children, and people don't like to change their routine so now it's abnormal to not raise your children (or to not have them, which is something I disagree with). You get ostracized. And most people also have a sense of empathy and wouldn't like to see a child thrown out onto the street.

I think for this part the answer would be different if the first question above is answered.

Although, I'd think most of what I just explained would be fairly obvious? Are you just trying to open a topic of discussion?

Oh I understand theory perfectly fine ;]

This is philosophy we're dealing with, not biology.

 

[lightfire]

Dna Ingrained maternal instinct?

Part of survival?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

What more I was asking was what is an emotion in terms of its qualia or subjective experience. Why does that experience exist?

to me that's a different question than why one has such emotions – I guess it's a question of why humans have consciousness/qualia at all?

I mean you can ask the same question about, say, hunger: i.e. why do we have qualia associated with the feeling of hunger. It's fully a question of the evolution of consciousness.

 

[Black Rose]

In evolution eternal life is gene reproduction and the hell is extinction, while the faith is survival.

I ate a carrot once, now I am immortal.

oh, and if a gene has existed the longest, that gene probably had the highest survival utility.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't want to talk down to you, but it seems like your reasoning is either motivated or a little naive.

It doesn't make sense to ask about the meaning behind the chemistry, the theory is the theory, the data is the data, the meaning you experience is your own. There is no final goal, it's the result of survivor bias. Enjoying pleasure on earth is something that some people have taken from a materialistic universe, but that's not part of the theory and is completely unrelated.

I'm not sure what I'd think of the book now since it's been a decade since I read it, but Richard Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' was a good first read for me. He's a better author than he is a public figure.

 

[onesteptwostep]

What more I was asking was what is an emotion in terms of its qualia or subjective experience. Why does that experience exist?

to me that's a different question than why one has such emotions – I guess it's a question of why humans have consciousness/qualia at all?

I mean you can ask the same question about, say, hunger: i.e. why do we have qualia associated with the feeling of hunger. It's fully a question of the evolution of consciousness.

Here, I've been looking over at a certain philosopher these days named Henri Bergson who delves into that kind of question. Why couldn't there be an unifying answer to the question of why there could be a purpose to the unity of all our experiences? The defacto answer these days seems to come from post-structural lines of thinking, that is, we're molded into what we are now by evolutionary and biological factors in a closed system, which, yes explains the process but does not explain the 'why'. We could impose this question to the teleology of the evolution of consciousness as well. Sure, evolutionary psychology can explain the process, but to what end, and does that end fit in with concepts such as justice or the objectiveness of morality? If morality isn't objective but rather evolutionary, couldn't it be said that whatever is truth is also tantamount to whatever is what is related to our survival? Do you get what I'm trying to get at here?

 

[onesteptwostep]

I don't want to talk down to you, but it seems like your reasoning is either motivated or a little naive.

It doesn't make sense to ask about the meaning behind the chemistry, the theory is the theory, the data is the data, the meaning you experience is your own. There is no final goal, it's the result of survivor bias. Enjoying pleasure on earth is something that some people have taken from a materialistic universe, but that's not part of the theory and is completely unrelated.

I'm not sure what I'd think of the book now since it's been a decade since I read it, but Richard Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' was a good first read for me. He's a better author than he is a public figure.

No no I fully understand, yesterday night I was pretty drenched in tired, and I get a bit uppity and Ne when I'm oblivious to my condition. I wouldn't say I'm entirely motivated by my religious leanings, but I think my philosophical ponderings are within the system of the Christian worldview. It's more me trying to say that there's more to life than our biological, evolutionary motivations, which is what Serac's idea is suggesting.

I wouldn't say it's naive, because what makes you say that what that is, is is? A rock is a rock to a computer and nothing more, but a rock to a human could mean the wheel or a tool or a place to sit down on. What is to us is what could be, and if we were to take that step once more, we can think of the thing that what ought to be is, because like Plato's forms, we could recognize an abstract pattern of purpose, if we only dare to.

Also logically speaking, who says that there is no final goal? It's sort of like the postmodernist fallacy, that once you outline a law, the law contradicts itself. (e.g. There are no absolute truths <- is that an absolute truth?)

What I mean by that is, if there is no final goal, who says that there is no final goal, and from what conclusion, whether that be from observation or a way of rationalizing? If Richard Dawkins think it's because it's due to some selfish gene, sure it's good that he's demonstrated that in a scientific manner backed up with biological experimentation and public consensus/peer review- but he still misses the entire philosophical point of then what could be and perhaps more importantly, what that ought to be.

 

[CatGoddess]

What do you mean "end"? Evolution is a natural process, there is no purpose because nobody purposed it.

As far as anyone knows. I think religion is a gigantic factor in this sort of thing because either you believe someone made everything with an end goal in mind or you're like "well, there's nothing to support the idea that someone made everything with an end goal in mind". There could be a purpose behind the way things are, but with no real reason to even think so it seems fruitless (as in, you'll get nowhere) to wonder what that purpose that you don't even know exists might be.

It didn't seem so from either your thread title or first post, but now that you've further explained yourself, isn't this kind of just a reframing of your other thread? (overpopulation)

 

[onesteptwostep]

It didn't seem so from either your thread title or first post, but now that you've further explained yourself, isn't this kind of just a reframing of your other thread? (overpopulation)

Ah, well not exactly, that thread was more an attack on atheistic existentialism by the thinkers such as Sartre, this is a bit more different. I've also answered your question above! Also, I take it that you're either an agnostic or an atheist?

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay, but you're still kind of doing it.

The theory of evolution does not include ideas about oughts, meaning, or purpose. It also doesn't include ideas about Norway. Those are different things. So while evolution does not support these ideas, it's possible for you to believe in evolution and also meaning/purpose. It's just that one does not follow from the other.

Personally, I don't believe in objective meaning or purpose, but that doesn't stop me finding my own. I have ideas about what I want the world to look like, the way it ought to be. In terms of a 'final' goal, mine would be to find a way to influence the next iteration of the universe, which includes a whole bunch of surviving and technological advancement in the meantime.

 

[onesteptwostep]

@Hadoblado

Oh in philosophy the theory of evolution has to do so much with teleology and the theory of being. What do you think Ph.Ds in biology talk about? Our knowledge I think is all connected to a single unity or purpose, or lack there of, so though it doesn't contain ideas about Norway it certainly is related to it in some way, because we can argue that the life, the universe and everything functions in a closed system. I couldn't say what or how, but how about evolutionary geology, or something like the political history of Norway and societal evolution? I'm not talking about subjects themselves of course, but the theory behind evolution- we're talking about philosophy here after all.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

What more I was asking was what is an emotion in terms of its qualia or subjective experience. Why does that experience exist?

to me that's a different question than why one has such emotions – I guess it's a question of why humans have consciousness/qualia at all?

I mean you can ask the same question about, say, hunger: i.e. why do we have qualia associated with the feeling of hunger. It's fully a question of the evolution of consciousness.

Here, I've been looking over at a certain philosopher these days named Henri Bergson who delves into that kind of question. Why couldn't there be an unifying answer to the question of why there could be a purpose to the unity of all our experiences? The defacto answer these days seems to come from post-structural lines of thinking, that is, we're molded into what we are now by evolutionary and biological factors in a closed system, which, yes explains the process but does not explain the 'why'. We could impose this question to the teleology of the evolution of consciousness as well. Sure, evolutionary psychology can explain the process, but to what end, and does that end fit in with concepts such as justice or the objectiveness of morality? If morality isn't objective but rather evolutionary, couldn't it be said that whatever is truth is also tantamount to whatever is what is related to our survival? Do you get what I'm trying to get at here?

I think that if one asks "why" (in the sense of "for what bigger purpose") certain aspects of organisms on earth – ours or any other's – have evolved, one is contesting the current scientific understanding of evolution and the world. Would you agree with that? (I'm not familiar with Bergson btw, but he seems interesting). You don't need, after all, any further explanation other than natural selection, because natural selection doesn't require any external force beyond merely the laws of nature to work.

On the topic of "why", I think it has to be viewed in light of human psychology. We like to ask "why" about stuff, like why a person did this and that – in the sense of "what was the person's objective". Gotta be conscious of the ways we project our perception of things onto the world, because things might not have objectives like people do. Hell, there might even be alien species on other planets which don't have the concept of an objective (this was explored in the movie Annihilation btw – a wild ass movie)

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think that if one asks "why" (in the sense of "for what bigger purpose") certain aspects of organisms on earth – ours or any other's – have evolved, one is contesting the current scientific understanding of evolution and the world. Would you agree with that? (I'm not familiar with Bergson btw, but he seems interesting).

Hmm I guess I agree? I just generally disagree with the postmodernist camp of 'there is no grand narrative', of which that pertains to biology, but yeah sure, I would say that the general end game scenario is debated and is always changing. But above even that, within the purview of my religious sensibilities, of course, therein lies God.

You don't need, after all, any further explanation other than natural selection, because natural selection doesn't require any external force beyond merely the laws of nature to work.

Yup, the explanation pertains to the 'how', yes. We're asking how a firetruck works mechanically yes, but I guess I'm more asking the question of why it's important to have a system of firefighting in the first place. Terrible analogy I know but hopefully you get it.

 

[CatGoddess]

Also, I take it that you're either an agnostic or an atheist?

Yeah, that's what I tell people who ask (unless they're, like holding a pack of jesus brochures and wearing a giant cross and harassing me, in which case I say I'm very religious to get them off my back). Honestly, I don't think about it unless prompted because the idea of there being some sort of god just doesn't occur to me naturally.

I don't really take an interest in philosophy beyond the basic question of "what am I doing with my life/why?", so I might be ducking out of this thread now? I clicked on it because I thought we were psychoanalyzing our mothers. x)

 

[Black Rose]

Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism by which biological diversity is explained. Only when Humans created language and technology was it possible to elevate their species to Promethean Gods. Transhuman is post-Darwin/ post-biological evolution. The eschaton of near infinite creation of mind rather than blind gene replication from sex.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Also, I take it that you're either an agnostic or an atheist?

Yeah, that's what I tell people who ask (unless they're, like holding a pack of jesus brochures and wearing a giant cross and harassing me, in which case I say I'm very religious to get them off my back). Honestly, I don't think about it unless prompted because the idea of there being some sort of god just doesn't occur to me naturally.

I don't really take an interest in philosophy beyond the basic question of "what am I doing with my life/why?", so I might be ducking out of this thread now? I clicked on it because I thought we were psychoanalyzing our mothers. x)

Hehe no worries, you're welcome to lurk any time!

 

[onesteptwostep]

Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism by which biological diversity is explained. Only when Humans created language and technology was it possible to elevate their species to Promethean Gods. Transhuman is post-Darwin/ post-biological evolution. The eschaton of near infinite creation of mind rather than blind gene replication from sex.

idk AK, I think transhumanism, sure, it could be a next step in human progression but I don't think it'll answer our basic spiritual questions.

 

[Black Rose]

idk AK, I think transhumanism, sure, it could be a next step in human progression but I don't think it'll answer our basic spiritual questions.

You are left emptyhanded if you think natural selection has a goal when the only "purpose" it has is to evolve intelligent minds that transcend into a self-directed system. No intelligence = no progress, meaning that if no humans came to be, life on earth would all be dead in 4 billion years when the sun expands. You cannot say evolution has a goal and not include intelligence to achieve it. And even then the process is no longer blind and therefore no longer natural. Nature is dumb but humans came from it and are smart. I mean that, on a cosmic scale intelligence will do things that are beyond any supernatural experience any person has had. There really isn't anything more than that. No intelligence means the universe is dumb forever, so practically a biological diversity mechanism has no goals at all.

 

[Black Rose]

The "goal" as I see it is to create higher realities to exist in.

 

[onesteptwostep]

But Kant has already mapped out the limits to rationality. Intelligence has its limits as well- what can determine what is justice, what can determine what is mercy? Can intelligence provide that question or can wisdom, which is more spiritual and communal in nature?

Btw nice going AK, derailing the topic! :P How are you doing lately?

 

[Black Rose]

But Kant has already mapped out the limits to rationality.

If humans, or a similar intelligent species, were not around to implement evolutions(natural selections) final end goal, if it has one, then the goal would never be achieved. I make the distinction that human have agency and nature does not. Humans will be the ones to create the most unbelievable sci-fi future there could be. Not the cows, not the chickens, Humans. no end goal happens otherwise.

How are you doing lately?

I am in a recovery period.

 

[redbaron]

parents are dum

 

[onesteptwostep]

parents are dum

Hey, you might become one one day, you know.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You don't need, after all, any further explanation other than natural selection, because natural selection doesn't require any external force beyond merely the laws of nature to work.

Yup, the explanation pertains to the 'how', yes. We're asking how a firetruck works mechanically yes, but I guess I'm more asking the question of why it's important to have a system of firefighting in the first place. Terrible analogy I know but hopefully you get it.

why ask that about evolution in particular though? Why not any other natural phenomenon in the universe, say, the process in which our sun becomes a red giant and eventually engulfs earth? Why is it important for someone that our planet will get fucked up in the end?

I'm curious– what would you say to someone who were genuinely looking for an answer to that last question?

 

[Siouxsie]

All this reminds me of Heidegger.

@onesteptwostep I agree with you about the postmodernists, but there could be another side to the thesis "there is no bigger narrative", that can be read in the lines of: what comes next is not a bigger narrative, it is something else. In this sense, I believe that beyond the rational side, even the ontological dimension of human there is something else, and we are immersed in it as well. To answer why there´s such a bond between mother and child, I´d say maybe it´s because we have evidence of this through experience. If you wish, we can feel it, and not only that, it keeps repeating, not just through ages and species, we feel atached to this woman in such inexplicable ways throughout our lives, we are certain about it, be it love or hate. Thus, beyond any rational explanation that can be invented for it, there is the fact that the bond exists.

 

[Hadoblado]

You don't need, after all, any further explanation other than natural selection, because natural selection doesn't require any external force beyond merely the laws of nature to work.

Yup, the explanation pertains to the 'how', yes. We're asking how a firetruck works mechanically yes, but I guess I'm more asking the question of why it's important to have a system of firefighting in the first place. Terrible analogy I know but hopefully you get it.

why ask that about evolution in particular though? Why not any other natural phenomenon in the universe, say, the process in which our sun becomes a red giant and eventually engulfs earth? Why is it important for someone that our planet will get fucked up in the end?

I'm curious– what would you say to someone who were genuinely looking for an answer to that last question?

Serac says it better than I could.

 

[Gyppo]

Because 1. biology, 2. social convention. If you go and abandon your kid, your friends/family would probably be like "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?". And they'd kinda have a point, because nobody forced you to have unprotected sex or to carry your child in your uterus for nine months. I mean, literally creating a human just to force a hard knock lil' orphan annie life on them (minus bald billionaire guy) is kind of akin to breeding animals with terminal illnesses? Not just cruel, but pointlessly so.

I always assumed it was cuz my mum thought me inherently unlovable

 

[lightfire]

when a man loves a woman. wait let me fast forward..

actually just google oxytocin.

 

[Cognisant]

idk AK, I think transhumanism, sure, it could be a next step in human progression but I don't think it'll answer our basic spiritual questions.

Ah the meaning of life.

For life to have meaning it must have been created to serve some purpose, even if that purpose is merely to exist, indeed if life was created for a purpose it makes sense that the nature of life would be inherently tied to that purpose such that it serves its purpose by merely existing, after all one does not plant an orchid of pine trees to grow fruit unless one is very confused about the origin of pineapples.

But why concern ourselves with the meaning imposed upon us by some hypothetical fruit picker, that is purpose but it's not our purpose, that is a purpose given to us by a shepherd who will shear our wool and eat our flesh, what if we wish to decide the purpose of our own lives? If it is the case that one wishes to be free then one must create one's own purpose because we are not born with it, we are not worker bees born into a hive with our roles in society preordained, we are truly wonderfully terrifyingly free.

But why concern ourselves with purpose at all, if one is not willing to forfeit the purpose of one's life to others nor decide that purpose for themselves, what then? Well then you're left with the problem of death, in truth it's not the meaning of life that we seek but rather a purpose to die for because there comes a point in everyone's life in which we realize that everyone who has come before us either dead or dying and in all likelihood it's only a matter of time until we too fall under the reaper's scythe.

For some this bleak truth is too much to bear so they turn to religion (denial), some go on to reject religion and become atheists (anger) only later to turn back to a personal spirituality (bargaining) which may progress into an existential philosophy (depression) and finally those who accept death by deciding what to do with their lives (acceptance). When you decide upon something to dedicate your life to you're killing off all other possibilities, kinda like Jet Li in the movie "The One" (I'm kidding), and this death of possibility is what frees you to be who you want to be, in a fatalistic sense deciding what you're willing to live for is ultimately deciding what you're going to die for.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

onestep disappeared after I asked him about the sun swallowing earth. I assume he's somewhere rethinking his whole existence right now

 

[onesteptwostep]

Sorry its lunar new year in korea. With the whole fam.

 

[Judd_INTP]

I love you guys. My brain is gluttonously stuffed, and it feels glorious.

 

[onesteptwostep]

You don't need, after all, any further explanation other than natural selection, because natural selection doesn't require any external force beyond merely the laws of nature to work.

Yup, the explanation pertains to the 'how', yes. We're asking how a firetruck works mechanically yes, but I guess I'm more asking the question of why it's important to have a system of firefighting in the first place. Terrible analogy I know but hopefully you get it.

why ask that about evolution in particular though? Why not any other natural phenomenon in the universe, say, the process in which our sun becomes a red giant and eventually engulfs earth? Why is it important for someone that our planet will get fucked up in the end?

I'm curious– what would you say to someone who were genuinely looking for an answer to that last question?

Im pretty sure we'll find another planet to live on before that happens.

 

[Judd_INTP]

History suggests extinction of the species as we know it before the sun super novas. Why should we assume we will still even be around?
I think the meaning of life is only important to someone if they need external validation of their existence.
If we all just die in the end, it means our existence is pointless to those that need a reason to exist. Maybe it is a question to help justify why we think some people are more important than others....which I disagree with.
So maybe this is how it goes,"I don't know why I'm here, my upbringing says I have to have a reason to be important (exist), therefore if I find a reason I exist, I will be important. And in the meantime, I can justify unimportant people as not deserving to exist, which explains why I dont care about validating them. "
As if their powers of validation hold any real power....shrug.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Ah the meaning of life.

For life to have meaning it must have been created to serve some purpose, even if that purpose is merely to exist, indeed if life was created for a purpose it makes sense that the nature of life would be inherently tied to that purpose such that it serves its purpose by merely existing, after all one does not plant an orchid of pine trees to grow fruit unless one is very confused about the origin of pineapples.

That's not sufficient. The creator of meaning itself must have some meaning to be. And the applied purpose itself should be something purposeful.
So you have two option, either the chain of meaning ends somewhere (making the whole chain unsupported), or the chain of meaning continues infinitely (chain of creators creating meaning). In the former case, you have no ultimate meaning. In the latter case, you again have no ultimate meaning. Furthermore, in the latter case it is also possible to ask the reason for the whole chain to be - in which case it reduces to the former case. IMO, it's inconceivable how (absolute objective) 'meaning' or 'purpose' to exist in any grandiose sense. It's probably an incoherent concept even. Some fundamental brute facts are unavoidable. PSR contradicts itself. Necessary being is impossible, because absolute absence is logically possible which makes existence of God logically impossible, which makes fundamental brute facts logically necessary which makes ultimate meaninglessness logically necessary. Subjectively and inter-subjectively meaningfulness does exist, however. But who cares. There is probably no end to this meaningless endlessly recycling samsara of pain, suffering, and delusions.

 

[The Grey Man]

The creator of meaning itself must have some meaning to be.

Why? A gardener does not need to be a plant and an engineer does not need to be a machine, so why must the creator of meaning mean something, or the creator of purpose have a purpose?

Necessary being is impossible, because absolute absence is logically possible

Surely this is a non sequitur. What is logically possible and what is actually possible have nothing to do with each other. It is logically possible that black is white, up is down, and day is night, but this does not prove that this might actually be the case.

I agree with you in that I think that suffering is without end, but far from being meaningless, I think that this suffering furnishes a purpose in and through itself: quietus, repose, salvation, or cessation. All of our desires and motivations, everything that keeps us alive seems to conceal a secret desire to be released from those very desires, a Todestrieb which it is of the essence of philosophy to confront. All men desire satisfaction of their desires for satisfaction of their...